From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 09 Dec 2025 09:59:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is standard for all new releases of anything.
Even my own software goes through 'revisions...:-)

But Wayland is not exactly a "new release."

Wayland development has been going on for close to TWENTY YEARS
and it still is not suitable as a reliable and versatile graphics
subsystem.

Furthermore, Wayland is not a project done by amateurs in their
spare time. Wayland is supported by IBM/RedHat big bucks.

Wake me up when I couldn't distinguish X11 from Wayland by any practical measure.
--
Hail Linux! Hail FOSS! Hail Stallman!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 09/12/2025 11:24, Farley Flud wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2025 09:59:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is standard for all new releases of anything.
Even my own software goes through 'revisions...:-)

But Wayland is not exactly a "new release."

Wayland development has been going on for close to TWENTY YEARS

17 years at most

and it still is not suitable as a reliable and versatile graphics
subsystem.

That is your opinion. It is not a fact.

Peole seenm to be uisng it without too many issues

Furthermore, Wayland is not a project done by amateurs in their
spare time. Wayland is supported by IBM/RedHat big bucks.

Wake me up when I couldn't distinguish X11 from Wayland by any practical measure.

If there were no detectable differences there wouldn't be any point in
having Wayland at all would there?

Seriously your logic needs a semester or two in philosophy to sort out.



--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:17:51 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Furthermore, Wayland is not a project done by amateurs in their
spare time. Wayland is supported by IBM/RedHat big bucks.

Wake me up when I couldn't distinguish X11 from Wayland by any
practical measure.

If there were no detectable differences there wouldn't be any point
in having Wayland at all would there?

Seriously your logic needs a semester or two in philosophy to sort
out.

If a project is as open and direct about aiming to supplant and replace
another project as Wayland has been, expecting it to offer feature
parity with the thing it's replacing (and a relatively seamless switch
in terms of user experience) is entirely reasonable.

If this were Just Another FOSS Project, nobody would care that much
about missing features or wonky design choices - rather, them as did
care would ignore it, and the True Believers could continue on their
merry way. But Wayland specifically wants to be the Only Game In Town,
and Red Hat has been throwing its considerable weight behind that.
*That's* what gets people hacked off, here, and with good reason.

It's a rare day when FF of all people is the reasonable party in an
exchanged. Wonder if I should buy a lottery ticket.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:17:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If there were no detectable differences there wouldn't be any point in having Wayland at all would there?

The point, in the words of Linus Torvalds, is "do not ever break
user space."

In other words, any GNU/Linux graphical subsystem must ensure
compatibility with ALL software, both past and present.

Take a look at Microslop Winblows. Above all else, they strive
to ensure compatibility with all past software.

But Wayland is a fundamentally different concept from X11.
It has no inherent compositor and thus all graphical software
MUST "reinvent the wheel" over and over and over. It is a
most ridiculous concept

In short, Wayland breaks user space to the extreme. In order
to successfully implement Wayland, the user must abandon
all past generations of "legacy" software and adopt only
approved software -- approved by IBM/RedHat.

Xwayland is supposed to be the answer to legacy compatibility,
but experience shows that it falls far short of this goal.

Wayland should be only a CHOICE and not an IMPOSITION, but the
mainstream distros show their true colors by, again, as with
systemd, by insisting that Wayland is the only future and
by eliminating everything else.

However, someone like you would not ever care. You will
accept without question whatever your distro dictates simply
because you do not use your computing machine beyond the
totally frivolous activities.
--
Gentoo: the only road to GNU/Linux freedom and perfection.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 12/9/25 06:24, Farley Flud wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2025 09:59:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is standard for all new releases of anything.
Even my own software goes through 'revisions...:-)

But Wayland is not exactly a "new release."

Wayland development has been going on for close to TWENTY YEARS
and it still is not suitable as a reliable and versatile graphics
subsystem.

Furthermore, Wayland is not a project done by amateurs in their
spare time. Wayland is supported by IBM/RedHat big bucks.

Wake me up when I couldn't distinguish X11 from Wayland by any practical measure.

My sentiment exactly.

In THEORY Wayland has potential ... but it has
languished, inched along, always has some hidden
gotchas.

The over-caffeinated volunteer hacks may have
made X11 a bit clunky, but it WORKS and has
huge documentation.

Maybe an AI can eventually clean up both and
make a best-of system that's not clunky ???


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

c186282 wrote:

In THEORY Wayland has potential ... but it has
languished, inched along, always has some hidden
gotchas.

The over-caffeinated volunteer hacks may have
made X11 a bit clunky, but it WORKS and has
huge documentation.

Maybe an AI can eventually clean up both and
make a best-of system that's not clunky ???

It wouldn't hurt to ask. "Hey ChatGPT, clean up X11 and Wayland to
make a best-of system that's not clunky."

Piece of cake! 8)
--
'[chrisv is] the same dimwit who thinks that determining if software
works or not is accomplished through "compile time warnings" and not
by actually testing the software.' - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel",
lying shamelessly
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

chrisv wrote:

c186282 wrote:

In THEORY Wayland has potential ... but it has
languished, inched along, always has some hidden
gotchas.

The over-caffeinated volunteer hacks may have
made X11 a bit clunky, but it WORKS and has
huge documentation.

Maybe an AI can eventually clean up both and
make a best-of system that's not clunky ???

It wouldn't hurt to ask. "Hey ChatGPT, clean up X11 and Wayland to
make a best-of system that's not clunky."

Piece of cake! 8)

I am not sure what your programming experience is, but asking an AI to
write any software that is non-trivial, let alone assist with it, is a
waste of time.

You all might be interested in the X11Libre fork of XOrg.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 11:27:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

MAC OS-X worked fine without [X11].

It actually did have it included, right to this day. Lots of “Unix” software (in the sense that Apple aficionados use that term) won’t work without it.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 11:27:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

MAC OS-X worked fine without [X11].

It actually did have it included, right to this day.

macOS has not included X11 for over a decade.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 11:30:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Unlike systemd, which affected everyone's not so sketchy tried and
tested shit. And broke it.

systemd actually had better backward compatibility with sysvinit scripts
than some other service-manager alternatives.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 01:48:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 11:30:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Unlike systemd, which affected everyone's not so sketchy tried and
tested shit. And broke it.

systemd actually had better backward compatibility with sysvinit scripts
than some other service-manager alternatives.

It was a learning experience but systemd/systemctl makes adding and
enabling a new service easy and also adds useful metrics.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2