Did you watch and understand it? This presentation is nothing but a highly one-sided and subjective talk, which gladly bends the truth or leaves out crucial det

Did you watch and understand it? This presentation is nothing but a highly one-sided and subjective talk, which gladly bends the truth or leaves out crucial details to get a good laugh from the audience. Take the whole part about "X terrible IPC" and slow startup time as an example. It's portrayed as if slow startup time is an inherent flaw of X due to blocking IPC calls. However he forgot to mention, that non-blocking calls had been there for years and big projects like Qt were using them exclusively instead of the blocking Xlib calls. Then he goes on to say that Chromium's startup time is so slow because at minimum it waits half a second for replies from the X server. So let's get some current numbers on a T420s for starting up Chromium and immediately closing it: Weston + Chromium (Wayland mode): 731.3 ms ± 39.4 ms Sway + Chromium (Wayland mode): 688.2 ms ± 22.7 ms Sway + Chromium (XWayland): 667.2 ms ± 16.6 ms X.org + i3 + Chromium: 661.3ms ± 17.2 ms I was actually surprised to see how little difference there is, if there's any at all. So either his numbers don't apply anymore and X.org is not a bottleneck anymore, or Wayland became a similar bottleneck, or his numbers never made sense in the first place, especially since he never bechmarked the Wayland part. Edit: On GNOME Shell Chromium also starts slightly faster with X.org with 0.6 - 0.7s and > 0.7s in Wayland mode. *updated benchmark results with the actual results from hyperfine (10 runs each)