On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:25:50 +0000
The Natural Philosopher  wrote:

> On 07/02/17 23:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> > It is not an implementation of X at all.  See:
> >   https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html
> >
> Simplified to the point of unrecognisability?

 Not even close to X.

> I have to say that X windows was, at its inception (rather like
> postcript) the implementation that could in theory do everything.

 No not really, what X windows was at its inception was a hardware
independent and network transparent graphics protocol. Both of these
features were new and *very* useful and they are still very useful.

 Wayland retains the hardware independence but throws away the
network transparency, which almost certainly makes for a local display that
performs better than X can.

> When all that was needed was the ability to do one thing supremely well.
> Completely Define the pixels on a page or a screen.

 That's partly true if you're dealing with a self contained computer,
but that's not the world X was designed in.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05