On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 12:38 -0800, mark_at_yahoo wrote: > On 2/7/24 20:09, hw wrote: > > On Sat, 2024-02-03 at 13:53 +0100, Lucio Chiappetti wrote: > > > I hope to be able to go on with Xorg until I live. > > > > Or use wayland and start living now :) Living in the past seldwhen is > > a good idea. > Except when the past is better: More capable, complete, and highly > evolved architectural design. Read and understand Thomas' posts.
Is it really better? It seemed to me that wayland scales better in that it leaves each program to work on its own and sending the results of its work to what they call a compositor that pieces it all together whereas Xorg requires a server process to do it all which could be a bottleneck. > Wayland improves performance over X11's client-server model? Does it? > Fine. If it wasn't possible to streamline X11 (I'm not convinced) > then do the full redesign ... but include all the capabilities of > the ICCCM and EWMH APIs. Even via an alternate, lower performance, > internal path if necessary. Who is gona do that? IIUC there are obsolete things that must be supported because the protocol requires them, and apparently the protocol is set in stone. That seems to prevent a redesign, and what would be the advantage of reinventing the wheel in exactly the same undesirable way? On of top that, it might be rather difficult to add new features for technical reasons and simply because nobody really wants to that anymore. > As I said before, Wayland sucks. If for no other reason that it will > force me to use bloated, crap window managers (excuse me: "Desktop > Environments"). You're being forced to use them anyway. The problem is not a particular window manger but other software as well since that software has made it impossible to do basic things like adjusting the font size, and it tends to depend on other software which is part of such so-called desktop environments. For example, try to use Evolution without gnome-keyring or kmail without akonadi, and try to get the fonts readable without gnome or kde. You can more or less do the things you do with software that doesn't depend on a so-called desktop environment, but not really, and what you can still do is more complicated and difficult than just using the software that works with the so-called desktop environment. Having to either hold a magnifying glass in front of the screen to be able to read the fonts or using software that isn't up to the task isn't the only problem, only a very annoying one. > Either that or primitive tiling ones (talk about living in the > past). So you're arguing that not using a so-called desktop environment, like instead of fvwm, means you're living in the past. Maybe try sway or i3 and you'll understand that they aren't primitive at all. > But I guess I'll be able to play live, alpha-blended video as the > background in a terminal window -- a nightmare, I mean utopian > dream, I never knew I had or needed. Maybe --- as long as you're not being forced to do such things, it's fine.
