In response to Wayland Breaks Your Bad Software

I say that the technical merits are irrelevant because I don’t believe that they’re a major factor any more in most people moving or not moving to Wayland.

With only a slight amount of generalization, none of these people will be moved by Wayland’s technical merits. The energetic people who could be persuaded by technical merits to go through switching desktop environments or in some cases replacing hardware (or accepting limited features) have mostly moved to Wayland already. The people who remain on X are there either because they don’t want to rebuild their desktop environment, they don’t want to do without features and performance they currently have, or their Linux distribution doesn’t think their desktop should switch to Wayland yet.

    • cobra89@beehaw.org
      5·
      1 year ago

      Counterpoint, I have all AMD machines (CPU and GPU) and each time I’ve tried Wayland I’ve immediately run into bugs that make it unusable. Maybe it’s because both my setups have multiple monitors with different resolutions, but I don’t see why that use case is so hard to support. And I’m running the latest versions of Wayland and KDE so it’s not an issue of me running outdated versions that already have bug fixes supplied upstream. If Wayland can’t handle just basic desktop use with multiple resolutions why would I go through the effort to use it? Fix the basics first.

      • the_weez@midwest.social
        101·
        1 year ago

        My experience has been the opposite. I won’t use x after using Wayland on AMD for years it just feels so much smoother. On arch with gnome Wayland has been fantastic.