One thing I saw in comments about the removal of xorg server is that some might not see how much work is/was to maintain xorg server. I understand is hard to see from outside, but maintaining xorg server with the standards we have in RHEL is not a small beast. Let me share some:
But that’s what they’re doing? Removing X.org means removing the need for project maintainers to ensure X.org still works. IBM/Red Hat and Canonical have to maintain X.org because they shipped it with their LTS distros that people pay money for so they don’t need to worry about projects going unmaintained.
When Ubuntu 24.04 or CentOS whatever launches without X.org, that means they only need to support old versions of X.org for old versions of applications, and newer applications from external sources don’t get any support guarantee.
You can’t just randomly drop a project when you’re done when people paid you for the guarantee that the software will work for the next ten years. Sunsetting a project like this is a long, slow process. It’s also not a very enjoyable job to do, because you know the exact date where all of your hard work will stop being relevant while others around you are working on new, much better architected software.
I don’t know what your problem with video conferencing is, video conferencing works fine over Wayland.
Seems like a redhat problem, so why is he complaining. It wasn’t the developer who signed an agreement to maintain xorg, so I don’t get the argument. Either you do it for the money you get paid, and if you don’t feel like it’s enough, then don’t do it. The developer can just quit and do something else, ask for another project. The only one who is making him work on xorg is redhat.
But why even mention m it in the same context as Wayland, make Wayland work for the end user and 90% of people would not care if thier Linux machine was using Wayland or xorg.
Yes I’ve had multiple issues with video conferencing on Wayland, but my experience is 1 - 2 years old. I just use what works, I don’t have any technical problems with xorg and that is why I use it.
His profile states he’s the engineering manager in the GPU team for Red Hat. I doubt a day goes by that he doesn’t need to deal with X.org and it’s issues. His opinions on X.org are an important counterweight to the “Wayland broke my Xeyes and murdered my cat” comments underneath every article mentioning the impending death of X.org on the Linux desktop.
“Why mention it in the same context as Wayland”: because Wayland is replacing X.org, that change will impact his daily work, and the comments he’s responding to are all in response to the move to Wayland.
But that’s what they’re doing? Removing X.org means removing the need for project maintainers to ensure X.org still works. IBM/Red Hat and Canonical have to maintain X.org because they shipped it with their LTS distros that people pay money for so they don’t need to worry about projects going unmaintained.
When Ubuntu 24.04 or CentOS whatever launches without X.org, that means they only need to support old versions of X.org for old versions of applications, and newer applications from external sources don’t get any support guarantee.
You can’t just randomly drop a project when you’re done when people paid you for the guarantee that the software will work for the next ten years. Sunsetting a project like this is a long, slow process. It’s also not a very enjoyable job to do, because you know the exact date where all of your hard work will stop being relevant while others around you are working on new, much better architected software.
I don’t know what your problem with video conferencing is, video conferencing works fine over Wayland.
Seems like a redhat problem, so why is he complaining. It wasn’t the developer who signed an agreement to maintain xorg, so I don’t get the argument. Either you do it for the money you get paid, and if you don’t feel like it’s enough, then don’t do it. The developer can just quit and do something else, ask for another project. The only one who is making him work on xorg is redhat.
But why even mention m it in the same context as Wayland, make Wayland work for the end user and 90% of people would not care if thier Linux machine was using Wayland or xorg.
Yes I’ve had multiple issues with video conferencing on Wayland, but my experience is 1 - 2 years old. I just use what works, I don’t have any technical problems with xorg and that is why I use it.
Just let xorg die.
His profile states he’s the engineering manager in the GPU team for Red Hat. I doubt a day goes by that he doesn’t need to deal with X.org and it’s issues. His opinions on X.org are an important counterweight to the “Wayland broke my Xeyes and murdered my cat” comments underneath every article mentioning the impending death of X.org on the Linux desktop.
“Why mention it in the same context as Wayland”: because Wayland is replacing X.org, that change will impact his daily work, and the comments he’s responding to are all in response to the move to Wayland.