One thing I saw in comments about the removal of xorg server is that some might not see how much work is/was to maintain xorg server. I understand is hard to see from outside, but maintaining xorg server with the standards we have in RHEL is not a small beast. Let me share some:
I don’t get the issue with “maintaining Xorg”. Like, I get that it has a “cost”, I just don’t understand why that cost would be an issue since it’s basically fixed, marginal cost (and has been since like 2015): the software is already mature, so it’s unlikely to see relevant changes, or even minor changes (if that’s what we want to mean with “dead”). That means, it can be affixed to a specific toolkit and environment to build (if this isn’t being done already - which any mature project like RedHat should be!) basically guaranteeing it’ll build forever. You can just set a virtual button or a yearly crontab to do it. Fixed, marginal cost.
Contrasted to that, what Wayland is doing is kinda a representation of the worst ways of capitalism: centralize the profits, socialize the costs and the externalities (redesign, recode, rebuild), and blame society (the Linux communities) for it, all for a variable cost that is unbounded in time and space because you never know what’s gonna cost a small project like a text editor to reimplement the entire desktop stack “just” for Wayland.
I think he explains it pretty well, he even gives some examples and mentions there are many others. For a company to support such a large component for its commercial customers has a lot of work and verification we wouldn’t consider as end users. His comment also explains why you can’t just maintain a status quo with it and make an automatic build and forget…
As a third party, my understanding is that both the implementation and the protocol are really hard, if not next to impossible to iterate on. Modern hardware doesn’t work like how it did when X did, and X assumes a lot of things that made sense in the 90s that don’t now. Despite that, we cram a square peg into the round hole and it mostly works - and as the peg becomes a worse shape we just cram it harder. At this point no one wants to keep working on X.
And I know your point is that it works and we don’t need too, but we do need too. New hardware needs to support X - at least the asahi guys found bugs in the X implementation that only exists on their hardware and no one who wants to fix them. Wayland and X are vastly different, because X doesn’t make sense in the modern day. It breaks things, and a lot of old assumptions aren’t true. That sucks, especially for app devs that rely on those assumptions. But keeping around X isn’t the solution - iterating on Wayland is. Adding protocols to different parts of the stack with proper permission models, moving different pieces of X to different parts of the stack, etc. are a long term viable strategy. Even if it is painful.
But keeping around X isn’t the solution - iterating on Wayland is. Adding protocols to different parts of the stack with proper permission models, moving different pieces of X to different parts of the stack, etc. are a long term viable strategy. Even if it is painful.
The problem is, that’s always used as an excuse to force people to be gratis beta testers. I’ve been around for the wrecks that were (and still are) Pulseaudio and Systemd. Wayland is even worse: it doesn’t even fully start a session in my machine. If as devs you want to “iterate”, sure, go ahead; but leave it in the dev branch; as a user, don’t try to sell me Wayland again until it’s actually over.
The problem is, that’s always used as an excuse to force people to be gratis beta testers
If as devs you want to “iterate”, sure, go ahead; but leave it in the dev branch; as a user, don’t try to sell me Wayland again until it’s actually over.
it’s opensource software, don’t like it? go ahead, don’t use it. They don’t owe anyone shit
I don’t get the issue with “maintaining Xorg”. Like, I get that it has a “cost”, I just don’t understand why that cost would be an issue since it’s basically fixed, marginal cost (and has been since like 2015): the software is already mature, so it’s unlikely to see relevant changes, or even minor changes (if that’s what we want to mean with “dead”). That means, it can be affixed to a specific toolkit and environment to build (if this isn’t being done already - which any mature project like RedHat should be!) basically guaranteeing it’ll build forever. You can just set a virtual button or a yearly crontab to do it. Fixed, marginal cost.
Contrasted to that, what Wayland is doing is kinda a representation of the worst ways of capitalism: centralize the profits, socialize the costs and the externalities (redesign, recode, rebuild), and blame society (the Linux communities) for it, all for a variable cost that is unbounded in time and space because you never know what’s gonna cost a small project like a text editor to reimplement the entire desktop stack “just” for Wayland.
I think he explains it pretty well, he even gives some examples and mentions there are many others. For a company to support such a large component for its commercial customers has a lot of work and verification we wouldn’t consider as end users. His comment also explains why you can’t just maintain a status quo with it and make an automatic build and forget…
As a third party, my understanding is that both the implementation and the protocol are really hard, if not next to impossible to iterate on. Modern hardware doesn’t work like how it did when X did, and X assumes a lot of things that made sense in the 90s that don’t now. Despite that, we cram a square peg into the round hole and it mostly works - and as the peg becomes a worse shape we just cram it harder. At this point no one wants to keep working on X.
And I know your point is that it works and we don’t need too, but we do need too. New hardware needs to support X - at least the asahi guys found bugs in the X implementation that only exists on their hardware and no one who wants to fix them. Wayland and X are vastly different, because X doesn’t make sense in the modern day. It breaks things, and a lot of old assumptions aren’t true. That sucks, especially for app devs that rely on those assumptions. But keeping around X isn’t the solution - iterating on Wayland is. Adding protocols to different parts of the stack with proper permission models, moving different pieces of X to different parts of the stack, etc. are a long term viable strategy. Even if it is painful.
The problem is, that’s always used as an excuse to force people to be gratis beta testers. I’ve been around for the wrecks that were (and still are) Pulseaudio and Systemd. Wayland is even worse: it doesn’t even fully start a session in my machine. If as devs you want to “iterate”, sure, go ahead; but leave it in the dev branch; as a user, don’t try to sell me Wayland again until it’s actually over.
it’s opensource software, don’t like it? go ahead, don’t use it. They don’t owe anyone shit
The issue with maintaining X is solely RH not wanting to pay developers to maintain it.
Wayland only exists because RH wanted to remove features of X so they can offload implementation and maintenance of those features to other parties.
It’s all about money. Don’t fool yourselves into thinking it’s not.