3 ms·

> I really have no other plausible explanation... I have a better one: They designed for embedded devices first, desktops second or not at all. The first users

by dvdkon 1y ago

> I really have no other plausible explanation... I have a better one: They designed for embedded devices first, desktops second or not at all. The first users of Wayland were things like vehicle infotainment systems, which operate under a limited mobile-like "one app at a time" system. Back then Ubuntu Touch (using Canonical's Mir) also looked like a prospective usecase for a new display system. As far as I remember, the Wayland devs' approach to desktop support was "we made the basic protocol, now you desktop people either integrate functionality into the compositor (what GNOME did) or make your own extensions (what wlroots, KDE did), we don't care". With that kind of "leadership", no wonder it took years to reach even basic consensus.

hulitu 1y ago
> we don't care That, unfortunately, seems to be Wayland's mantra.
reisse 1y ago
Even if they did (which is questionable for me, because although a lot of embedded did jump to Wayland pretty fast, the maintaners never stated their goal is any less than replacing the whole X), they had a lot of time to pivot and rethink the design. I believe the general consensus that Wayland is the future of Linux on desktop was formed in 2013-2014, yet the feature gaps are still being patched.