On 18/1/20 1:01 μ.μ., Swift Griggs
wrote:
I hope Wayland succeeds, it's design is elegant, the participants seem to care about code quality, and everyone's heart is in the right place.
Delicately, let me observe that no matter how cleanly Wayland is designed, breaking everything (ie.. --without-Xwayland (X11)) isn't a happy prospect for X11 application devs like me, fans of C99, classic environment (ie.. retro) folks who will be stuck in "incompatible" environments, XDMCP users, or apparently commercial driver makers like Intel, Nvidia, and ATI. Maybe Wayland isn't a forgone conclusion?
I agree with you. I do not like the fact that they do not seem to care for network transparency for example.
This has so many problems. Not only XDMCP. It breaks the possibility to have the LTSP working. And the developers
of LTSP have already moved to fat clients leaving thin clients to essentially die. But as I feel it
*they do not care*. Several people, have told me "let the X die".
Personally I see a behavior very similar to what the developers of Gnome3 had. "We will trash Gnome2
and you have to follow us". Luckily enough the mate desktop appeared. So I just hope someone will
add network transparency to Wayland and whatever it needs to be compatible with X apps.
Major distributions like Fedora and Debian already ship with Wayland as the default. Ubuntu tried
it in version 17 and failed (they got so many complains...) they shipped versions 18 and 20 (I think) with X
but they plan on Wayland for their next release.
So Wayland is here and it will stay. The problem is what will happen with people still using X as you say.
Antonis.
_______________________________________________ cdesktopenv-devel mailing list cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
