Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> i have no trouble running X on a "weak" computer.

Well, obviously, your "weak" computer is powerful enough to handle X. Remember that not all computers are desktops, laptops, or phones. We have Linux running on industrial PLC's, CNC machines, and so many other things that are not thought of as "computers". There are buyers of these at even extremely low price-points, so it's not uncommon to host everything on one processor.

> Frankly, the very thought that X is bloated seem insane

Quit the empty snark. Have you actually compared X and VNC for remote access? Try running Firefox from a remote desktop. To understand what's going on, watch the talk I linked to in my previous comment.




Yeah i have seen it, and it was a whole lot of preaching to the choir and snark.

As for running a GUI on a PLC, wtf?

Then again, i should not be surprised. Wayland and the rest seems to have come out of the nuttier side of Nokia's Maemo project.


> As for running a GUI on a PLC, wtf?

Seriously? You find this[2] surprising?

People have real needs, and they are working on solutions, be it Wayland, Mir, Freon, running GUI on a PLC, or whatever else. I get that you don't have these needs, but can't you even understand that other people do? Have you compared X and VNC yet?

[2] http://www.omega.com/pptst/EZSerTouchPLC.html


A 32-bit variant of the 68000? Heh, didn't think that lineage was still around.

That said, i can't say i see what Wayland will bring to it thats not already satisfied by the Linux framebuffer.


Wayland gives you a formal system for efficiently drawing multiple windows and roles. A framebuffer is only usable by one process for its UI.

Also: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=x_waylan...




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: