I’m curious how software can be created and evolve over time. I’m afraid that at some point, we’ll realize there are issues with the software we’re using that can only be remedied by massive changes or a complete rewrite.
Are there any instances of this happening? Where something is designed with a flaw that doesn’t get realized until much later, necessitating scrapping the whole thing and starting from scratch?
Look - they needed nvidia to be on board for this to succeed. Not wanted - needed. Yet they ignored them and moved ahead anyway and just blamed nvidia the whole time. And it works because nerds love to hate nvidia. But it’s pretty poor project management to think that that would be okay.
By and large I believe them. The mistake is thinking a complete from-scratch rewrite that breaks all backwards compatibility to the point where the replacement isn’t even feature-parity with the old system is the solution.
The #1 thing most people wanted was high DPI support and fractional scaling on multiple desktops. I believe they could have managed that in 15 years.
Neither was Linux. But proper management and migrations to newer platforms means after 30 years it’s still running fine. Or do you want to just throw it out and replace it now that it’s the same age X was when Wayland was started?
I mean - I get it. It’s tempting to just redo everything “the right way” this time. I accept that Xorg needed lots of work. “Fix or replace” is never an easy question to answer. Replace may even have been the right answer, but Wayland has been a lesson in how not to do it.
Child.
I will take you seriously when you stop taking the side of a mega corporation. And stop calling someone a child because you don’t like the truth. Good bye. Have luck staying on x11
I’ll stop calling you a child when you stop acting like one.