I get your point. But until those benchmarks at least correlate with behavior users see, they are not worth much.
Wayland was created because of horrible X11 performance [1]. It is not Waylands prime time yet but X.Org still works and maintained. Phoronix.com should have checked contributions [2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQh_DmDLKQ
[2] https://github.com/freedesktop/xorg-xserver/graphs/commit-ac...
Think risc v cisc. It isn't that there are not points to be gained from the alternatives. It is that leaving the past behind is not necessarily the best way to get progress. And even when enough time passes that the alternative gains ground, it often looks more like what it was replacing than less.
Or if you truly believe there is nothing wrong with X.Org you would become maintainer.
> My (often incorrect) views and opinions are my own and not those of anyone I currently or have ever worked for. Please help me make them more informed (and hopefully more correct) whenever you can!
Sadly, for the most part I have been discouraged from Linux desktop usage in recent years. Shame, as I have been on Linux for a couple of decades now. That said, I confess this is opening my interest. Would love to get myself and my children contributing, and I will start looking for ways to make that possible.
there would be no controversy with
"I only really care about GNOME performance and GNOME Wayland hasn’t been very convincing [0] with no discernible improvement over GNOME X11"
GNOME matters for you, it does not matter for me (xmonad, xterm, browsers). If all user see is GNOME he can decide it is Linux that is broken as well.
"The real story behind Wayland and X" by Daniel Stone (link above) specifically shows X11 performance problems, it is view from developer what is wrong with X. The story which we, as users, do not know. We can't blame developers for trying to implement something sane.
I have no contributions to core projects but I don't blame them either.
Continuing in that vein. I stand by pointing that the choice of benchmark matters. I've been burned by my own choices and choices from peers too often to agree that hypothetical benchmarks will see improvements for everyone.
I also find it dubious that there are many use cases that are better served today than in the past. I want to believe you, but the evidence is coming in weak with a ton of argument from authority. You don't get a pass just for being a developer to tell users they are wrong.
Sorry, I can't continue until you've watched presentation [1]
> gedit startup:
> 130 blocking InternAtom calls
> 34 blocking GetProperty calls
> 116 property change requests
> blocking because Xlib is terrible
> usually spends 25ms waiting for requests
> sometimes spends 1428ms