It has no fundamental architectural advantages. That some newer features are now only implemented on Wayland makes the situation worse.
back
1 comments
No, it definitely does. Features like disparate refresh rates are very difficult to implement in X11 so they weren't. Bear in mind we have exactly one modern X implementation, x.org, and it's very hard to add new features. The codebase is old and complex.
The main strength of Wayland is that it encourages competing implementations. There are many Wayland compositors. That might be interpreted as a downside, but what it allows is innovation and incremental improvement. Something that was just not happening with X.
You could argue that it could have happened with X. What you can't argue is that it did, because it didn't and that's not up for debate. That's just the truth.
And, it doesn't even matter anymore, because x.org isn't being actively developed in any meaningful sense anymore.
No, I don't think this is true and just the usual nonsense used as justification. Some people continue to develop X, so I hope this is sufficient that I can continue to avoid Wayland.
so what you're basically saying is that with the exception of a very few individuals working on xlibre, the developers of xorg, KDE, GNOME and several others are essentially lying about the feasability of continuing with xorg? that, or too incompetent to make the same realization you did?
edit: what are you gonna do if it turns out you cant avoid wayland? have you considered actually reporting the bugs you might see in wayland instead? because the future very much looks like A LOT of things are gonna go more and more wayland, its gonna be with reduced functionality to stay on X