14 ms·
??? Wayland is a protocol, that sentence is in and of itself faulty. And there are multiple independent implementations of said protocol. Unlike in case of X,
by gf000 4mo ago
???
Wayland is a protocol, that sentence is in and of itself faulty.
And there are multiple independent implementations of said protocol. Unlike in case of X, that has basically 1. With proprietary modules (that's how nvidia proprietary drivers work). With a goddamn printer inside. Don't mistake an X "window manager" which is basically just an extension on top of an X server with a whole display manager implementation of Wayland.
Like an X window manager is more akin to a Gnome shell plugin that adds a dash to your screen.
- Izkata 4mo ago> Like an X window manager is more akin to a Gnome shell plugin that adds a dash to your screen. Yes, that's exactly my point - on the user's side, X was modular, not monolithic. Wayland is the monolithic one where everything is "batteries included" (except not always everything) with no ability to add/replace functionality. Please continue reading the remainder of the sentence from my first comment: > and you have to accept whatever your chosen desktop environment chose to implement.