The vast majority of successful software is arguably based on antiquated principles.
People seem to continually blame X11 as the source of all of Linux's woes, completely ignoring the history of computing.
Most high-end workstations were UNIX-based at one time, and the graphical interface ran on X11. People forget that Photoshop, Internet Explorer, and Adobe Acrobat Reader used to be produced for UNIX and UNIX-like systems.
X11 is not the primary issue at hand with Linux; nVidia has proven that repeatedly.
At most, I'd be willing to agree that X11 is not optimally architected for local rendering context, but again, I don't think that's going to make the huge difference that people seem to imply.
You've just given me a fact I'm already well aware of ("Wayland is being developed...") and then restated that X11 is antiquated, but you've never given me a reason why you think that.
Do you actually know, or are you just repeating something you read somewhere but didn't really understand?
Okay fair enough. No I don't know. It's just what I heard. From what I have understood in the limited knowledge I have of X11, it seems to have no true full screen support, unnecessary layering due to it's legacy client-server architecture and ugly hacks.
Clearly you're passionate about X11 and I would like to hear why it is not antiquated.
Well, it's difficult to explain why something isn't antiquated, but on the points you raised:
1. You misunderstood the full-screen thing. X11 does have proper full screen. The trouble is that it's a bit too proper: the full screen app receives all the keyboard instructions, so how do you switch to a different app? The app needs to release some keys to you, or you need to exit or kill it. This isn't so good for games where you might have a chat program running in the background.
2. The client-server architecture is not really relevant since it uses sockets when it's on localhost.
3. Ugly hacks? Anything more specific?
X11 is a modular architecture and the very fact it's still in use suggests it's an effective one. Look at the difficulty Microsoft had getting compositing working (XP -> Vista), but it was added to X11 without having to invent a brand new windowing system.
I'm not quite as passionate about X11 as you might think. It's not so long ago that I was arguing that I'm excited to see what Wayland and Mir can produce. But it's not because X11 is bad, it's because I think things can be even better.
People seem to continually blame X11 as the source of all of Linux's woes, completely ignoring the history of computing.
Most high-end workstations were UNIX-based at one time, and the graphical interface ran on X11. People forget that Photoshop, Internet Explorer, and Adobe Acrobat Reader used to be produced for UNIX and UNIX-like systems.
X11 is not the primary issue at hand with Linux; nVidia has proven that repeatedly.
At most, I'd be willing to agree that X11 is not optimally architected for local rendering context, but again, I don't think that's going to make the huge difference that people seem to imply.