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

111–120 of 714 posts

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#111

Post by corty »

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.

The major X11 implementations always had phases of stalling development and disagreement. The last big phase lead to X.org taking over. Maybe this new big stall is the end, maybe it is just a signal for another change of direction. But there have been doom-and-gloom announcements about X11 before, yet we are still stuck with it.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#112

Post by p_l »

roenxi wrote: post #82
p_l wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, X.Org server is not X11 the protocol. X11 could be easily implemented on new driver framework supporting new graphic stack. Instead we got a piece of sh*t that is fitting for a custom embedded device or some closed environment, but not an X11 replacement.

Nobody in particular wants to use the X11 protocol. It is complicated and supports a bunch of weird functionality that is rather niche. The trend seems to be to use OpenGL and call that done. I haven't seen many serious complaints that Wayland doesn't support the X11 protocol since people can run an X server directly using XWayland.

As I mentioned elsewhere, XWayland isn't actually compatible if you want to support modern applications, for example ones that might expect a systray. ICCM is, iirc, broken (I haven't spent time checking after finding out some apps critical to me didn't work at all).

X11 could be updated a lot. But some of the "weird functionality" is stuff that is slowly becoming available for normal people that was thrown out with the bathwater by GTK3, like ability to use more than 8bit per colour channel.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#113

Post by ubercow13 »

gbil wrote: post #10
est31 wrote: post #7

Today I've updated to the newest Kubuntu release 20.10 and considered switching to Wayland, but then abandoned the idea when I found out that middle click copy paste is only implemented in Plasma 5.20, and I only have Plasma 5.19. I've seen they've fixed the screenshot program though (which I remember to have been an issue on older versions). I'm looking forward to 21.04 for my next attempt to switch, maybe by then F…

Funnily enough earlier today I checked the status of Wayland on my setup- Arch - with KDE and my main issue is still mouse gestures. Currently using easystroke, which is itself an abandonware, but until I find something that works under Wayland I can't change yet nomatter the quality of DEs etc.

Yes and something akin to easystroke would have to be implemented in each compositor under Wayland. You are thus dependent on the window manager you want to use to implement it. I asked the maintainer of the window manager I would want to use whether they would accept a PR for something like that and they said no, they would not.

So, I would have to maintain a fork of my window manager and compositor to keep using something like easystroke under Wayland, instead of using a finished tool that hasn't needed any significant maintenance in 7 years. All in the name of ‘security’.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#114

Post by Fnoord »

Flex247A wrote: post #93
goatinaboat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wayland is really slow. I don't know if it's the compositing or what but it's unusable on lighter hardware that X ran fine on. This is crazy when you think about it. I remember running an X server, Hummingbird I think it was called, on 386 and 486 machines connecting to Suns and it was fine , this was a perfectly acceptable way to work. Couple of xterms, an Emacs, xbiff for email, maybe some xeyes just for fun. Devel…

What could be the reason behind this? Asking as a noob.

The compositor is evil [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24466929

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#115

Post by darthrupert »

znpy wrote: post #38

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.

Wayland was the last straw for me. It made me switch to Macs after 20 years of almost exclusive Linux on the desktop and a few dev stints. It was cool when my time was less expensive.

I check the state of the linux world about once a year still. And obviously keep using it on the servers.

Best of luck to everyone using it for desktop. I totally get why you do it, but it's just not for me right now.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#116

Post by roenxi »

p_l wrote: post #112
roenxi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody in particular wants to use the X11 protocol. It is complicated and supports a bunch of weird functionality that is rather niche. The trend seems to be to use OpenGL and call that done. I haven't seen many serious complaints that Wayland doesn't support the X11 protocol since people can run an X server directly using XWayland.

As I mentioned elsewhere, XWayland isn't actually compatible if you want to support modern applications, for example ones that might expect a systray. ICCM is, iirc, broken (I haven't spent time checking after finding out some apps critical to me didn't work at all). X11 could be updated a lot. But some of the "weird functionality" is stuff that is slowly becoming available for normal people that was thrown out with…

> As I mentioned elsewhere, XWayland isn't actually compatible if you want to support modern applications

Yeah, Wayland is a bad protocol. It isn't flexible enough to do what X11 does. But if it was a good protocol, and capable of implementing X11, then it would get X11 for free through XWayland.

They don't need to reimplement X11. They can use X.org or whatever for that.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#117

Post by Keyframe »

Aeolun wrote: post #99
oriesdan wrote: post #94

This sounds like a bad case of Cult of Release. X works perfectly for me, and there is nothing I would want it to do that it doesn't do now. Why should it change? I have many programs I wrote years ago that I don't change and I use every day. Constant changes are not a measure of utility. But again and again, you'll find users looking at repositories and deciding that something is "dead" because there isn't any recen…

We do need some form of signal that indicates a project has a maintainer though. It doesn’t matter that he has been inactive for 4 years (on that project), but if I submit a PR, it’s nice if there’s someone at the end of the line.

Repos could really have exactly that. A dead man's switch that asks you every, I don't know, three.to six months - via email even - "you good for this repo still?". You answer with a click "yup" and that's it - a signal on a repo on github or whatever that says "still alive". Otherwise "uh oh - we need help" and then a mechanism there to immediately offer alternative forks with a good enough signal "strength". It's like a pinky promise instead of actual repo activity.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#118

Post by p_l »

roenxi wrote: post #116
p_l wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I mentioned elsewhere, XWayland isn't actually compatible if you want to support modern applications, for example ones that might expect a systray. ICCM is, iirc, broken (I haven't spent time checking after finding out some apps critical to me didn't work at all). X11 could be updated a lot. But some of the "weird functionality" is stuff that is slowly becoming available for normal people that was thrown out with…

> As I mentioned elsewhere, XWayland isn't actually compatible if you want to support modern applications Yeah, Wayland is a bad protocol. It isn't flexible enough to do what X11 does. But if it was a good protocol, and capable of implementing X11, then it would get X11 for free through XWayland. They don't need to reimplement X11. They can use X.org or whatever for that.

My point is that XWayland, for various reasons, does not replicate X11 fully. So yeah, I can open something like Xnest/Xephyr. At that point, the utility value of Wayland drops ridiculously heavy from my point of view.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#120

Post by sildur »

aktuel wrote: post #95
tpoacher wrote: post #49

'[...] but a prominent Intel open-source developer has conceded that the X.Org Server is pretty much "abandonware" with Wayland being the future.' So? A "prominent US politician" recently conceded that global warming is a hoax by the Chinese, with coal being the future. Should I be doubling over myself to dismantle my solar panels? Very weasel-wordy article if you ask me. X11 is fine.

It's fine if you're stuck in time. No more releases, no changes, no fixes. It's great if you seek stability and don't want to upgrade anything for the rest of your life.

That sounds like paradise. Where do I have to sign? I’m tired of crapware breaking on every “upgrade”.
Post reply on HN