I’m curious how software can be created and evolve over time. I’m afraid that at some point, we’ll realize there are issues with the software we’re using that can only be remedied by massive changes or a complete rewrite.

Are there any instances of this happening? Where something is designed with a flaw that doesn’t get realized until much later, necessitating scrapping the whole thing and starting from scratch?

  • @LeFantome@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    178 months ago

    I do not want to fight and say you misunderstood. Let’s just say you have been very influenced by one perspective.

    Wayland has taken a while to fully flesh out. Part of that has been delay by the original designers not wanting to compromise their vision. Most of it is just the time it takes to replace something mature ( X11 is 40 years old ). A lot of what feels like Wayland problems actually stem from applications not migrating yet.

    While there are things yet to do, the design of Wayland is proving itself to be better fundamentally. There are already things Wayland can do that X11 likely never will ( like HDR ). Wayland is significantly more secure.

    At this point, Wayland is either good enough or even superior for many people. It does not yet work perfectly for NVIDIA users which has more to do with NVIDIA’s choices than Wayland. Thankfully, it seems the biggest issues have been addressed and will come together around May.

    The desktop environments and toolkits used in the most popular distros default to Wayland anlready and will be Wayland only soon. Pretty much all the second tier desktop environments have plans to get to Wayland.

    We will exit 2024 with almost all distros using Wayland and the majority of users enjoying Wayland without issue.

    X11 is going to be around for a long time but, on Linux, almost nobody will run it directly by 2026.

    Wayland is hardly the Hubble.

    • Phoenixz
      link
      fedilink
      28 months ago

      Well, as I said, it’s what I read. If it’s better than that, great. Thanks for correcting me

      Also, X is Hubble, not Wayland :)