On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 19:57 +0200, Javier Martinez wrote:
> El 17/9/25 a las 18:53, zyxhere💠escribió:
> > On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 08:47 -0500, David Bryant wrote:
> > > But X11 still works for me, so why change? If it ain't broke, don't
> > > fix it
> > >
> > On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 16:41 +1000, Alexis wrote:
> > > My experience has been that statements like this aren't helpful,
> > > because people assume "Not ready for my specific use-case(s)"
> > > means "Not ready for anyone's use cases". That's a strong claim,
> > > and demonstrably incorrect. And it goes both ways: there are
> > > people for whom Wayland is a significant improvement over X, and
> > > so say to X users, "No, you're wrong, it _is_ ready." But again,
> > > that's incorrect; different people have different use-cases.
> >
>
> I'm Emacs user.... Oh mfg! it's not a flame emacs vs vi, just one
> wayland vs Xorg
>
> Xorg has targetted a lot of troubles that had since it was XFree86 as
> could be the requirement to be the Xserver a setuid binary and a lot of
> troubles that could the system hang since it required time ago
> privileged RAM access as ioports. KMS was critical for this to happen. I
> think Wayland will suffer something like directfb, I don't see now
> advantages that makes wayland more useful than Xorg, useful for
> smartphones? maybe yes, but Xorg is more supported.
>
> Wayland needs a Xorg layer compatibility to be useful for a lot of
> users, I want mean, the wayland Xserver, so finally they use the same
> client server architecture that a lot of people critized from Xorg
>
> So finally, who cares...
Um so xwayland?
