3 ms·
> what is flawed with Wayland? The protocol doesn't support most essential features, leaving them up to "compositors" to implement mutually incompatibly. Scree
by nsajko 5y ago
> what is flawed with Wayland?
The protocol doesn't support most essential features, leaving them up to "compositors" to implement mutually incompatibly. Screenshots, accessibility, etc.
Thus Wayland promotes fragmentation and death of the Linux desktop.
On top of not actually solving problems, the protocol manages to be too opinionated, forcing compositing on the user.
- bzzzt 5y agoYou're joking about 'forcing' right? There are so many decisions in modern operating systems that are not easy to change. Are you mad at Linux for 'forcing' you into 'rwx' filesystem security? Or 'forcing' you to use iptables for configuring your firewall? Other desktop environments shifted to compositing 15 years or longer ago since it performs better on modern GPU's than the old 'damage check and repaint' algorithms. I don't think it's impossible to do that with Wayland, but since nobody tried to build that I think interest is very low.
- vidarh 5y agoMost X11 clients that had anything to gain from it also moved to bypassing the legacy X11 drawing primitives about a decade ago.
- kaba0 5y ago> Thus Wayland promotes fragmentation and death of the Linux desktop. First of all, what is dead may never die. Second of all, no, it is false. The core protocol is indeed small (unix philosophy ain’t a good thing now for some reason I guess?), but the extensions are easily queriable and they undergo standardization if they are deemed useful. Would you prefer a single entity giving directions on what has to be included? That would seem pretty antithetical to the whole bazaar style of development.