• OwOarchist@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    As far as I’m concerned, it already doesn’t suck.

    Maybe it sucks to develop around and maintain, but as a user? It’s working for me just fine.

    (And, being a stable release LTS kind of guy, I don’t tend to fuck with things that are currently working just fine.)

    • Tanoh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      There is also Xlibre to modernize it and get rid of old cruft. It is still early stages though, so who knows if it will succeed or become abandoned, etc.

      • hexagonwin@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        i hope somebody keeps X alive but xlibre i don’t think would last long. even ignoring the weird antivax conspiracy spamming on LKML, the lead dev confused ^ in C as exponential…

      • toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I personally have no faith in Xlibre, its developer(s?) seem inexperienced and their contributions to x11 codebase are of low quality

        Thankfully there are other projects around keeping x11 alive:

        theres xwayland-satellite, which implements more of x11 in wayland so you can basically run an x11 session with wayland support.

        And than there is phoenix, which is a new implementation of x11. Supposedly it shall have none of the legacy garbage code that makes x11 so hard to maintain.

        • Tanoh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I have no idea about xlibre, never used it just saw that it exists. It sounds like it will likely fail. Phoenix looks more promising, but haven’t used that either. And very much I doubt use anything until Debian offers it as a drop in replacement.

          In general X is battle tested over decades and while there are oddities and warts, but throwing it all away for a whole new set of the same is not going to go smoothly. Which can be seen by the very slow adoptation of wayland.

          But if people like it then they should use it, I just vastly prefer X still. Whenever I try Wayland it feels like a WIP and not nearly ready yet.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      It does horrific things with memory and has decades of technical dept and backwards compatibility

      It isn’t great for the long term

      • Zos_Kia@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        My config is close to 15 years old and I’ve never had any issue with it. What are those horrific things you speak of? How do they affect me? I have no intention to migrate away unless I’m forced by circumstance.

          • ExtremeUnicorn@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            I personally never got that point, because when you multi-screen, wouldn’t you specifically want two of the same model anyway because of color correction, fps and such? I know you can calibrate two different displays, but that will only get you so far and they’ll never look/feel the same.

            I am sure there are use-cases for this, but how common is it that somebody needs this feature?

            What’s much more common imo is connecting a laptop to two entirely different displays and mirroring the output and I had huge issues with Wayland in the past where it would just show half of the screen on either one, depending on resolution. Not sure if I did something wrong, but had to switch to X11 to make it work.

            • Waryle@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              because when you multi-screen, wouldn’t you specifically want two of the same model anyway because of color correction, fps and such?

              Why would I need two 32" ultrawide OLED 165Hz for? I have one for gaming, and a small 14" as a companion.

            • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              That’s the thing: you shouldn’t need to get identical monitors for technical reasons. And Wayland is much closer to that goal.

              • ExtremeUnicorn@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 day ago

                I think I get the point you’re trying to make, but these are hardware factors that just can’t be redeemed with software.

                If you have two completely different panels, you will always have a visible difference, the only real answer is to get matching monitors (and then calibrate them, on top).

                If your screens are gonna look different anyway, why even bother? I don’t get the specific use case (which doesn’t mean there isn’t one).