One thing I saw in comments about the removal of xorg server is that some might not see how much work is/was to maintain xorg server. I understand is hard to see from outside, but maintaining xorg server with the standards we have in RHEL is not a small beast. Let me share some:
Seems like a redhat problem, so why is he complaining. It wasn’t the developer who signed an agreement to maintain xorg, so I don’t get the argument. Either you do it for the money you get paid, and if you don’t feel like it’s enough, then don’t do it. The developer can just quit and do something else, ask for another project. The only one who is making him work on xorg is redhat.
But why even mention m it in the same context as Wayland, make Wayland work for the end user and 90% of people would not care if thier Linux machine was using Wayland or xorg.
Yes I’ve had multiple issues with video conferencing on Wayland, but my experience is 1 - 2 years old. I just use what works, I don’t have any technical problems with xorg and that is why I use it.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Seems like a redhat problem, so why is he complaining. It wasn’t the developer who signed an agreement to maintain xorg, so I don’t get the argument. Either you do it for the money you get paid, and if you don’t feel like it’s enough, then don’t do it. The developer can just quit and do something else, ask for another project. The only one who is making him work on xorg is redhat.
But why even mention m it in the same context as Wayland, make Wayland work for the end user and 90% of people would not care if thier Linux machine was using Wayland or xorg.
Yes I’ve had multiple issues with video conferencing on Wayland, but my experience is 1 - 2 years old. I just use what works, I don’t have any technical problems with xorg and that is why I use it.
Just let xorg die.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]