| The part that really sums things up for me was: "XI) “But Eric, if X11 is so terrible why not just make X12 rather than a whole new protocol?” They did, technically anyway: http://www.x.org/wiki/Development/X12 One big problem with keeping it under the “X” umbrella: Anyone who cares about X would have a say in a future version of it. By calling it “Wayland” they avoid that issue. No one cares. Its an unrelated project, they (the developers) can do what THEY want with their future display server, the people who care about X can go to make X12." Which makes much sense. Given X11 has been around for many many years, albiet various revisions. Heck was only earlier today looking at a old book of mine on X11 from 1989 (X11R4) and recall what a curve it was back then. So I can understand the legacy hangover aspect and with that moving to a new design/brandname enabled many short cuts in the paperwork and other programming politics aspects. With that the 25 years is mooted much in this document about how old X is and with that the book I have is a first edition and also around the time which graphics cards started to become available, albiet expensive (recalling a 10k black and white X station by NCR). Not touched coding on wayland (or indeed X for umpteen years) but would be interesting in how they compare and indeed how they also compare to coding in a standard desktop GUI. |