The point 2.1 “less to implement in the compositor” doesn’t apply, because for xwayland go work (which is intended to stay around for the foreseeable future) mutter still needs to implement SSD, it’s only skipping on implementing the Wayland SSD protocols.
Points 1 and 2.2 are not strong points. “We do <thing > because we always did before <thing 2>” is not a good point. For example, after all, we always used X10 before Wayland, and we always did implicit sync before last year. And compositor shouldn’t limit programming styles, they should support as many things as possible, and let the application decide their programming design. Plus, most modern applications on windows and macos embed a copy of chrome to display a single offline Web page, but I don’t see you suggesting we replace compositors with browsers.
Point 2.3 is also weak because most of the things a compositor does are already hard, but they implement them because it makes the experience better. If something is hard, it just means it will be worked on more. Take a look at explicit sync, it took like 4 years to be rolled out, but it was necessary and got implemented.
I’ll give you point 2.3.1… in general I think KDE looks pretty bad, and gnome is really more polished in many aspects. Unfortunately I really prefer the KDE workflow on big screens (but gnome on laptops).
“We do <thing > because we always did before <thing 2>” is not a good point
I didn’t mean it in a “this is better way”. I’m just saying that Wayland was designed around the idea of client side decorations, not server side decorations. Gnome has stuck to the more purist vision of Wayland, which makes sense since I believe they were its biggest proponent.
yeah, but the point of a platform are the applications it supports, you don’t want to be The King of Nothing. If even after buying into wayland, applications still work bad on gnome because they expect to get support for X, than gnome needs X or to give a better option (better for the applications, not just according to themselves).
The point 2.1 “less to implement in the compositor” doesn’t apply, because for xwayland go work (which is intended to stay around for the foreseeable future) mutter still needs to implement SSD, it’s only skipping on implementing the Wayland SSD protocols.
Points 1 and 2.2 are not strong points. “We do <thing > because we always did before <thing 2>” is not a good point. For example, after all, we always used X10 before Wayland, and we always did implicit sync before last year. And compositor shouldn’t limit programming styles, they should support as many things as possible, and let the application decide their programming design. Plus, most modern applications on windows and macos embed a copy of chrome to display a single offline Web page, but I don’t see you suggesting we replace compositors with browsers.
Point 2.3 is also weak because most of the things a compositor does are already hard, but they implement them because it makes the experience better. If something is hard, it just means it will be worked on more. Take a look at explicit sync, it took like 4 years to be rolled out, but it was necessary and got implemented.
I’ll give you point 2.3.1… in general I think KDE looks pretty bad, and gnome is really more polished in many aspects. Unfortunately I really prefer the KDE workflow on big screens (but gnome on laptops).
That can be dropped eventually too. Compositors like Niri don’t implement Xwayland support directly, and instead use Xwayland Satellite.
PING. Commenting just for the notification. I edited to respond to the other points but in the meantime you had already answered.
I didn’t mean it in a “this is better way”. I’m just saying that Wayland was designed around the idea of client side decorations, not server side decorations. Gnome has stuck to the more purist vision of Wayland, which makes sense since I believe they were its biggest proponent.
yeah, but the point of a platform are the applications it supports, you don’t want to be The King of Nothing. If even after buying into wayland, applications still work bad on gnome because they expect to get support for X, than gnome needs X or to give a better option (better for the applications, not just according to themselves).