4 ms·
If Wayland is "broken" because it does not support some use case, then by the same reason X is also "broken" - it also does not support everything you want from
by Sankozi 3y ago
If Wayland is "broken" because it does not support some use case, then by the same reason X is also "broken" - it also does not support everything you want from the desktop environment. You might argue one is more "broken" than the other, but when the we have more mature Wayland UI platforms this will not matter at all.
- itvision 3y agoThe problem is X is a lot less broken than what is actively trying to replace it. The fact that this post was written in the first place is a litmus test of how utterly broken Wayland design is if it has to be defended by a core KDE developer.
- Sankozi 3y agoI don't think X is a lot less broken. It is just better supported by UI toolkits. In both cases you need additional stuff to have UI platform. In case of Wayland that stuff is just less mature. You can find similar posts for every change - not only about Linux. The only thing existence of such posts prove is that people have strong opinions about something.
- hollerith 3y ago>how utterly broken Wayland design is if it has to be defended by a core KDE developer. Huh? That makes no sense. If the dev had not defended Wayland, would you have taken that lack of defense as evidence that wayland is good? If not, then it is irrational to take the existence of this defense as evidence that wayland is bad: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jiBFC7DcCrZjGmZnJ/conservation-of-expected-evidence https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jiBFC7DcCrZjGmZnJ/conservati...