Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ElectroBuffoon 226 days ago
It's like if Wayland is not just a graphical system, but a full business plan.

Control upstream, then companies wanting solutions will go to you first. Because why go to someone else in the FOSS market, when there is no certainty the code or standard (extension, protocol, etc) will get accepted, forcing you to maintain a fork? With IBM-RH and Ubuntu doings eg., it's hard to say FOSS is immune to vendor lock-in.
1 comments
throwaway7486 226 days ago
> It's like if Wayland is not just a graphical system, but a full business plan. Control upstream, then companies wanting solutions will go to you first.

Wayland is open source with a fixed core protocol that's extremely stable, which anyone can build on. New protocols are constantly proposed. The core is minimal and defines how applications interact with the compositor to render and produce the final output. Control by a single entity is virtually impossible. Wayland ensures everyone has a voice because it's an open protocol which means discussion and development are done in the public.

link
froh 225 days ago
in _reality_ it gives stack owners full proprietary control.

specifically the wslg stack does not enable Linux gui apps to smoothly integrate with the Windows window manager, because some bits are missing in the Windows Wayland stack, clipboard, window decorations, thumbnails, maximize into a part of the monitor? nope. and no patches taken. supposed you figure where to offer them and how.

link
throwaway7486 225 days ago
It's unfair to claim Wayland is inherently different from X11 in this regard. Both are just specifications, and there are also proprietary implementations of the X11 protocol, primarily for Windows and enterprise settings.
link
froh 223 days ago
The point is: the X11 spec is much more complete.
link