[8draco8]

Maybe my lack of knowledge is playing a role here but this is why I'm not fan of pushing Wayland everywhere. It seem like X server works pretty nicely while I hear everywhere about performance and functionality issues with Wayland. Wayland supposed to be better solution but I don't understand how since it have so many flaws.

[toyg]

X has what, 40 years of history - it's battle-tested to hell and back, and knows all the corner cases. Wayland is much younger and a full rewrite, inevitably it will have issues for years and years. Part of the push is so that these cases emerge.

Wayland is probably easier for developers to work with - the X codebase by now is ancient. But it will lack some functionality that X has, probably forever.

[simion314]

>Wayland is much younger and a full rewrite

Isn't more like Wayland is just some protocols + some testing code, and all DEs use their own implementation, So is like Wayland is like at least 3 different rewrites.

Also I just read someone argument that X devs are coding wayland, how the fuck are they coding a protocol? or are they working on GNOME implementation since RedHat == GNOME. I would also abandon an old code base and just write some protocols for 10% of the old code features and then let the suckers implement it.

[neverminder]

It's not just Wayland vs X. For me abandoned Unity worked much better than actively supported Gnome. It took forever for Gnome to get fractional scaling which Unity had for years and Gnome still can't match features of Unity to this day even with a bunch of plugins installed.