• WFH@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Feature parity with X has never been the goal. Because most of X’s features are a legacy of the 80’ and dreadfully obsolete anyway.

    I’m all for maintaining compatibility where it makes sense, but carrying over a 40 years old feature set just in case is the best way to prevent anything from moving forward.

    Wayland can already do or is actively being developed for stuff that is relevant to modern systems: multi-monitor with different refresh rates and scaling, HDR etc. Stuff that X would never dream of.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Feature parity, maybe not, but use cases, definitely is the goal.

      I’m just saying that if users have to run X compatibility portals to get basic functionality for every day tasks, then something is not fully baked yet. There’s nothing wrong with that. But apparently pointing it out is some sort of herecy.

      • WFH@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it’s heresy, but I always find it funny that an extremely vocal community shits on systemd for being a bloated tentacular monster shat should be abandoned, but praise X for being a bloated tentacular monster.

        In a way, Wayland is much closer to the Unix Philosophy than X. It’s a display protocol, nothing more. Everything else should be implemented by the applications using this protocol. X has grown over the decades to include way too many features and edge cases.

        Translation layers like XWayland are important and extremely useful for the transition period, but shouldn’t be taken as a sign that Wayland is not ready for prime time. If 10% the people shitting on Wayland had instead worked on adding Wayland functionality to their favorite apps (that includes you fuckers at nVidia), the transition would have ended years ago.