> It also "simply" provides all that information to X-clients and "simply" allows them to configure and use it. Xorg also has methods and standards for communications among all the X clients.
>Sure, if Xorg was just about drawing, but it's not. That's why after 5 years of Wayland development it's still not much better than Windows 2.0, except being true-color.
You can just say: "I know nothing about Wayland". It'd be much more concise and clear. Okay?
>Makes sense? For what? Who's going to win from that? It adds more work for toolkit developers.
It also adds very nice features ("every pixel's perfect, every pixel's great") that are not possible in X and works significantly faster on modern hardware. Toolkit developers actually don't seem to complain about evil Wayland developers forcing them to write yet another backend - instead toolkits are glad because Wayland opens them a way to yet another class of devices.
> And Wayland has what? Or are you trying to say that X works when Wayland does not? Well, that's true.
Yep. Because we really care about Ye Olde VGA adapters that X-server still supports.