EDIT: I've only seen that this article is a parody after I've submitted this comment. It makes the comment kinda pointless, but the parody should somehow includ

EDIT: I've only seen that this article is a parody after I've submitted this comment. It makes the comment kinda pointless, but the parody should somehow include that it is a parody (and actually link to the article it is a parody of). Some arguments in my comment seem to also apply to Drews original post, but not all (mostly because he links the platform support in the beginning, providing a source for the hardware/stepping out of the norm-thing). Original comment is below: -- I don't use linux on the desktop, so I don't have any horse in this race. But this article is just plain bad. I've heard often that wayland breaks things, but the author should actually refer to something instead of just saying "yeah it breaks things". The article only spawned questions that it doesn't answer. > Wayland ostensibly supports several dozen extensions, but only the GNOME-blessed extensions can be reasonably expected to work. What does GNOME-blessed mean here? Why would QT or anyone else care for what GNOME blesses? What extensions don't work because "GNOME didn't bless it"? > As someone who has tried to use Wayland (and failed) for even a tier-two platform, I can assure you that it’s a nightmare. Creating a new compositor would be a hellish experience. Why? This is just a statement without any source or proof. Makes it kinda hard to verify. > Ask any distribution packager who works with Wayland to share their horror stories — they have many. Same here. I don't know any distribution packager, so I can't ask. And the article just says "yeah it's bad" without telling how it is bad. > Switching to Wayland breaks things for anyone who steps even a toe out of the norm of GNOME/KDE/wlroots on Linux. What breaks? What is the norm? Without any references these are just words without meaning. > Rewrite-it-in-Wayland has become a moral imperative. Sure, I'm not deep into the linux-desktop game, but I frequent HN everyday, so I think I should've read this somewhere before. Who really says "Rewrite it in Wayland"? (And not "support wayland, too") > Novel hardware which addresses issues like microcode and open hardware, like POWER9 and RISC-V, are also suffering under Wayland’s mainstream-or-bust regime. I really don't undertand wh novel hardware is suffering from Wayland. > Just look at xscreensaver, which I guarantee you has fewer bugs than, say, gnome-screensaver. gnome-screensaver has been abandoned for years (https://gitlab.gnome.org/Archive/gnome-screensaver https://gitlab.gnome.org/Archive/gnome-screensaver) and probably doesn't support Wayland. So the point here is "some software that uses Xorg is safe, other software is not", which ... yeah. Some software is good, some software is bad. Doesn't tell anything about Wayland/Xorg. I think the article has some valid points. Especially the part about the complexity in the third-last paragraph (if it's true, which I cannot verify here because the article doesn't show anything). But the biggest part of the article smells so bad that it's hard to take the whole article seriously.