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

Post by vetinari » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 8:55 PM UTC

throwawaylinux wrote: post #64

sprash wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X11 became really stable in the late 00s. And since the introduction of DRI3 it is at the same technological level of Wayland concerning the efficient buffer swap mechanism. X11 is however still miles ahead on the architectural level. Parts of the system like window managers or compositors can fail or be replaced at runtime without affecting running clients. Wayland lacks the appropriate standardized interfaces for t…

The choices of architecture seem to reflect different priorities, there are things that the Wayland architecture does better than X and vice versa, aren't there? Hard to say X11 is ahead architecturally if you pick features that Wayland may not consider important. I've seen commentary from people who have worked intimately on both protocols and implementations of both who consider Wayland to have the better architect…

Post by bonzini » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 8:57 PM UTC

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #63

mjg59 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who believes that XFree86 was stable in 1999 was apparently running a different XFree86 to me. The sysrq key was mostly useful at the time for using the SAK shortcut to kill all processes on the current terminal, which with luck included your wedged XFree86 which would then get respawned by xdm. I don't miss those times.

> Anyone who believes that XFree86 was stable in 1999 was apparently running a different XFree86 to me XFree86 on Linux wasn't very stable in 1999 (although it was more than usable, more than Wayland is today). X11 on IRIX in 1999 was pretty stable. Parent said X, not specifically XFree86. also something to consider: how many people were working on Xfree86 in 1999 and how many people are working on Wayland in 2023? W…

Post by stonogo » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 8:58 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #66

lloeki wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite a stretch, Wayland and X (any X, 11 or hypothetical 12) are so vastly different that calling Wayland "the new X" is like calling Quartz "X for macOS".

isn't X11 a full redesign of X10 like Wayland is of X11?

Post by sprash » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 9:02 PM UTC

vetinari wrote: post #91

throwawaylinux wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The choices of architecture seem to reflect different priorities, there are things that the Wayland architecture does better than X and vice versa, aren't there? Hard to say X11 is ahead architecturally if you pick features that Wayland may not consider important. I've seen commentary from people who have worked intimately on both protocols and implementations of both who consider Wayland to have the better architect…

> I've seen commentary from people who have worked intimately on both protocols and implementations of both who consider Wayland to have the better architecture. For those interested in details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQh_DmDLKQ

Post by ravishi » Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

fsh wrote: post #24

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

Wayland is the default on Fedora, Ubuntu, Red Hat, and Debian. The majority of desktop linux users is probably on Wayland by now.