Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:43:57 +0100 From: Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Vote: making wayland=on default Message-ID: <813980de-b5f9-6834-e5ef-28bc76ee2f4c@netfence.it> In-Reply-To: <23098.57983.262947.67141@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <CAECmPwtgtxJ-Nv6_LWoZC14UQ7TRZR%2B6Bg=1TK5=FuKz78hFNQ@mail.gmail.com> <3267de19-6e00-a72a-e2a7-abb322ccf7ac@rawbw.com> <23098.57983.262947.67141@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/20/17 23:21, roberthuff@rcn.com wrote: First off, I'm not trying to bring up any flame... my questions are real and I'd really welcome good answers. > Yuri writes: > >> It appears that this is the case of fixing of something (xorg) >> that wasn't/isn't broken in the first place. And if it is >> considered broken, then how, in which way? I have the same questions Yuri has... I've always seen Wayland enthusiasts saying they can't stand X11 no more, but I've never seen them explain what's wrong with it. N.B. I'm not implying nothing is wrong, I just wish they explained their point. > You ask "Is it broken?". > I ask "Is there a better way?" > ... > I think of X the same way. Fine, I agree with this. So, in what ways is Wayland better? That said, I have nothing against having Wayland support by default. I'm still ssh-ing into remote boxes to run graphical applications and I don't want to see this go away... but I read this is not going to happen (yet?), so it's fine to me. bye av.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?813980de-b5f9-6834-e5ef-28bc76ee2f4c>