Re: Wayland vs X
The Wanderer wrote:
>>> There may be multiple reasons, but one of them is that the
>>> feature set supported by Wayland (and/or the associated
>>> protocol, if any) is not a superset of the feature set
>>> supported by the X protocol.
>>
>> They should have covered everything used anyway ... this
>> must be a blunder on their part.
>
> My understanding (which is at best secondhand, and may well
> not be fully accurate, if accurate at all) is that they
> thought they *were* doing that, since obviously that one
> feature is a historical curiosity which can't possibly be
> useful to anybody, and is only present in the spec because
> the people who wrote the spec mistakenly thought it might
> turn out to be useful.
>
> Only to discover later that people actually *did* use that
> feature, but by that point it was too late to implement that
> feature in Wayland without breaking a lot of other things
> and/or requiring a deeper redesign than would be
> deemed practical.
Sounds like poor design/modularity to begin with ...
--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal
Reply to: