| 1 |
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Barry Schwartz |
| 2 |
<chemoelectric@×××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> The FAQ portions given here are not encouraging to me: |
| 5 |
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_%28display_server_protocol%29 |
| 6 |
> They make good points, but make them in the wrong way; notice the tone |
| 7 |
> of mockery towards X. I’d be happier with a project that spoke |
| 8 |
> respectfully of what it was trying to bring up to date. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The thing that drives me nuts is the general trend towards client-side |
| 11 |
everything. That's great if the client is running on the same machine |
| 12 |
as your display server, and horrible if not. Chrome does this even |
| 13 |
under X11, which means that if I'm running under NX it takes several |
| 14 |
seconds every time I hit page-down to transmit JPEGs of the entire |
| 15 |
browser window. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This is really just a symptom of a larger problem though - useful |
| 18 |
stuff that has already been done gets looked down upon compared with |
| 19 |
useful stuff that hasn't been done yet. Nobody wants to help maintain |
| 20 |
somebody else's idea. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The other problem is that the drive to make X11 more desktop-friendly |
| 23 |
so that it can be monetized is leading towards a casual-user mindset. |
| 24 |
Features that are useful to 95% of those using X11 today are probably |
| 25 |
not useful to 95% of the people who the maintainers want to use X11. |
| 26 |
Those who use Linux they way the do today may very well end up being a |
| 27 |
small minority, having the kind of market share on Linux that Linux |
| 28 |
has in the desktop OS world today. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Even if a bunch of devs fork X11 they're probably going to find things |
| 31 |
moving backwards when the video card vendors drop support. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives