4 ms·
The thing that you have to remember about Xwayland is that it is Xorg. It just has a Wayland DDX[0] on the back end rather than a device-specific DDX or one tha
by bitwize 3y ago
The thing that you have to remember about Xwayland is that it is Xorg. It just has a Wayland DDX[0] on the back end rather than a device-specific DDX or one that talks e.g., directly to the modesetting driver.
[0] Device-Dependent X, i.e., the bits of X that talk directly to the display. Contrasted with Device-Independent X (DIX), i.e., the bits that do state tracking and protocol communication with clients.
- angiosperm 3y agoSo, it is the Wayland DDX part that is buggy? How is that different from "Wayland Xorg emulation is buggy"?