Clearing Up Wayland FUD, Misconceptions
An anonymous reader writes "In clearing up common misconceptions about Wayland (e.g. it breaking compatibility with the Linux desktop and it not supporting remote desktops like X), Eric Griffith (a Linux developer) and Daniel Stone (a veteran X.Org developer) have written The Wayland Situation in which they clearly explain the facts about the shortcomings of X, the corrections made by Wayland, and the advantages to this alternative to Canonical's in-development Mir."
wayland, mir, etc are all fine in theory.
but have you ever tried to actually install one of them on your own machine and get a hello world program working?
this crap is, at best, alpha quality software. its just utter vapor ware.
i sound like a grumpy old man, but thats because i have been hearing about the "demise of X" since, oh, around 1997. There was SVGALIB, there was GGI, there was SDL, there was Cairo, there was Display Postscript and its various iterations, there was all sorts of stuff. And here we are, still with X.
In 2013.
That's 20 years since linux was created. 20 years and the only widely adoptd alternative to X is on Android, and i dont even know what its' called.
Let me summarize:
1. Some old unused X11 API is bad
Comment: If it is needed for backwards compatiblity, it is needed for compatibility. We know you don't give a shit, and for you toying with wobbling windows on touch displays is more important.
2. Something is broken, but we won't fix it in X11 because we now play with Wayland.
Comment: Then shut the fuck up and leave my system working as it is (and did the last decades).
3. The feature you are using on a daily basis (networks transparency) and works perfectly is actually a NIGHTMARE to use and has to go.
Comment: Please tell me more about what is working for me and what not.