"that thing you used to do is now impossible to do consistently across different implementations, if at all. But it's all ok, because we have decided it's not our responsibility!"
That is not what users want to hear. From a user's point of view, it is broken.
I see what you're getting at. It's a matter of perspective, I guess.
If you presented someone with a list of features from two similar but different pieces of software, they wouldn't say software b is broken because it's featureset is different from software a, right? But I acknowledge it's not that straightforward. It's more like telling them software b is going to replace software a that you're currently using, get ready to say goodbye to some features.
I still don't consider wayland broken, but I understand argument that it is.
yes, if i combare kicad with blender, neither is broken because they have different features. But also, nobody is telling users that kicad's days are over and it should be replaced by blender. If they did, and a user wanted to design a circuit board, the user is out of luck. The user is told that it is a replacement. From the user's point of view it most definitely is not.
The probeem isn't just that wayland doesn't do everything x does. But that users are told that it will replace x, deal with it and quit complaining.
We have to keep in mind that the fact that we know what wayland is in the first place puts us squarely into the "technical user" category, not regular users. Regular users are the ones who don't even know (nor should they have to care) what wayland even is
Wayland != X11
Not 100% feature compatible != broken.
My opinion and also a TL;DR: of the article.
"that thing you used to do is now impossible to do consistently across different implementations, if at all. But it's all ok, because we have decided it's not our responsibility!"
That is not what users want to hear. From a user's point of view, it is broken.
I see what you're getting at. It's a matter of perspective, I guess.
If you presented someone with a list of features from two similar but different pieces of software, they wouldn't say software b is broken because it's featureset is different from software a, right? But I acknowledge it's not that straightforward. It's more like telling them software b is going to replace software a that you're currently using, get ready to say goodbye to some features.
I still don't consider wayland broken, but I understand argument that it is.
yes, if i combare kicad with blender, neither is broken because they have different features. But also, nobody is telling users that kicad's days are over and it should be replaced by blender. If they did, and a user wanted to design a circuit board, the user is out of luck. The user is told that it is a replacement. From the user's point of view it most definitely is not.
The probeem isn't just that wayland doesn't do everything x does. But that users are told that it will replace x, deal with it and quit complaining.
We have to keep in mind that the fact that we know what wayland is in the first place puts us squarely into the "technical user" category, not regular users. Regular users are the ones who don't even know (nor should they have to care) what wayland even is