60
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by cm0002@programming.dev to c/linux@programming.dev
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] crankyrebel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 day ago

Currently, X11 is not really being developed, just maintained, which is the real issue. In this piece they are questioning whether Wayland was a good choice or not. I am using Wayland, have for some time, and I do acknowledge it is still a work in progress, validating the articles list of 'issues' yet to be addressed, but unless you are running a really old system, I am guessing the complications affect a very minimal group of users. There are also workarounds, for example on KDE, the gtk apps don't adhere to those using the global menu. However, there is a fix to get around it.

In reference to using a completely different solution, isn't it a little late in the game (16 years in development?) I think we are stuck with Wayland, no?

[-] Eldritch@piefed.world 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

X11 would have needed almost a complete rewrite. Wayland made sense. Eject the technical debt and focus on your use case. We aren't time sharing on a large central mini computer/mainframe anymore. And even then they generally are full single user systems run in parallel under a hypervisor these days. As wasteful as that might be.

But there's still occasions when you need to run a legacy application on old AIX, Irix, etc, or vax Hardware. And need a workstation. Which right now Wayland simply can't do without x.

this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
60 points (89.5% liked)

Linux

8662 readers
421 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS