GNOME 3.29.2 Released As The Second Step Towards GNOME 3.30

[dragon321]

This simply false. You are ignorant like most of the forum here and have drank the red hat kool-aid:

1) Wayland is not a rewritting from scratch of X. X is something VERY different from what Wayland does. Anyone who claims otherwise, like most people on this thread, is delusional and ignorant and his opinions can be safely dismissed.

2) Xorg limitations exist, but could be circumvented with proper evolutional redesigns. The catch being that those would break backwards compatibility, exactly like Wayland does (and needs Xserver on top of Wayland to run pretty much anything...). It would be VERY simple for Xorg devs to keep breaking backwards compatibility in the process of rewritting X, and just offering a backwards compatible "compatibility branch" to help with older software, that could kick-in automatically. That way, they could keep on improving X, without having to convince the entire ecosystem to use Wayland.

Wayland was invented back in a time where DRI didn't exist IIRC. OR at least only DRI1 which was very limited. Back then the reasoning for making Wayland was performance, not "security". But now that performance is a non-issue, people keep blabbling on about "security" as a benefit, because quite frankly it is their only card to play to try to justify this Wayland abomination that still is not production ready more than a decade later. And development advances at a snail's pace.

Let me tell you: Security could be vastly improved on Xorg if developers focused on that instead of wasting time on Wayland. Yes, that would probably break backwards compatibility, so what? Wayland does break compatibility in a worse way...

You people have no argument, Wayland was a fucking waste of human resources, and mark my words, it will take many years until it can totally replace X. That is, until it can run as the default without any issues and run Wayland-native applications instead of XWayland all the time...

1. I never said Wayland is rewritten X. I only said you cant bypass Xorg limits without rewriting it from scratch. Of course with new desing, which Wayland does.

2. So if solving this issues in Xorg needs break compatibility - why simply not throw away X11 and write new solution? Wayland is developed by Xorg developers too. Just go and ask they why they writing new solution without fix Xorg. That's because Xorg is big and old project and it's simply big and complicated. Writing new solution from scratch without worrying about compatibility is simpler. Simpler than cleaning old and huge code. Two branches of same project is bad idea. And you forgot a lot of X problems lie not in implementation but in design. X11 protocol is from 1987.

Wayland was invented to solve bad X11 design. Performance is just another pros. It was designed to solve X11 limitations.

And what if security improved? Still no clients isolation because X11 design didn't support it. Did DRI let you use different DPI on each screen in Xorg? No, but this is another X11 limitation (which you can try solve by running second Xorg Server but it's not elegant or good solution, it's simply bypass). Again, if you have to break compatibility and rewrite a lot of code, why just no start new project and design it good from scratch? This is exactly what Wayland does.

No, you have no arguments. You just can't understand that designing and writing new solution is simpler and better than trying to fix protocol from 1987. I tell you what would be waste of time and resources - trying to fix X11 like you said. Wayland is still maturing and becomes better. A lot of frameworks/toolkits support it already (GTK3, Qt5, SDL2, GLFW etc.). If you still don't understand it - write to Wayland developers and give they your ideas. You can ask they why they working on Wayland without fixing Xorg. And ask Google why they don't use Xorg in ChromeOS or Android. Both are Linux based.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

Please keep in mind that Apple with their system went through a similar path as Linux now. In fact, what they did was definitely a bigger step. Not only did they introduce a completely new interface (Aqua), but they also adopted a completely new base system (UNIX-based Darwin). And after ten years of development they have reached a much higher level of quality than Wayland for the same period of time.
Just saying.

Yes, because the creators of Display Postscript also created Display PDF and the team also created Quartz/Quartz Extreme with all the groundwork layed at NeXT. All of them are world class in their skillsets, and were great colleagues.

Linux doesn't have talent close to the team that did that at Apple and before that at NeXT.

[johanb]

First of all, stop calling me names. It is too sad that Michael doesn't moderate his forum a little. You can state your opinion without calling names someone kid,

Yeah totally agree...

especially since in real life i am probably stronger than you since i go to the gym regurarly for years and could kick your ass, but sure, call me a moron over the internet.

...wait what?

Dude I bench 120kg, come at me bro! /s

Name-calling is not OK so let's start thrash talking instead, that'll validate my arguments!

[dkasak]

I see some ignorant users calling me a troll here. So let me ask all those users, do they use Wayland currently as their daily driver and what application do they run with it? Because i can guarantee that no one sane uses it for anything other than experimentation today. It has far too many problems.

Anyone who says differently is LYING.

I do. Enlightenment/Wayland. You think I'm lying? Whatever dude. Sorry to fuck up the only argument in your post, but it works for me.