There are many projects that like the 'unix way', & there are companies who have vested interests in certain distros.

These companies make money by offering technical services, & that is where systemd, (& to a lesser extent pulseaudio), come into the picture.

They want to see monolithic software projects that are complex to administer for businesses, so that they can sell them their services.

Linux, has been seen to be trying to get a share of the desktop market, & these companies would like that, but the average user just wants something that works as a (free) replacement for MS Windows. Linux may eventually go two different ways, but as long as the kernel developers prevent any contamination at that level, we should be able to have both.

The BSDs have always been more unix like than Linux, & I don't see them changing much.

X11 is the engineering equivalent of an 80 year old rickety bridge that's been shored up half as many times as it is years old. After they get everything straight with XWayland, you'll be able to run X11 apps there. Eventually, I expect the developers will stop updating XServer all together, except for XWayland.

Last I looked, the BSD guys were working on the Wayland port, probably modifying it to better work with their kernel and/or remove any GNU Tools dependencies. I don't know for sure but, if BSD is not planning to move to Wayland, then I have to wonder why they put all that KMS stuff in the FreeBSD kernel.

I'm all for keeping things that work, except those that have become more trouble than they are worth to maintain. I'm sure CBM-DOS still works fine too, but there's little interest in continuing its development for good reason: it's ill suited for modern hardware. Just like X11 is ill suited for modern interface design. I'm sure there are people working on "lightweight" Wayland wm-compositors and not just KDE/Gnome sized projects. They'll be needed for IoT and embedded after all...

As detailed in this thread, some people are working on porting wayland for some of the *BSD projects, but this doesn't mean a lot at this stage.

It's not related. As I understand it, KMS/DRM was implemented mainly because the upstream intel and radeon Linux drivers required it (UMS was abandoned and KMS made mandatory) and because people wanted to work on it. For a time some of the *BSDs still provided the old UMS drivers for those who still needed them, but I'm not sure if this is still the case nowadays.

so allllllllllllllll the work made on X11 will be waste!!

x11 will be supported for 1-2 years, and all BSD and LINUX world will end with its graphics.
Borland graphics library was the same for long time ago.

Graphical applications are the most unreliable things to make and to maintain. Why to programme if developer have fun changing the libraries all the 10-20 years?

:rolleyes:

Apparently, the developers whom are working on it think so. You know... sometimes they actually demolish whole buildings before building a new one too.

The example it no so much comparable. Building are livings which are touching only a localized region of population.

"Informatic has become key of our living."
If you would say, we replace current pipes (for water, under the ground) by another metallic/plastic pipes. But, this would happen readily tomorrow, everywhere on all over the planet. No one on this planet would have water. They would be construction jobs everywhere. Everyone would have to install again.
Like in informatics, you would do it every 2-5 years regularly.

Well you seem to be interested in minimal memory footprint and less bloat in your other threads, yet here you seem to cling on to code from the 80s, much of which is bloat, cruft, you name it... and isn't used on today's, mainly x86 based, workstations.

I learn programming and give great passionate efforts. Despite all changes of informatics, I make sure not to program something that will not work in 5-6 years. Why to start again and again? How many companies did make the choice of using for instance microsoft standards, visual basic,... and got some money investment to move to the new microsoft standards. This is a evil way to make money, from making people fully dependent. companies haven't much choices. microsoft has quite some euros. maybe few euros so that I can buy something faster than a very slow notebook. ;)

Uh, no?

Only the applications and libraries that make X11 calls directly would need to be updated. That's "updated". Not "waste". Most of them interact with X via middleware such as, oh, GTK. For those, you'd update GTK so that it works with Wayland, and then leave the application as-is.

It is just updated means time huge time loss and money. "Just" might be very expensive.

Developers might say, this is just a new library.

Example. Let's take a cool example:
Many companies run virtualbox/vmware to run old windows softwares for using very expensive equipment. Not 50-400$, I mean. Rather some millions ;)

Change for the sake of change is pointless and, as you call it, a waste. However, not all change is pointless. Sometimes change is an improvement. I also do not considser updates to be changes. X11 has evolved with many additions and updates. I am not stating an opinion, but merely posing the questions: Have all the those additions made X11 combersome? If so, is it time to replace it with something new and simpler?

Indeed, you are completely right.

Change must be made if there is a strong and good reason.

The freedom of change is for everyone different. Since the distros will make the decision for you, the individuals have no choice.

A group of persons can compile (developers) for individuals, if they have some time and energy. But this is not an obligation. There is likely no choice either.

It seems to me that FreeBSD and other will keep X11 for some time. But will it be possible that we go through the new Y?

Will x11, such as tinywm source code be still compatible?


DragonflyBSD
Latest release: 4.8.
X11: third party (dport or package) X.Org 7.7
Other direction:Wayland, experimental
FreeBSD
Latest release: 11.0.
X11: third party (port or package) X.Org 7.7
Other direction:Wayland / Weston, experimental
NetBSD
Latest release: 7.1.
X11: integrated X.Org or XFree86, or third party (pkgsrc) modular X.Org
Other direction:Wayland, experimental
OpenBSD
Latest release: 6.1.
X11: integrated X.Org 7.7
Other direction:Wayland, experimental

Who can say...?

If you're committed to a switch to FreeBSD, then it's best to just use that and not bother fretting about what will or will not be supported in the future.

In OpenBSD for example, I can't see the integrated X.org (xenocara) going anywhere any time soon. But if it does, it will be years after the Linux people abandon it and move to whatever 'replaces' it. Whatever "it" is, it will only replace X.org in the OpenBSD base system if it fits the necessary criteria/requirements. Even then X.org could still be available or would move to ports.

In FreeBSD, where X.org is part of the ports tree, X.org will stay around as long as someone wants to maintain the port.

With the *BSDs in general, it's more about technical exchanges and pragmatism. Fanclub type behaviour and ideological chit chat doesn't gain much traction.

In the FreeBSD ports tree there is graphics/wayland, graphics/wayland-protocols, x11-servers/wayland, x11-toolkits/wlc (Wayland compositor library) and x11/kf5-kwayland (KF5 Client and Server library wrapper for the Wayland libraries).

https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cg...land&stype=all


If Xorg is going away any time soon I haven't heard about it, which means next to nothing. It works for me so I don't really have a bias against it. I'll go with whatever they decide and learn to love it.

I just rebuilt all 3 of my FreeBSD boxen tonight and timed how long it took each to compile Xorg from ports:

AMD Phenom II x 3 @ 2.1GHz and 4GB RAM 3hrs 20 mins
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2,0GHz with 4GB RAM - 4hrs 30 mins
Intel Duo Core @ 1.60GHz and 2GB RAM - 7hrs 30 mins

Time is one thing I do have ATM so it's not really an issue for me. I was just curious and wanted to document it.

I have an OpenBSD box with xenocara and can't tell the difference in the end product from Xorg. Only that I could boot directly into a desktop without having to built it separately.