Replacing something featurful with something minimal is silly. The replacement needs to solve the users problems at least as well as the previous solution did.
Decomposing the solution into smaller simpler parts is fine, but you can’t just solve part of the problem and expect the users to be happy about it.
Wayland’s biggest issue is that it was born out of developer frustration, rather than solving a user problem. As such, users have little reason to adopt it.
Replacing something featurful with something minimal is silly.
Unless those features just plain don’t work well in the 21st century. Looking squarely at X11’s network capabilities here, most of which were designed before encrypted remote access became the norm.
It is designed to lack features. It has a purposefully limited scope. Bashing it for it’s goal is weird.
I believe this is called cope
Nope.
Replacing something featurful with something minimal is silly. The replacement needs to solve the users problems at least as well as the previous solution did.
Decomposing the solution into smaller simpler parts is fine, but you can’t just solve part of the problem and expect the users to be happy about it.
Wayland’s biggest issue is that it was born out of developer frustration, rather than solving a user problem. As such, users have little reason to adopt it.
Unless those features just plain don’t work well in the 21st century. Looking squarely at X11’s network capabilities here, most of which were designed before encrypted remote access became the norm.