Mind that the page describes a hypothetical update to X. In practical terms, Wayland is X12.
X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
21–30 of 318 posts
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#22X 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)
#23X 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
Wayland is just a protocol and there are multiple implementations in different compositors. Instead of focusing on a single great implementation, there are multiple average and weak implementations.
It puts quite a bit of pressure on desktop environment developers and it seems like they don't really care about many of the defined protocols. https://wayland.app/protocols/
I wonder if Linux desktop would be in a better state now if Wayland also came with a new and advanced compositor used by new DE's and not just a reference example one.
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#24X 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)
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re being unfair to IPv6
In terms of usability - definitely. But it's built on top of similar unfulfilled promise: we're running out IPv4 addresses VS X11 is unmaintainable legacy full of security bugs. 20 years later IPv4 is still dominant, Wayland is still unusable and X11 just works.
Wait, what have I been doing my work on then? Someone should inform Ubuntu and Fedora, too. Who knew it hasn’t been possible to use the most popular Linux distro out of the box for two years?
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#26X 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
Wayland is the default on Fedora, Ubuntu, Red Hat, and Debian. The majority of desktop linux users is probably on Wayland by now.
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re being unfair to IPv6
In terms of usability - definitely. But it's built on top of similar unfulfilled promise: we're running out IPv4 addresses VS X11 is unmaintainable legacy full of security bugs. 20 years later IPv4 is still dominant, Wayland is still unusable and X11 just works.
It’s not an unfulfilled promise. We’re out of IPv4 addresses and have been for almost a decade.
NAT444444444444444444444 is not the solution.
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#28X 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
Wayland is usable. It is simply not fully used. Wayland is just a protocol and there are multiple implementations in different compositors. Instead of focusing on a single great implementation, there are multiple average and weak implementations. It puts quite a bit of pressure on desktop environment developers and it seems like they don't really care about many of the defined protocols. https://wayland.app/protocols…
This makes me sad because I really like how Gnome looks like, but Gnome developers don't seem to care as much about Wayland stuff.
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet I'm still running X11, with Wayland still struggling and no X12 in sight.
Not sure it's fair to call it struggling when it's the default in just about every distro and has been smooth and stable for years.
I don't want this post to focus on the negative, though, so I'll suggest a more positive argument: the people who would have been responsible for a hypothetical X12 instead decided to make Wayland. I can't think of a body of experts more likely to make a correct decision, so I have confidence in Wayland as the path forward.
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of usability - definitely. But it's built on top of similar unfulfilled promise: we're running out IPv4 addresses VS X11 is unmaintainable legacy full of security bugs. 20 years later IPv4 is still dominant, Wayland is still unusable and X11 just works.
> Wayland is still unusable Wait, what have I been doing my work on then? Someone should inform Ubuntu and Fedora, too. Who knew it hasn’t been possible to use the most popular Linux distro out of the box for two years?