Like anybody cares for what I think, right? Anyway... I made a comment in one of these wayland-related news at linuxtoday and Carla Shroder took the time to ask me:
"...why all that extra complexity to go back to where we were in the first place?"
That's a fair question. By the way, my love to you, Carla. You haven't sent me a comment about pythogoras that I asked you for but I still love you and care for you. :-D
Anyways... the thing is this:
Wayland is going to replace X in Ubuntu and Fedora. That's quite a remarkable statement to make. We are talking about X, the same X that has been there since I started using GNU/Linux about 9 years ago and even many years before that cosmic event, if you will.
But all the GUI applications for UNIX at the time use X, so that means it's going to be a really troublesome change, isn't it? Also, there are really cool and extremely useful features in X like Network Transparency (think of export DISPLAY=blablah:0.0 or ssh -X, pleople) that would disappear from the face of the earth (I'm wondering what I would show my Windows-loving friends now when I start showing them the wonders of GNU/Linux if I don't have network transparency. I'll have to think about that).
As I was saying, I'll (try to) tackle those two questions.
First off, this means a major reworking to get all applications to render on wayland, isn't it? I think it can be solved by hacking the lower layer APIs like Qt or GTK or even at a lower level like wrapping the Wayland API for clients around the X API (update: I think it's viceversa... but you get the concept, don't you?). Then not much work would have to be done on the higher layers (or so the fairy tale theories of software development say). That means applications won't be hurt that much. I'm not implying that it's going to be easy but not much work will have to be required from us mere mortals in that case. Also it means that the switch could be done overnight to start using Wayland.
Then there are things built inside X that would be gone once Wayland makes its debut, right (to be read as "Network Transparency")? What I've read around (won't provide any links but it's very logical) is that X could still use Wayland as just another graphics interface and then you will have X running on top of Wayland and (tadaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) you would get Network Transparency back faster than you can say "mi moto alpina derrapante" (that's a nice joke in spanish... people who are learning spanish should give me a call so that I tell you about it and have a laugh).
But then Carla makes the final killing point: Is all this hassle really worth it?
In all honesty, I don't know. It's still too early in the game to make up my mind weather it will be worth it or not. But if X's complexity/overhead can be cut down and get a faster/lighter/snappier/sexier/whatever-you-consider-important-er environment to spend your time onto, then it could be worth it in the end... specially if (as I said) it won't require much work but on the lower layer APIs.
Now I don't know if switching to Wayland will be really worth it, but was it reading this article worth it after all? I truly hope so.