2 ms·

Nobody's requiring Wayland. You can still daily-drive X just fine if you want to use i3 or some other WM. This discussion is about defaulting to Wayland. This m

Nobody's requiring Wayland. You can still daily-drive X just fine if you want to use i3 or some other WM. This discussion is about defaulting to Wayland. This move makes sense, because Wayland is the way forward, and contrary to your statements, it's perfectly ready for prime time. If you want to switch to a WM, it doesn't make a big difference whether your distro shipped with X or Wayland; for the normie user who is going to use the default option, setting Wayland as the default is a smart move.

eadmund 3y ago
> Nobody's requiring Wayland. Yet. Defaulting to it is one step on the path towards removing support for X and independent window managers forever. I deeply, deeply care about running an independent window manager. A minimal X window manager is a page of code: https://github.com/mackstann/tinywm/blob/master/tinywm.c https://github.com/mackstann/tinywm/blob/master/tinywm.c (yes, plus xlib); a minimal Wayland compositor is tens of thousands of lines of code. > contrary to your statements, it's perfectly ready for prime time These comments are full of folks mentioning issues. Wayland does not support my window manager; thus it is demonstrably not ready for prime time for me. > Wayland is the way forward It may actually be. I’m not as opposed to Wayland as I may sound! But do you understand how you and other Wayland advocates sound — like advocates? ‘Wayland is the way forward’; ‘there's no future for Xorg’; these things are arguably true, but they are also rather cruel to say (a bit like ‘inevitably you and everyone will die’: it really is true, but it’s also not at all a nice thing to say). I do think that Wayland or something very like it may be the way forward, but it needs to be an evolution, not a revolution. I know that the party line is that that’s not possible, but I suspect that rather than not possible it is just very hard. It’s always easier to greenfield, and it is always hell to be 100% backwards compatible. But that’s what it needs to be.

eadmund 3y ago

> Nobody's requiring Wayland. Yet. Defaulting to it is one step on the path towards removing support for X and independent window managers forever. I deeply, deeply care about running an independent window manager. A minimal X window manager is a page of code: https://github.com/mackstann/tinywm/blob/master/tinywm.c https://github.com/mackstann/tinywm/blob/master/tinywm.c (yes, plus xlib); a minimal Wayland compositor is tens of thousands of lines of code. > contrary to your statements, it's perfectly ready for prime time These comments are full of folks mentioning issues. Wayland does not support my window manager; thus it is demonstrably not ready for prime time for me. > Wayland is the way forward It may actually be. I’m not as opposed to Wayland as I may sound! But do you understand how you and other Wayland advocates sound — like advocates? ‘Wayland is the way forward’; ‘there's no future for Xorg’; these things are arguably true, but they are also rather cruel to say (a bit like ‘inevitably you and everyone will die’: it really is true, but it’s also not at all a nice thing to say). I do think that Wayland or something very like it may be the way forward, but it needs to be an evolution, not a revolution. I know that the party line is that that’s not possible, but I suspect that rather than not possible it is just very hard. It’s always easier to greenfield, and it is always hell to be 100% backwards compatible. But that’s what it needs to be.