[dodomodo]

You have to understand that I don't really care about the internals of my DE. The same of true for 95% of Linux users and 99.999% of general computer users, so when I see a huge amount of effort goes into basically seemingly pointless refactoring, instead of tackling issues that are actually important to users, it is disappointing to me. I just installed KDE Manjaro and guess what? It stills uses X, and no one has an answer to what benefit Wayland has for me.

[yyyk]

Software bitrots. Sometimes it's compiler stuff, sometimes the very usecase changes (few used the network design of X, or server-side fonts, etc. etc.). The way X got no 'attention' (so to speak) made the new technical design (passing away responsibilities) inevitable. It would have just happened slower had Wayland not existed.

[gosub100]

> seemingly pointless refactoring, instead of tackling issues that are actually important to users

its not a dichotomy. Xorg was built on X11R6, a platform that was written circa 1993. You cannot "tackle issues important to users" based on an outdated stack. They were painted into numerous corners that only a rewrite would fix.

[simlevesque]

Security.

You said you did your research so I have to believe that you don't care about security.

But most people care.

[dodomodo]

The threats models I have seen are easy enough to deal with inside the X ecosystem. And investing all your resources into a new system that is not backward compatible is something no serious security person would do as it leaves your existing users vulnerable

[johnisgood]

Thankfully you no longer have to be root to start X.

[yyyk]

That particular scenario (listening in on other apps) is very theoretical, can you recall any attack ever using it? IIRC Windows still has the same 'ability' - and nobody cares.

[gf000]

Well, do you also second guess your surgeon? Why do you think you have enough domain and technical knowledge to consider your "seemingly pointless" to be relevant?

[johnisgood]

You should definitely second guess your doctor, or get a second opinion[1]. I mean everyone knows you should NEVER abruptly stop benzodiazepines due to lethal/fatal withdrawal symptoms, right? Guess what? Most of the psychiatrists I have encountered do not give a damn. It is coming from both first-hand and second-hand experiences. So yeah, you are right to second guess. Were it up to my doctors, I would have been long dead. And because I was not in the right state to second guess my doctor, I am forever left with immobility issues. I should have gotten a week long corticosteroid therapy for MS relapse. I did not, because the doctor did not give a fuck, and I was too stupid to NOT second guess. Unfortunately they do not give a damn about you here, but you should. FWIW everything I have said do not require me to have a PhD or Dr. next to my name. It is on Wikipedia, books on psychiatry, pharmacology, and so forth. It is "common knowledge" in the field that you are supposed to taper off these medications gradually, never abruptly.

[1] You would never guess the amount of times I have encountered doctors questioning the practices of another doctor. :P It happened so many times...