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?

  • Strit
    70•7 months ago

    there are issues with the software we’re using that can only be remedied by massive changes or a complete rewrite.

    I think this was the main reason for the Wayland project. So many issues with Xorg that it made more sense to start over, instead of trying to fix it in Xorg.

    • Phoenixz
      11•7 months ago

      And as I’ve understood and read about it, Wayland had been a near 10 years mess that ended up with a product as bad or perhaps worse than xorg.

      Not trying to rain on either parade, but x is like the Hubble telescope if we added new upgrades to it every 2 months. Its way past its end of life, doing things it was never designed for.

      Wayland seems… To be missing direction?

      • @LeFantome@programming.dev
        18•7 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
          2•7 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 :)

      • @ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
        5•7 months ago

        I’ve been using Wayland on plasma 5 for a year or so now, and it looks like the recent Nvidia driver has merged, so it should be getting even better any minute now.

        I’ve used it for streaming on Linux with pipewire, overall no complaints.

      • UnfortunateShort
        2•7 months ago

        Wayland is the default for GNOME and KDE now, meaning before long it will become the default for the majority of all Linux users. And in addition, Xfce, Cinnamon and LXQt are also going to support it.

    • @leanleft@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1•7 months ago

      according to kagiGPT…
      ~~i have determined that wayland is the successor and technically minimal:
      *Yes, it is possible to run simple GUI programs without a full desktop environment or window manager. According to the information in the memory:

      You can run GUI programs with just an X server and the necessary libraries (such as QT or GTK), without needing a window manager or desktop environment installed. [1][2]

      The X server handles the basic graphical functionality, like placing windows and handling events, while the window manager is responsible for managing the appearance and behavior of windows. [3][4]

      Some users prefer this approach to avoid running a full desktop environment when they only need to launch a few GUI applications. [5][6]

      However, the practical experience may not be as smooth as having a full desktop environment, as you may need to manually configure the environment for each GUI program. [7][8]*~~

      however… firefox will not run without the full wayland compositor.

      correction:

      1. Wayland is not a display server like X11, but rather a protocol that describes how applications communicate with a compositor directly. [1]

      2. Display servers using the Wayland protocol are called compositors, as they combine the roles of the X window manager, compositing manager, and display server. [2]

      3. A Wayland compositor combines the roles of the X window manager, compositing manager, and display server. Most major desktops support Wayland compositors. [3]