157
Why Wayland adoption to have official support in programs is so slow?
(wayland.freedesktop.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
157 points (97.0% liked)
Linux
48186 readers
1243 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It is not enough to make a better product.
It is not enough to create all tooling and libraries to seamlessly migrate to the new product, but it helps.
There also needs to be a great big positive reason to make the change. Paying developers, huge user base, the only hardware support, great visuals, etc.
Until I cannot run software on X11, I won't switch over knowingly.
Please explain
Most people use their os to run their programs. So if their programs don't work without x11 people won't switch.
What is there to explain?
Please explain.
Why would someone stay with x even though it's deprecated, architecturally broken and unmaintainable
This is a thread about slow uptake by programs of Wayland.
X works for me.
Right. And I'm interested if there are some legitimate needs for you to run x until it stops working.
Or is this just a revolt?
I don't think it's a revolt. Why would they put effort into changing something which works for them with the risk of breaking things? They also wrote "knowingly" which probably means that they won't have an issue with a switch if their distro manages to make a seamless transition.
Some people just want to get their stuff done, without diving into technical details. And as long as that works for them, they won't actively change anything.
The sentiment is similar to climate change deniers. Why would we stop with fossil fuels when they work, people have jobs, etc. And why would we risk breaking the power grid?
Wayland on gnome and Ubuntu is already the default. It seems to me you have to actively change the default to x.
It would be interesting to see in which scenario x is better than wayland. The only reason I can think of is an (old) Nvidia card. With new Nvidia's I guess the statement would otherwise be 'i will not use it until they fix Wayland'
I don't think that the survival of humankind potentially depends on the adoption speed of Wayland. If anything ever breaks, it will affect only a few individuals which can then still change course.
There are a lot of people using hardware from the last decade. I would even dare to assume that most Linux desktop users do, because that's how you still can get the most out of old hardware.
I have an old tower which I sometimes use for light gaming. It runs X11 because Wayland had some issues on this specific machine. I don't remember which and don't really care to investigate unless it becomes necessary. Until then I'm just happy when I have a little time to use it. And that works perfectly for my needs. For now
Yeah that was also concerning to me.
Is it really ? It works as expected and never crashes. Xorg's git is active.
Xorg was started in 2004 and Wayland in 2008 At this point they're almost the same age..
Depends on the timeline.
X crashed way more for me on kde than Wayland on gnome. 'Never' is quite the statement.