Hacker News Reader

Comment by yjftsjthsd-h | Hacker News Reader

> Because they didn't have the sharp focus of Android and kept a lot of crap from Linux (like X11 sigh)

X11 let them use existing apps outright and made porting easy. What else would they have used at that time and what advantage would it give them?

View on HN

X11 support was also part of the early Mac OS X – even part of marketing pages, afair.

Barely. It was originally a XFree86 project called XDarwin, adopted by Apple as a beta release for Jagwire in 2002, was an optional install in Panther and Tiger, default install in Leopard~Lion, and then was abandoned again in favor of the community-supported XQuartz after 2011:

https://xonx.sourceforge.net/ “XFree86, a free implementation of the X Window System, has been ported to Darwin and Mac OS X. […] Our work has been included in Apple's X11 for Mac OS X. ”

https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/x11-jaguar

https://www.xquartz.org/

The Nokia N9 used Wayland.

I don't disagree with this, it had a lot of advantages. But at the same time I don't think it was good enough for the purpose

Because if it was good enough why didn't Android keep it?

Actually that's an interesting question; why didn't Android use X11? A few minutes of web searching don't seem to turn up anybody commenting on it; do you happen to know how I would check what their reasons were?

probably because it's to complex. I think the earliest android demos were probably just writing to the framebuffer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com