> It's funny that in one paragraph you talk about how optional extensions are great and then in the next paragraph you blame OpenGL for optional extensions.
I'm not blaming OpenGL, I'm just telling that it's not easier to use than XRender.
> SNA does not work anywhere except for i965 hardware. So it's kinda irrelevant. Besides, it's only used to implement XRender.
You're wrong here. Check http://www.x.org/wiki/IntelGraphicsDriver at least. But I wasn't asking where it works, I was asking why it works faster on the same hardware. Hint: because it uses hardware-specific optimisations for 2D rendering, impossible outside of the driver, impossible in Wayland.
> Nope. Wayland simply doesn't need it.
That universal excuse "I don't need it"... Wayland doesn't need anything. It just makes optimised 2D interface impossible, and it does not care that almost everything in modern interface is 2D.
> That used to be true 5 years ago. Now OpenGL standards mandate the required extension sets
And new extensions appear... So the problem is still there.
> BTW, how can I check that a certain feature of XRender is accelerated?
You don't need to check that. That's the beauty of XRender. You only need to check that it's supported. And it is supported for 10+ years.
Acceleration is up to the driver. To make sure if it's really accelerated you have to benchmark it. That applies to both GL and XRender. Because on some drivers/hardware some "accelerated" features actually work slower than software rendering.