> Obviously you have your own understanding of the word "acceleration" too. Can you explain what would you call "accelerated xrender" then?
Something that doesn't really exist. Modern videocards don't have any intrinsic way to accelerate drawing of thick lines (especially with antialiasing), so X-server has to do it in software. Of course, thick lines and everything else can be emulated in shaders but as far as I know, no driver in X.org does this.
> First, as long as you have a single videoadapter having a single thread to work with it is perfectly fine. Second, as long as Xorg uses less than 100% CPU, yes, single-threading is the best design, because it makes X-server faster.
X.org can use 100% of CPU in graphics-intensive apps.
>Third, that's not a limitation of X11 protocol, you know?
It is. There is exactly ONE implementation of X protocol with XRender extension.
>And finally, Wayland/Weston is also single-threaded.
Which is totally fine, because Wayland/Weston do not care about client rendering (unlike X). Moreover, Wayland and Weston have thought-out architecture, so clients can happily render the next frame while Wayland is processing the request to render the current frame.
>The rest of your reasons were just childish excuses like:
If you haven't noticed, I've just used your logic for these reasons.