3 ms·

I'm not sure you get to decide what is controversial and what's mainstream without hard numbers behind your statements. As a single datapoint, I can say that sy

by zaat 3y ago

I'm not sure you get to decide what is controversial and what's mainstream without hard numbers behind your statements. As a single datapoint, I can say that systemd is awesome but Wayland is still crap, whenever I try to stick with it I hit a stupid issue within few weeks, debug and analyze for a week, then when I remember that I have enabled Wayland I go back to X and everything just work. I have zero ideological or personal affiliation here, I just want my stuff to work.

memefrog 3y ago
I don't really care whether you have issues with something Wayland-related. You can't "enable Wayland" anyway because Wayland isn't software, it's just a protocol. If you have a problem with Wayland it's like having a problem when you enable HTTP/2 on your web server. The problem is with the particular server, or the particular browser, or something in between. If you have a Wayland issue, you don't have a Wayland issue, you actually have a Gnome issue or a Firefox issue or something. Regardless there is no 'Wayland debacle' that Linux is 'going through' with 'no clear path forwards'. There is a clear path forwards, and it isn't really controversial at all. Wayland is the clear path forwards, and in the long-run is the clearly better choice. But it is a big change and in an "ecosystem" that is so decentralised that kind of change takes a long, long time. Enabling Wayland in your particular environment might not be the best choice yet, whether because of bugs with your desktop environment or the applications you use, or because of features that aren't there yet or just general instability. But for most people it's been enabled for years and years now and it's just... better. No more screen tearing, no more buggy insecure X display server. It says something powerful that people whinged and moaned at first about it, but that their revealed preferences tell a different story: nobody was so annoyed that they were prepared to maintain X going forward. Clearly it can't actually be that important to them.
- acka 3y ago
  Conspicuously absent from your arguments why Wayland isn't controversial: NVIDIA. Trick question long did it take to settle the controversy over which memory manager to use? The answer is indeterminable, as it is still ongoing. The NVIDIA proprietary drivers used with GBM and Wayland still work like crap, the driver architecture is stacked heavily in favor of EGLStreams, and there is no fix but to either switch to Nouveau and lose performance, CUDA, and lots of HW-accelerated video codecs, use GNOME or KDE and hope that they don't drop support for NVIDIA, or hope and pray that someday NVIDIA will open-source its drivers so that others can fix their bugs for them.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    Nvidia has been rubbish on Linux for 20 years. You have nobody but yourself to blame.
    - zaat 3y ago
      I use Nvidia with X server, and it's great. You are very decisive but other people could have different experience.
- zaat 3y ago
  Of course I can enable Wayland - I have option to enable Wayland for GDM, and I can use Gnome over X or via Wayland. The fact that it is protocol have nothing to do with the ability of disabling and enabling, I enable and disable protocols in many other domains. It isn't me that have issues with Wayland (or with Gnome on Wayland, if you must be pedantic). It's everyone who try to use software that you will probably categorize as rubbish but still actual people are depend on, stuff like commercial remote sessions. > But for most people it's been enabled for years and years now and it's just... better. If by years and years you mean a year, than sure. But it isn't the default for years and years, that's simply not true for any distro. If you want to assert that Wayland isn't controversial show me the numbers. Find a source that most people don't use X because it works great despite no one maintains it.

by zaat 3y ago

memefrog 3y ago

I don't really care whether you have issues with something Wayland-related. You can't "enable Wayland" anyway because Wayland isn't software, it's just a protocol. If you have a problem with Wayland it's like having a problem when you enable HTTP/2 on your web server. The problem is with the particular server, or the particular browser, or something in between. If you have a Wayland issue, you don't have a Wayland issue, you actually have a Gnome issue or a Firefox issue or something. Regardless there is no 'Wayland debacle' that Linux is 'going through' with 'no clear path forwards'. There is a clear path forwards, and it isn't really controversial at all. Wayland is the clear path forwards, and in the long-run is the clearly better choice. But it is a big change and in an "ecosystem" that is so decentralised that kind of change takes a long, long time. Enabling Wayland in your particular environment might not be the best choice yet, whether because of bugs with your desktop environment or the applications you use, or because of features that aren't there yet or just general instability. But for most people it's been enabled for years and years now and it's just... better. No more screen tearing, no more buggy insecure X display server. It says something powerful that people whinged and moaned at first about it, but that their revealed preferences tell a different story: nobody was so annoyed that they were prepared to maintain X going forward. Clearly it can't actually be that important to them.

acka 3y ago
Conspicuously absent from your arguments why Wayland isn't controversial: NVIDIA. Trick question long did it take to settle the controversy over which memory manager to use? The answer is indeterminable, as it is still ongoing. The NVIDIA proprietary drivers used with GBM and Wayland still work like crap, the driver architecture is stacked heavily in favor of EGLStreams, and there is no fix but to either switch to Nouveau and lose performance, CUDA, and lots of HW-accelerated video codecs, use GNOME or KDE and hope that they don't drop support for NVIDIA, or hope and pray that someday NVIDIA will open-source its drivers so that others can fix their bugs for them.
- memefrog 3y ago
  Nvidia has been rubbish on Linux for 20 years. You have nobody but yourself to blame.
  - zaat 3y ago
    I use Nvidia with X server, and it's great. You are very decisive but other people could have different experience.
zaat 3y ago
Of course I can enable Wayland - I have option to enable Wayland for GDM, and I can use Gnome over X or via Wayland. The fact that it is protocol have nothing to do with the ability of disabling and enabling, I enable and disable protocols in many other domains. It isn't me that have issues with Wayland (or with Gnome on Wayland, if you must be pedantic). It's everyone who try to use software that you will probably categorize as rubbish but still actual people are depend on, stuff like commercial remote sessions. > But for most people it's been enabled for years and years now and it's just... better. If by years and years you mean a year, than sure. But it isn't the default for years and years, that's simply not true for any distro. If you want to assert that Wayland isn't controversial show me the numbers. Find a source that most people don't use X because it works great despite no one maintains it.