• crankyrebel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 days ago

    Currently, X11 is not really being developed, just maintained, which is the real issue. In this piece they are questioning whether Wayland was a good choice or not. I am using Wayland, have for some time, and I do acknowledge it is still a work in progress, validating the articles list of ‘issues’ yet to be addressed, but unless you are running a really old system, I am guessing the complications affect a very minimal group of users. There are also workarounds, for example on KDE, the gtk apps don’t adhere to those using the global menu. However, there is a fix to get around it.

    In reference to using a completely different solution, isn’t it a little late in the game (16 years in development?) I think we are stuck with Wayland, no?

    • Eldritch@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      X11 would have needed almost a complete rewrite. Wayland made sense. Eject the technical debt and focus on your use case. We aren’t time sharing on a large central mini computer/mainframe anymore. And even then they generally are full single user systems run in parallel under a hypervisor these days. As wasteful as that might be.

      But there’s still occasions when you need to run a legacy application on old AIX, Irix, etc, or vax Hardware. And need a workstation. Which right now Wayland simply can’t do without x.