2 ms·
As I mentioned elsewhere, XWayland isn't actually compatible if you want to support modern applications, for example ones that might expect a systray. ICCM is,
by p_l 6y ago
As I mentioned elsewhere, XWayland isn't actually compatible if you want to support modern applications, for example ones that might expect a systray. ICCM is, iirc, broken (I haven't spent time checking after finding out some apps critical to me didn't work at all).
X11 could be updated a lot. But some of the "weird functionality" is stuff that is slowly becoming available for normal people that was thrown out with the bathwater by GTK3, like ability to use more than 8bit per colour channel.
- roenxi 6y ago> As I mentioned elsewhere, XWayland isn't actually compatible if you want to support modern applications Yeah, Wayland is a bad protocol. It isn't flexible enough to do what X11 does. But if it was a good protocol, and capable of implementing X11, then it would get X11 for free through XWayland. They don't need to reimplement X11. They can use X.org or whatever for that.
- p_l 6y agoMy point is that XWayland, for various reasons, does not replicate X11 fully. So yeah, I can open something like Xnest/Xephyr. At that point, the utility value of Wayland drops ridiculously heavy from my point of view.