Hacker News Reader

Wayland is the protocol. It isn't analogous to X, so they really shouldn't be compared. Comparing Xorg to something like WLRoots makes more sense.

View on HN

X is a protocol just like Wayland. One of those protocols contains a standardized interface to implement window managers the other doesn't. The argument people are trying to make is that a display stack should have such a standardized interface.

It’s always quite ironic to me that the same people that want to burn SystemD at the stake for ‘trying to do everything, Linux programs should be small and modular’ also lambast Wayland for ‘not just implementing everything and the kitchen sink, like good old X used to do’.

It is just your personal assumption that they are the "same people". But it would make sense because due to lack of standardized interfaces Wayland forces every functionality into a monolithic implementation which is the opposite of small and modular.

X does not implement everything and the kitchen sink. A bare Xserver won't even be usable without a dedicated window manager, the compositor is completely replaceable and runs as a separate process, etc. Just because it is perceived by some to be bloated doesn't mean it is monolithic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com