[AtlasBarfed]

Yes, and to the parents point it was a CHANGE in protocol.

I get there was cruft in x. But the moment selected was a barrier to Linux desktop adoption precisely when the greatest opportunity in decades was present.

And the desktop was reimplemented.

Now in this period kde and gnome both decided to do rewrites, Ubuntu did their own desktop, got it up to snuff, and abandoned it. The lunacy wasn't just Wayland.

If we are complaining the gnome compositor sucks... I mean , should that be the goddamn reference implementation? What percent of desktops are gnome, 80% at least? If the gnome composting ready for primetime, then Wayland isn't ready for primetime.

[vincent-manis]

>If the gnome composting ready for primetime, then Wayland isn't ready for primetime.

I use Sway, which uses a different compos[i]tor than Gnome. I would like to see similar results for wlroots, Sway's compositor, though I'm not actually interested enough to do the experiment (I guess that would be comparing Sway with i3). Cursor lag in Sway is not enough to bother me. I have on occasion used Gnome on the same machine(s), and never been bothered by lag.

As others have pointed out, Wayland is a protocol, not a compositor.

[tankenmate]

"As others have pointed out, Wayland is a protocol, not a compositor."

But the Wayland protocol requires a compositor, so here we are.

[vincent-manis]

I have no idea of the difference(s) in performance between wlroots and Gnome's compositor. Protocols do not have performance, implementations do. If someone can prove that the Wayland protocol, on a certain set of tasks, and in a certain environment, has a better or worse performance than the X11 protocol, then it might be possible to make abstract comparisons on protocol.

Given that Gnome runs on both X and Wayland, it might be interesting to hear from the Gnome authors on the performance differences.