> The same goes for Wayland, by the way
Wayland happened mainly because they could get to 90% of Xorg functionality easily and ignored the fact that the last 10% would take over a decade to achieve parity on.
Wayland happened mainly because they could get to 90% of Xorg functionality easily and ignored the fact that the last 10% would take over a decade to achieve parity on.
We're at 12 years of Wayland and counting and the thing still isn't really usable outside a very narrow use-case. I still run X11 myself and will for a long time. As far as I'm concerned, Wayland has set free software windowing back by a decade. After all this time, Wayland still isn't at parity with X11 even for use cases that Wayland intends to support --- and some things that X11 can do are non-goals for Wayland and will never be supported. What exactly is so compelling in Wayland that it was worth putting progress on hold since 2008?
Yeah, yeah, I get that Wayland has a nice buffer-based composition system. So what? Whatever Wayland does, it could have done over an X11 extension.
Though I think for many of these embedded applications both X11 and Wayland are overkill when EGL direct works just fine. A full windowing system is massive overkill.
Don't tell me that X is bloated.
Enlightenment was fast on that machine. The desktop switcher in the panel had old-school desk lamps pointing at the active desktop.
I miss that theme, and I can’t find any screenshots.
Must be a wide narrow you're talking about. I've been using it as my default session across two different distros and the only problem I can recall having was strange mouse-grabbing behavior in Firefox, and I don't even think that was Wayland's fault.