[johnklos]

> They have no problem with X11 coexisting

You have it wrong. Rather than reuse parts of X11, like the compositors that support hardware that nobody will ever be paid to support, Wayland is trying to reinvent the wheel and replace X11, with support for only what's new and/or popular.

> However everyone demanding X11 is really demanding Wayland designers stop their work and go back to X11 - and none of them are paying for that.

Absolutely nobody is demanding that Wayland developers should stop their work and go back to working on X11. Nobody. That's a ridiculous, hyperbolic statement.

What some of us would like to see is Wayland not try to make everything either/or. But, just like systemd, things started with, "you can do both", then went to, "it's harder to do both, but you can", then to, "the old way is dead, so stop writing code that supports it", and eventually to, "let's completely rip out the old way of doing it because "maintenance" and everyone will be forced to use the new way". GNOME is already doing this, even though it's supposed to be open source, platform agnostic and portable.

The fact that you bring up paid work shows you're happy to accept idea that support for things is only worth what people will pay for it. Consider how that fits with corporatization, and consider how that fits with open source in general.

In other words, should all open source project be drivable by some corporation deciding to just throw money at something?

If you think about this for more than 30 seconds, you may finally understand why those of us who aren't fans of the corporatization of Linux and aren't fans of projects that don't interoperate and ultimately end up fragmenting the open source software world are not fans of the eventual consequences of projects like Wayland.

It's not "X11 is great and Wayland sucks" - it's "why is this project fragmenting things rather than interoperating, and why are people so eager to be led by corporations in to supporting corporate interests?"

[bluGill]

> The fact that you bring up paid work shows you're happy to accept idea that support for things is only worth what people will pay for it. Consider how that fits with corporatization, and consider how that fits with open source in general.

No, I bring up paid work because somebody needs to do the work. Either do the work yourself, or pay someone to do the work.

If you are not willing to do either than shut up: you get no voice. While you can ask someone else to do something, you don't get to force them.

I'm not willing to develop X11. Thus I'm going to let the people who are doing the work do that work even if I don't agree.

[johnklos]

You try to make it either/or in the most overly simplistic way possible. I wonder if you do, in fact, know that it's not a matter of only one or the other, but instead of acknowledging that, you'd rather pretent to be ignorant.

Don't tell me to shut up. That's not very nice, no matter your justification. The open source world is definitely not do it yourself or pay, and everyone else needs to shut up. Again, it's more likely that you know this, but you want to be intentionally antagonistic.

You also neatly avoid discussing what I brought up. These things all make me think you're not participating in good faith.

[EmanueleAina]

> because "maintenance"

I like those scare quotes. They really show the lack of respect for the people who actually maintain the stuff you use daily, most of them in their free time, including the ones that get paid (all the paid maintainers I know go well beyond the work hours, by a big margin).

[johnklos]

I'm one of those people. I compile thousands of open source packages on VAX, m68k, SuperH and other less popular architectures. I think I know at least a bit about how much of this "maintenance" is repeated-but-not-substantiated bull and how much is real.

Claiming that actual maintainers spend more than trivial amounts of time on "maintaining" endianness correctness, I think, is somewhat disrespectful to those maintainers.