166
Are there any things in Linux that need to be started over from scratch? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
267 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago* (6 children)

clean it up yourself if you love it so much

Are we 12?

You're telling me a project that has taken 15 years and is just now getting decent nvidia support and which may someday allow applications to position their own windows is rousing success? Compared to a rework of an existing codebase? That has all the signs of a "we bit off more than we could chew".

It'll work, in the end. But 15 years of work on a migration from X11->"X12" or something would have likely been easier. Especially if they didn't ignore nvidia along the way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    Says the guy that believes its propaganda 😂
    Blaming the developers of wayland instead of the company, who refuses to cooperate with them. You are really smart.
    Have you seen the codebase from x11. Multiple developers who have worked on x11 for decades say its not worth the time to fix it. It was not designed to run on modern systems. Yet here you are all knowing and you saying it they are wrong. You know better.
    X11 is dead, get over it and move on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Blaming the developers of wayland instead of the company, who refuses to cooperate with them. You are really smart.

    Look - they needed nvidia to be on board for this to succeed. Not wanted - needed. Yet they ignored them and moved ahead anyway and just blamed nvidia the whole time. And it works because nerds love to hate nvidia. But it's pretty poor project management to think that that would be okay.

    Multiple developers who have worked on x11 for decades say its not worth the time to fix it.

    By and large I believe them. The mistake is thinking a complete from-scratch rewrite that breaks all backwards compatibility to the point where the replacement isn't even feature-parity with the old system is the solution.

    The #1 thing most people wanted was high DPI support and fractional scaling on multiple desktops. I believe they could have managed that in 15 years.

    It was not designed to run on modern systems.

    Neither was Linux. But proper management and migrations to newer platforms means after 30 years it's still running fine. Or do you want to just throw it out and replace it now that it's the same age X was when Wayland was started?

    I mean - I get it. It's tempting to just redo everything "the right way" this time. I accept that Xorg needed lots of work. "Fix or replace" is never an easy question to answer. Replace may even have been the right answer, but Wayland has been a lesson in how not to do it.

    X11 is dead, get over it and move on.

    Child.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •