3 ms·
Am I right in thinking this title is non-sensical? From my understanding of the article, "Firefox 121 ships with native Wayland support" would work better. Fir
by xcdzvyn 3y ago
Am I right in thinking this title is non-sensical? From my understanding of the article, "Firefox 121 ships with native Wayland support" would work better.
Firefox can't "default" to anything because it has to run atop whatever display server I'm running. I guess you could say it "defaults to Wayland" instead of XWayland, but I can't see that being the common interpretation.
- saghm 3y agoIt already shipped with native wayland support; the only "change" is that you no longer have to set an env var (MOZ_ENABLE_WAYLAND=1) to get native Wayland instead of XWayland. Maybe "defaults to native Wayland" is the "most" correct way of saying it, but that's a bit more editorial with respect to the article's actual title.
- kevincox 3y agoI think the title is pretty reasonable. When given the choice between Wayland and X (because both are available, typically this is a Wayland + XWayland config) Firefox will now pick Wayland instead of X by default. Of course if only X is available (or only Wayland) it will continue to use what is available. I think "Firefox now prefers Wayland over X" may have been a bit more accurate, but that also has other possible interpretations.