3 ms·
> Suggesting that these people change to a Linux environment with Wayland support is a non-starter; they are presumably using their current environment for good
by robinduckett 3y ago
> Suggesting that these people change to a Linux environment with Wayland support is a non-starter; they are presumably using their current environment for good reasons
That’s a hell of an assumption
- pipo234 3y agoThough so too, when I read it. But I think it's meant to be read in the larger context where the early adopters have already moved, the remaining desktop users are mostly in apathy on this subject (it works, whatever), and it would help if Wayland were to offer some clear merits to break the inertia.
- b112 3y agoThe point was made in the context of "Other Unixes". It has nothing to do with Linux users, on Linux distros, not having Wayland support. It has to do with Unix users, not having Wayland support.
- b112 3y ago>> Suggesting that these people change to a Linux environment with Wayland support is a non-starter; they are presumably using their current environment for good reasons >That’s a hell of an assumption How.. I don't get how you find this a contentious idea. The context of your quote: "People on Unix environments that don't have Wayland support. They have to use X or not have a graphical experience." You're stating that assuming that people "presumably" are using "BSD, and not Linux" for "good reasons" is a wrong thing to assume? Or some other Unix? I don't see how it could be any other way? Would someone use any Unix, be unaware of Linux, and decide NOT to use Linux without a good reason? Any reason that causes them to prefer their Unix of choice, is a good reason! Did you mean something else?