4 ms·

The only thing that matters is what works better, and that's Xorg.

ezst 3y ago
Is it, though? Wayland has solved a bunch of problems that I had become used to under Xorg to the point of not noticing anymore, and even though I bumped into new issues on Wayland at first (and tbh there are still few open out there), going back to Xorg nowadays feels like going backwards.
- okasaki 3y ago
  Yeah, Xorg is better. It's faster, more stable, uses less power, and has more features, and more environments. 14 years later there's still no rational reason to run Wayland, and I doubt there ever will be.
  - ezst 3y ago
    I mean, it's funny that you say so, because with the exception of "more environments", I've observed the exact opposite :) I'm a simple user with simple needs, though apparently that's already pushing the limits of what Xorg can deliver: I have a high-DPI laptop scaled 140%, and a secondary high-res/average-DPI display at 100%. Mixing scaling factors has never worked well under Xorg (rendering glitches with ghost lines, applications like drop down terminals not knowing the dimensions of their viewport when opened on one screen and then or the other). And I'm not even getting into the better handling of discrete GPUs or the much smoother scrolling/animations that give it a better polish. Xorg totally made sense in the context in which it was invented (in the long forgotten era of server-side rendering), but with applications rendering their own widgets and passing pixmaps to the compositor, Wayland is mostly about cutting the middleman and breaking-off with the obsolete/unmaintained/insecure bits. If you grab a distro with the latest gnome/kde, you should be at a point where Wayland really is only upsides.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Nope, yes as of now, no wayland is only the things needed instead of being a useless middleman between processes and compositors, has more “things” instead, what environments?

ezst 3y ago

Is it, though? Wayland has solved a bunch of problems that I had become used to under Xorg to the point of not noticing anymore, and even though I bumped into new issues on Wayland at first (and tbh there are still few open out there), going back to Xorg nowadays feels like going backwards.

okasaki 3y ago
Yeah, Xorg is better. It's faster, more stable, uses less power, and has more features, and more environments. 14 years later there's still no rational reason to run Wayland, and I doubt there ever will be.
- ezst 3y ago
  I mean, it's funny that you say so, because with the exception of "more environments", I've observed the exact opposite :) I'm a simple user with simple needs, though apparently that's already pushing the limits of what Xorg can deliver: I have a high-DPI laptop scaled 140%, and a secondary high-res/average-DPI display at 100%. Mixing scaling factors has never worked well under Xorg (rendering glitches with ghost lines, applications like drop down terminals not knowing the dimensions of their viewport when opened on one screen and then or the other). And I'm not even getting into the better handling of discrete GPUs or the much smoother scrolling/animations that give it a better polish. Xorg totally made sense in the context in which it was invented (in the long forgotten era of server-side rendering), but with applications rendering their own widgets and passing pixmaps to the compositor, Wayland is mostly about cutting the middleman and breaking-off with the obsolete/unmaintained/insecure bits. If you grab a distro with the latest gnome/kde, you should be at a point where Wayland really is only upsides.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Nope, yes as of now, no wayland is only the things needed instead of being a useless middleman between processes and compositors, has more “things” instead, what environments?