Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

phoronix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 714 posts

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#31

Post by QuesnayJr »

corty wrote: post #9
baybal2 wrote: post #2

Better to say both X11, and Wayland are now two pieces of abandonware.

I fear you are right. While there might be commits in the Wayland repos, featurewise progress has ceased. Waylands broken architecture has made progress hard to impossible. Porting of popular window managers is extremely slow since there is just no thought given to X compatibility. Input handling by each application on its own is insane and broken. Feature-consistency across compositors on things like screenshots is…

In what way is Wayland's architecture broken? Is there a critique floating around I could look at?

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#32

Post by trashburger »

I think the solution is not Wayland but an X12, that is, a protocol that solves the problems of the aging X11 protocol while also not completely breaking compatibility and requiring the use of a separate Xorg server within Wayland. I wish people had gone that way instead of fully dismissing Xorg.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#35

Post by jojobas »

boudin wrote: post #29
jojobas wrote: post #18

X.org is not abandonware, it is actively supported. The fact that it's not updated with Awesome New Features every month, well, neither is Bash or Postfix. Some things should just work.

Not it is not, that's the whole point of the article. There's been no release for the past 2 years, even if there's bug fixes and updates waiting to be released. There's no release planned. If another company steps in an decide to take over support from Redhat, it can come back to life though.

Debian's last release is from March this year, presumably from the current tree.

Do officially declared releases really matter all that much?

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#36

Post by bjarnek »

spurgu wrote: post #28
flavor8 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your problem with NetworkManager? It's generally good, and certainly much better than what came before.

Or systemd? I've read about complaints regarding it but never had any issues myself on the many dozens of servers that I've managed. On the contrary I find systemd very easy to work with. Edit: This makes sense from an architecture point of view (although unsure whether things have changed since): http://www.landley.net/notes-2014.html#23-04-2014

systemd is hanging in 90% of all shutdowns on my machine. This never happened with sysvinit scripts.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#37

Post by boudin »

kbumsik wrote: post #19
LockAndLol wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This should hardly be surprising but a prominent Intel open-source developer has conceded that the X.Org Server is pretty much "abandonware" with Wayland being the future. Why do you say Wayland is abandonware? The last activity in the repo is from a week ago https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland

> The last activity in the repo is from a week ago Actually most of repos you linked have the last activity of months ago. It's pretty worrying though.

Wayland is just a protocol. Look at the work on actual compositors, like mutter and wlroots to see some activity https://github.com/GNOME/mutter https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#38

Post by znpy »

I am not necessarily against Wayland or new things in general.

But it bothers me when no clear upgrade path is defined ("drop your stuff" is not acceptable) and a half-hassed incomplete solution is proposed instead, and backwards compatibility is pretty much disregarded.

For what concerns my personal computing, I'll stay on Xorg until XFCE supports Wayland. Then I'll update.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#39

Post by ahartmetz »

willtim wrote: post #23
flavor8 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your problem with NetworkManager? It's generally good, and certainly much better than what came before.

This isn't true. It was never as good as Intel's Connman, which was designed to be modular from the start. NetworkManager started out as a UI app and then was evolved into what it is now. It's still not as fast as connecting to WiFi as Connman. I guess it was adopted instead of Connman because RedHat.

Maybe Intel was not cooperative about Connman. Trying to contribute a patch to Connman was the worst patch contribution experience I've ever had. On the official IRC channel, over several days and times of day, there were only people who could tell me about the developers, but the developers were not there. The bug tracker required writing an e-mail to someone at Intel to open an account. I don't remember details about the mailing list, but if I did write to it I was ignored as well. In the end the patch never went in, I had enough. And yes, the patch made sense. Years later I later saw one that seemed to fix my problem in a similar way.

Connman is better at least insofar that it is less code than NetworkManager and that it connects to a Wifi network in under a second instead of several seconds. But I believe it can also do less, for example regarding VPNs and such.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#40

Post by akvadrako »

willtim wrote: post #23
flavor8 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your problem with NetworkManager? It's generally good, and certainly much better than what came before.

This isn't true. It was never as good as Intel's Connman, which was designed to be modular from the start. NetworkManager started out as a UI app and then was evolved into what it is now. It's still not as fast as connecting to WiFi as Connman. I guess it was adopted instead of Connman because RedHat.

NetworkManager can work with iwd, which will give you the quickest available way of connecting to WiFi.
Post reply on HN