It kinda cuts both ways, I suspect. Xorg is itself a huge monolithic mess, but it takes all the messy bits into itself and lets you extend it with nice small programs (ex. window managers, screenshot programs, keybinding programs, whatever). Wayland is in some ways actually better because it removes the massive central mess that is the X server... but then forces every other component to deal with those things, and does so in ways that to date play badly with composability in the software (ex. now a "window manager" is a compositor and must do most of what the X server did before, and you can't factor out things like screen capture because that functionality is restricted).
> Wayland is in some ways actually better because it removes the massive central mess that is the X server... but then forces every other component to deal with those things, and does so in ways that to date play badly with composability in the software
This is a great example of Larry Wall's Conservation of Cruft principle. [0]
Exactly. It's why (I think) they haven't really spoken "publicly" about either directly, no listing on the "Software that rocks/sucks" pages, nor on cat-v or any related sites. Both approaches are pretty contradictory to their views on software. It's just that one is more composable than the other, and on top of that is older and a "known evil", I suppose.
cat-v.org is largely untouched since Uriel died in 2012; Wayland existed, but was enough of an experimental new thing in 2012 that I'd be very surprised if cat-v.org mentioned it.
That's fair. I guess I meant more that "network" of related sites and interests, of which I just kind of mentally group together as "cat-v", for better or worse.
