X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#11

Post by Semaphor » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 7:55 AM UTC

mkl wrote: post #6

ognyankulev wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2017, a typo was fixed. The content is from 2013: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/wiki/xorg/log/Development/X12.m...

2013 is when the format was converted to markdown. No idea when the content is from.

Looks like it started in 2007 [0], though the content was pretty different, there were some updates over the years, and the current version is indeed from 2013 [1]

[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20071123130628/https://www.x.org...

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20131222002042/https://www.x.org...

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#12

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 7:57 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#13

Post by cpach » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 7:58 AM UTC

Hugged to death. Mirrors here: https://archive.is/PCsav https://web.archive.org/web/20230213175550/https://www.x.org...

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#14

Post by oleg_antonyan » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 7:58 AM UTC

X is almost 40yo, stable, reliable, difficult to maintain. Wayland is 15yo, barely usable. Any old timers remember 1999 when X was 15? Wayland is like IPv6 of desktops

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#15

Post by return_to_monke » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 8:00 AM UTC

chungy wrote: post #5

Mind that the page describes a hypothetical update to X. In practical terms, Wayland is X12.

does Wayland have network transparency tho?

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#16

Post by bitwize » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 8:01 AM UTC

oleg_antonyan wrote: post #14

X is almost 40yo, stable, reliable, difficult to maintain. Wayland is 15yo, barely usable. Any old timers remember 1999 when X was 15? Wayland is like IPv6 of desktops

More like the R6RS of desktops.

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#17

Post by mnd999 » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 8:01 AM UTC

oleg_antonyan wrote: post #14

X is almost 40yo, stable, reliable, difficult to maintain. Wayland is 15yo, barely usable. Any old timers remember 1999 when X was 15? Wayland is like IPv6 of desktops

I think you’re being unfair to IPv6

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#18

Post by bitwize » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 8:04 AM UTC

return_to_monke wrote: post #15

chungy wrote: post #5

Mind that the page describes a hypothetical update to X. In practical terms, Wayland is X12.

does Wayland have network transparency tho?

That's what Pipewire and Waypipe are for.

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#19

Post by aidenn0 » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 8:04 AM UTC

bartvk wrote: post #10

avhception wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet I'm still running X11, with Wayland still struggling and no X12 in sight.

I'm not up to date on the Linux desktop ecosystem. In what sense is Wayland struggling?

It doesn't work reliably on any GPU I own, for any stable version of a linux distro I use. One GPU is too old, the other is too nvidia.

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#20

Post by gpderetta » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 8:05 AM UTC

oleg_antonyan wrote: post #14

X is almost 40yo, stable, reliable, difficult to maintain. Wayland is 15yo, barely usable. Any old timers remember 1999 when X was 15? Wayland is like IPv6 of desktops

X11 in '99 was stable, reliable and difficult to maintain :).

Let's see where Wayland is in 25 years.