El 17/9/25 a las 19:58, zyxhere💭 escribió:
That's is. Xwayland. People still want using applications that are not compatible with wayland, so they still need xorg compatibility layer, so finally they use Xorg protocol xDOn 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 itOn 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?
OpenPGP_0x57E64E0B7FC3BEDF.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
