I don't use any old hardware, and I have argued for a new X server following almost exactly the steps this project outlines.

Good news. The devs of x11 agree and made a replacement called... Way... Oops

Yeah, no, the X11 devs made pretty much all the wrong tradeoffs for me.

K bro. K.

I wonder why Valve disagrees.

Valve ships a Wayland compositor that just runs XWayland for apps and doesn't even expose the Wayland socket by default. I'm really not sure how we're supposed to count that.

Valve being eminently pragmatic, as usual.

Presumably Valve cares about different things than me.

I wonder why you think what Valve does has any relevance to my experience or priorities.

"The devs of x11" is a wide category, considering how many X11 devs weren't even born when X11 was first written. Plenty of X11 devs objected to Wayland and tried to patch X11, but when half the devs decide they want to write a replacement and put the original into maintenance-mode, there's not much you can do.

> there's not much you can do.

You could fork it. X11 hasn't shipped a major release since 2005, the likelihood of a complete overhaul making it upstream was slim to none even in 2009. X11 developers were better-off focusing on stability, and the Wayland devs moved on. There was no conspiracy to kill either project.

Forking a project when the issue is that half of the staff left the project does nothing to alleviate the staffing issue, does it?

Isn't that the greatness of FOSS over commercial software that keeps being spoken about?

So what is it, in one comment you say there were plenty of x11 devs who objected to wayland (please name and show the posts) and on the other hand you say there were not enough to keep an xorg fork going?

People are arguing that fixing the issues in X11 would have been much easier and less work than making wayland. So why could those half of x11 developers who left make wayland while the other half that was left over could not even make one release?

and failed to learn any lesson from X11