If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
They apparently realized that the Wayland protocol being developed mostly by Intel with non-PC solutions in mind (Tizen, cars etc) stayed underdeveloped as a desktop solution, this became clear when Gnome and KDE started implementing Wayland for serious.
They apparently realized that the Wayland protocol being developed mostly by Intel with non-PC solutions in mind (Tizen, cars etc) stayed underdeveloped as a desktop solution, this became clear when Gnome and KDE started implementing Wayland for serious.
They apparently realized that the Wayland protocol being developed mostly by Intel with non-PC solutions in mind (Tizen, cars etc) stayed underdeveloped as a desktop solution, this became clear when Gnome and KDE started implementing Wayland for serious.
It was always known. The wl_shell protocol was never developed into a full desktop shell protocol because the DE developers were needed to do a useful work.
It was always known. The wl_shell protocol was never developed into a full desktop shell protocol because the DE developers were needed to do a useful work.
That's not the only reason. Desktop paradigms change, and including the infrastructure for a particular one to the core protocol leads to the kind of bloat X11 has. Separation of concerns helps you not having to ditch all of your previous work when a given paradigm becomes obsolete. If in a few years the concept of maximizing loses sense, having this in a core protocol becomes bloat.
Comment