5 ms·
To be honest as a mere user Wayland just works. But I had experienced some odd situations that received no attention whatsoever. While with X there was plenty o
by IlPeach 4y ago
To be honest as a mere user Wayland just works. But I had experienced some odd situations that received no attention whatsoever. While with X there was plenty of attention over these details, I do think it was honed over years of inefficiency on the Linux desktop.
I don't see any alternative in sight and can't seem to see a way back to X at all.
- ranguna 4y agoI have never had any problems whatsoever with X. Switching to wayland for a couple days however and everything went to the gutter, text in in most application was pixelated, had to go against the wave because I have an nvidia GPU and had to install an unnecessary amount of other things just to be able to share my screen. Ubuntu even tried to switch to wayland two times and had to revert their decision. I'm not really sure how people in their right mind say wayland is good. Maybe I'm just doing something wrong here, but the experience of installing and forgetting is non existent with wayland, it feels like a clunky experimental wannabe X alternative. Mind you, this was a couple months ago on arch Linux with sway.
- jmprspret 4y agoThis is my experience too
- nebulousthree 4y agoAs soon as you said Nvidia you explained everything.
- ranguna 4y agoAnd as soon as I said X, I fixed everything.
- 0x6c6f6c 4y agoNvidia doesn't provide compatibility with the technology used in sway, so yeah it's really not going to go well for you with that hardware. Better to test with a WM that's more compatible, even GNOME would work better in your scenario.
- smoldesu 4y agoOf course GNOME would work well: GNOME has dedicated Nvidia management code that was deliberately left out of Wayland and wlroots codebases. The only reason that someone would do this is to bait people into using their "more complete" desktop. This is why Wayland is failing.