Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:21:51 -0500 From: roberthuff@rcn.com To: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> Cc: Johannes Lundberg <johalun0@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Vote: making wayland=on default Message-ID: <23098.57983.262947.67141@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <3267de19-6e00-a72a-e2a7-abb322ccf7ac@rawbw.com> References: <CAECmPwtgtxJ-Nv6_LWoZC14UQ7TRZR%2B6Bg=1TK5=FuKz78hFNQ@mail.gmail.com> <3267de19-6e00-a72a-e2a7-abb322ccf7ac@rawbw.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? You ask "Is it broken?". I ask "Is there a better way?" Think about gcc: it was developed in the mid '80s, and at the time was pretty dang impressive. But over time ... "provisional" hacks to handle less-common hardware or specific software anomalies became permanently entrenched (or so I am told) even as hardware changed, and both compiler technology and coding practices improved. I think of X the same way. To the list: I salute X for doing its job, but I have no brand loyalty. If something comes along that is some combination of a) more robust, b) faster, and c) as easy to install/manage I'll switch in a heartbeat. (Smaller footprint would be nice too.) Is that Wayland? Fact not (yet) in evidence. Is Wayland-on-FreeBSD in active development? If so: where - other than ports@ - do I go to check the /status quo/? Respectfully, Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?23098.57983.262947.67141>