GNOME 3.29.2 Released As The Second Step Towards GNOME 3.30

[awesz]

At the end of the day, X.Org reigns as the only and one. Red Hat lock-in? Not on my watch.

[TemplarGR]

What a tool.

"They might as well just put the effort into redesigning X"

Wayland is a redesign of X, moron

"Wayland has no reason to exist now other than the NIH"

Wayland was started by X devs and is administered under the same umbrella as X i.e. Wayland and X are from the same place and people, so how can it be 'not invented here' syndrome?

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, 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.

Secondly, Wayland is not a redesign of X. That moronic statement right there proves you do not know what you are talking about. Wayland is a very different way of handling things than X. It is not even a server. So yeah, educate yourself before calling others morons.

[TemplarGR]

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. It is the same situation back when KDE 4.0 was released and a legion of morons came to forums and claimed that KDE was fine and excellent and had no problems and called people who complained "trolls". Seems a lot of retards on the Linux ecosystem have the pathological need to defend unstable and unfinished software and uneeded redesigns for some reason.

Come talk to me again when Wayland is usable. Somewhere in 2029.

[TemplarGR]

Let me introduce something to You. It's called "client isolation". That's right, X isn't capable of it, Wayland is. It's very important thing in security, and X can't do it. Well, I say more - Windows and macOS can do it as well. What about different DPI for each screen? Another thing that Xorg cannot handle properly. Xorg isn't suitable for 21st century, that's true.

"NIH" when Wayland is made by a lot of Xorg peoples? Lol. Wayland exist not because "NIH", but because of Xorg limitations which you can't solve without rewriting from scratch (which Wayland does). Wayland doesn't need hacks to ensure correct display (no tearing, lag's and flickering) which Xorg needs.

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...

[the_scx]

Regarding how long Wayland and the software ecosystem has been in development and whether it has been too long. What is too long? Wayland is a massive change to the GNU/Linux desktop ecosystem. How long should we expect to wait for this change to be user-ready? I don't know.

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.

[cybertraveler]

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.

Noted. I wonder how big the Aqua dev team was though. I also wonder what we can reasonably expect from the Wayland spec writers and software developers as end-users. I don't pay them anything.

[Davidovitch]

First of all, stop calling me names. It is too sad that Michael doesn't moderate his forum a little.

Good point, it is quite disappointing to see how often people need to fall back to name calling. Arguments are best supported when written in a clear, concise, honest but neutral fashion. A constructive dialogue comes about when both parties have the ability to reflect on their own points of view too, and show respect and understanding for each other. It seems that on the internet moderation is a must to maintain such a constructive dialogue.

[...] You can state your opinion without calling names someone kid, 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.

Secondly, Wayland is not a redesign of X. That moronic statement right there proves you do not know what you are talking about. Wayland is a very different way of handling things than X. It is not even a server. So yeah, educate yourself before calling others morons.

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

[...] Anyone who claims otherwise, like most people on this thread, is delusional and ignorant and his opinions can be safely dismissed.

[...]

Exactly, constructive dialogue, right? /s

[starshipeleven]

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.

I think the main difference is that Wayland is a joint effort by many parties so it has to cater to different needs, there is discussion and tradeoffs and whatever, which slow down development.

On a project developed by "Apple" for "Apple only" there isn't much in the way of development, they know their goals, they don't need to convince any other developer to do what they need, and don't have to deal with features they don't need but other contributors need.

I don't see this as particularly bad or strange.

[starshipeleven]

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.

That's a strong statement right there, how about you provide some kind of source for this?

And note that I don't care about the fact that X has a ton of legacy stuff that was last used 2 decades ago, that's dead weight, I'm talking of what X server is actually doing now, vs what Wayland is doing.

Please demonstrate that you actually know the basics of what you're talking about.

2) Xorg limitations exist, but could be circumvented with proper evolutional redesigns.

Which would involve breaking compatibility with applications, drop a large swath of "server" components as the applications render stuff on their own anyway and bulk of other stuff that was good to have in a server component 30 years ago nowadays is handled better by the kernel directly, call the new server "compositor" as it's just compositing an image, and since there are compositors already why not just make it a protocol and extend their functionality to support it, also why not reusing existing Xorg drivers though because for a driver all this things don't matter at all....

Now let's call it differently because it's no more X at this point, Wayland sounds good enough.

[Anvil]

Do you think so? I thought that at first, but then I thought of some other plausible explanations for this odd post.

yeah i do.