Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Development Pace Of X.Org Is On The Decline

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    At some point, everything that needs to be done has been done and there is no point to making further changes.
    Change & transformation never stops - this is just reality of existence. I'm not sure what your point or question is - can u be more specific?

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinN View Post
    Change & transformation never stops - this is just reality of existence. I'm not sure what your point or question is - can u be more specific?
    How much change and transformation does the `echo` command need? As for my question, what changes need to be made to Xorg? I suspect that there is not much that needs revision for most people, which is why development activity is declining.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    How much change and transformation does the `echo` command need? As for my question, what changes need to be made to Xorg? I suspect that there is not much that needs revision for most people, which is why development activity is declining.
    Echo vs X? Really?? Come on man.

    You are right - X needs no change. It needs to die. Wayland is the next generation display server. If u want to find out why X needs to change, read the Wayland rationale from the FAQ.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinN View Post
    Echo vs X? Really?? Come on man.

    You are right - X needs no change. It needs to die. Wayland is the next generation display server. If u want to find out why X needs to change, read the Wayland rationale from the FAQ.
    My point is that development of any software should eventually taper off once it matures. More complex software takes longer to mature. X works fine on many systems and needs few changes. If Wayland matures, it will be in the same position.

    As for rationale, I can see applications for Wayland on embedded systems where memory is a premium, but I don't think it makes much difference for most systems people consider to be computers. SGI workstations from the 1980s ran X windows without problems. If computers from the 1980s could run it, then ours should have no problems running it. After all, our computers are many times faster.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •