On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:
Nope, you misunderstood the text.
No. It is *you* that do not understand what X11 is and want it death. A very destructive attitude.
"This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server".
You quote the text and are unable to get the conclusion: having wayland, if you need X11, then you must implement an X11 server. Is it not clear from the text that for upgrading wayland to X11, you must implement X11, and the autor avoided it for keeping it simple? Is it not clear that wayland is *never* a substitute of X11? You confuse X11 with a graphical display, such the old ones of Amiga or MacOS. It was always possible to have it in unix. But that was never the purpose of X11. The graphic display is only a byproduct of X11. I remember in the 1990s that it was possible to run a comercial X11 in Macs: They had their graphical display, but that was neither X11 nor a substituite of it. But you are trying to convince us that wayland is a substitute of X11, that X11 must die. And Xorg / xenocara is not bloat: it runs on meager X11 terminals. The bloat will come with wayland. And X11 imposes an standard. Programs done as X11 clients may run in any OS display in other. Wayland will bring chaos. Rodrigo
