> In case I wasn't clear enough, there was never a screenshot feature. Any X11 client could read any pixel written by any other X11 client.
Which is a load of FUD, the X11 security extensions from (checks google) 1996, restrict this.
Which is a load of FUD, the X11 security extensions from (checks google) 1996, restrict this.
And its not like actual flaws people found couldn't be fixed.
There is a word for this.
The flaws were not limited to the 1996 poor security extensions. These kind of half broken extensions are everywhere in X11. At some point, if the tweaks you have to do is basically rewriting the whole rendering pipeline and adding new APIs for the most significant systems, what you are doing is strictly équivalent to writing a new piece of software which is exactly what the people behind Wayland did.
And don't worry, the change adverse people you see here complaining about limitations fixed years ago would be complaining the same if the effort was on rewriting part of X11. That's life. Armchair complainers and keyboard warriors will complain while actual doers push things forward.
Wait, what ? X11 has extensions ? As in can be "extended" ? And has the same thing since ( for the sake of dialogue) 1996 ? That't why it must die. We need a monolith window system, with clear versions, all incompatible with each other. Only then, real progress can be made. /s