Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Jul 2012 00:28 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 528238
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Interesting but wrong
by 1c3d0g on Thu 26th Jul 2012 03:54
in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting but wrong"
RE[3]: Interesting but wrong
by r_a_trip on Thu 26th Jul 2012 11:22
in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting but wrong"
The Linux graphics stack is going to have to shape up a bit first. And I sure as heck hope that doesn't mean forcing Wayland on everyone.
Strange reasoning. The graphics stack needs to shape up. Agreed. What I don't understand is the dismissal of Wayland. Wayland is the shaping up of the Linux graphics stack. X in its long, long years of existence has become unwieldy and bitrotten here and there. Plus it carries years of undiscardable legacy. No amount of polishing is going to save it.
Wayland takes the lessons learned for X and implements them in a modern architecture, with as much reuse of the more modern "X" code as possible. On top, Wayland can host a nested X for legacy compatibility. What is not to like?
RE[3]: Interesting but wrong
by Soulbender on Thu 26th Jul 2012 12:31
in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting but wrong"
RE[4]: Interesting but wrong
by _txf_ on Thu 26th Jul 2012 13:31
in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting but wrong"
RE[3]: Interesting but wrong
by kaiwai on Thu 26th Jul 2012 15:38
in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting but wrong"




Member since:
2006-05-23
The Linux graphics stack is going to have to shape up a bit first. And I sure as heck hope that doesn't mean forcing Wayland on everyone.