sprash

Many of those major problems (which you call annoyances) will never be sorted out because the "Wayland Comitte" has decided that even the basic functionality is "out of scope".

After 15 years of development Wayland developers have not only proven to be incompetent but also resistant to learn. As such they can't be trusted to ever come up with anything functional.

The current involvement of Microsoft with "Linux" is nothing more than good old EEE. Exactly as described in the Halloween Documents.

> needs to be shared via encrypted p2p

You mean blockchain? DNS has been solved with namecoin more than a decade ago. One of the few blockchain applications that actually make sense.

> The majority of X clients that users care about are ordinary programs

This is simply not true. The only "odinary" programs according to your definition that I am running are a browser and a terminal. All other xclients I'm running go beyond that and can not work with Xwayland or XQuartz. (a quick ´grep "^[x,X]" .bash_history´ reveals xautolock, xbacklight, xbel, xcalib, xcape, xdpyinfo, xdotool, xkill, xmodmap, xrandr, xrdb, xsel, xset)

> GNOME and KDE

Both are are really bad desktop environments and part of the reason the FOSS desktop never took off. Also they are mostly developed by full time paid employees with zero community involvement. As such they are the small niche.

> The glaring flaws in the API have been known for that long.

X11 has flaws but I wouldn't call them "glaring". They are a nuisance at best. You don't pay for functionality you don't need. Wayland has glaring flaws because it does not provide and standardize functionality that people need. It also has severe technical flaws like implicit sync which makes all your application stutter when one application has high GPU load.

> Xorg server actually lacks backward compatibility with lots of non-standard X11 extensions that for whatever reason were either removed or were never merged upstream.

Great, so there is a regular organic and efficient clean up process happening that keeps the unused or unpopular stuff out of X11. There shouldn't be much "old cruft" around then. If this is the case, why do we need Wayland?

Xwayland only provides backwards compatibility for a very small subset of the X11 ecosystem (E.g. window managers or xdotool are not supported). As such it is only useful for very limited X11 clients on the level of GNOME applications and in most cases completely useless.

X11 has nothing to do with "traditional" Unix. Even back in the 80s the UNIX philosophy didn't work with a graphics stack and X11 itself is very un-Unix-like. This is even more true for the modern graphics stack. That being said, X11 is one of the few APIs that had a really long run and that everybody in the community agrees upon. This is extremely rare. 38 years of backwards compatibility and still being able to deliver performance on the most modern graphics stacks is a tremendously huge value that shouldn't be thrown away just because some IBM/Redhat or Collabora employee says so.

If you want to see some impressive gaussian splat demos take a look here: https://gsplat.tech

If latency is your biggest concern you have to use a terminal emulator without double buffering. So far xterm and mlterm are popular choices.

Really cool, the parallax background scrolling feature:

https://wezfurlong.org/wezterm/config/lua/config/background....

The RaspberryPI can use one of it's IO-Pins to transmit a stereo radio signal including RDS (https://github.com/miegl/PiFmAdv). It's probably illegal in most countries.

Pekwm[1] does this and is still actively developed. One of my favorite floating WMs.

1.:https://github.com/pekwm/pekwm

Are you implying Putin blew up his own pipelines?

> I'm glad you care about the FOSS ecosystem this deeply. I do as well

As member of KDE e.V. board of directors you were part of the cancel brigade against Richard Stallman which was clearly an OP against FOSS. This means you are either some useful idiot or an actively malicious actor. Either way it would be great if people like you would stop "caring" about the FOSS ecosystem.

Proven wrong by whom? Your opinion is obviously severely biased because you get paid for working on Wayland. Job security is obviously the only reason anyone would defend this pile of garbage of an ecosystem. All your suggestions mean replacing X11 functionality with vendor lock-in de-facto proprietary Qt libraries. I can see why your employer likes that.

Now get off my lawn.

The most important points:

- It is not clear yet which Xfce release will target a complete Xfce Wayland transition (or if such a transition will happen at all).

- We do not have the resources to maintain our own Wayland compositor

This should tell you everything. Since the Wayland ecosystem is extremely developer hostile it cements the KDE/GNOME duopoly and eliminates the long tail. XFCE might maybe make the push to Wayland but after that that's it. The rest of the tail is dead.

It's sabotage.

DRI3 clients allocate themselves their render buffers. Hence perfectly possible with X11.

Rather the opposite. Wayland is a far more opaque abstraction layer than X11.

Also the "robustness" is achieved with KDE/Qt specific protocols and as such has nothing to do with Wayland. Similar functionality could be achieved with X11.

> Wayland has some widely-respected values around who gets to introspect what state and who acts as authority

And this is a main problem. These "widely-respected values" (by whom actually?) make sure that you can't implement an app that allows dragging tabs from one window to another because windows are not allowed to know their absolute coordinates.

> But there's a lot of value in agreed-upon protocols, and X11 also needed many of them.

Depends on the protocol. Wayland as such has zero value. I still can't decide that is designed by retarded morons ore geniuses as means of sabotage. Either way it destroys the FOSS ecosystem very effectively. Good job!

> They might add some DE-specific protocol for themselves, but I don’t see why that would be a problem.

What Wayland advocates don't see as a problem is the one of the main problems. I see a pattern here.

> years of hard work.

The only thing that takes "years of hard work" is writing a simple native Wayland client that takes screenshots.

You forgot the most important reason:

(0) zero community mind share as a result of extremely cumbersome and developer hostile APIs and the lack of standardization of essential functionality.

QtWayland won't be able to address this because vendor lock-in for a de-facto proprietary toolkit won't generate any community mind share either.

The severely limited scope of Wayland forces all DE vendors to reinvent the wheel and basically recreate their own X11. But this time it's worse because the APIs are DE/Toolkit specific without the standardization that X11 offered.

Also X11 was never "monolithic" but in reality completely modular. It allows for example to change the window manager or even compositor at runtime without affecting running programs. For this to work your API hast to provide more functionality than your typical Wayland compositor. This is often mistaken for "monolithic" when in fact is actually the complete opposite of monolithic.

You are absolutely correct. This is why it is absolutely reasonable to assume that Wayland is actually a sabotage project.

X11 was far ahead of anything out there when we had compiz with spinning desktop cubes and wobbly windows running absolutely smooth even with the most basic GPU in 2006(!). Something had to be done about that.

The "development interest" in Wayland is still mostly carried by corporate full time paid developers. Wayland as such has had zero community mindshare in the FOSS ecosystem (until Hyprland came along but that is literally just one guy). And for a reason: The protocol is not suited for Desktops at all. It was developed for car entertainment systems and mobile phones. As a result it makes things that should be simple (like creating a window, printing a string, taking a screenshot) incredible hard for developers.

There is nothing inherent in Wayland that makes the it work better as opposed to X11. It is all about developer focus. If KDE developers spend the majority of their resources on the one thing it obviously gets better.

Wayland is the downfall of the Linux Desktop and the FOSS desktop ecosystem in general. It is actively developer hostile, overly complicated and the technical merits are questionable at best. It has the wrong philosophy about absolutely everything. Not only are simple and trivial things hard to do. Most things can't be done because standardized interfaces don't exist. The "process" of standardizing even the smallest features, no matter how essential through the "Wayland committee" takes literally multiple years.

What people really need is a "desktop protocol" not a "display protocol".

The big unique selling point of MOD/XM/S3M is that it is essentially "open source" music. You can exactly see what the artist does and how it is done as well as access all used samples.

The money is paid for Wayland to make sure the FOSS desktop will stay sub-3%. You obviously don't understand the concept of sabotage. (And yes literally millions of dollars have been invested into Wayland)

EEE was a conspiracy theory as well until the Heloween documents were published.

Also no Wayland does not work great for most Linux desktop users. Even not in reality. It works incredibly well at making the life for application developers extra hard though.