Wayland seems ready to me but the main problem that many programs are not configured / compiled to support it. Why is that? I know it’s not easy as “Wayland support? Yes” (but in many cases adding a flag is enough but maybe it’s not a perfect support). What am I missing? Even Blender says if it fails to use Wayland it will use X11.
When Wayland is detected, it is the preferred system, otherwise X11 will be used
Also XWayland has many limitations as X11 does.
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.
Once the desktops switch to Wayland and all distros ship with Wayland by default, support should slow.
Ideally, developers stop improving xwayland over time and go into maintenance mode for a bit. Once it goes into maintenance mode, developers should naturally fall off as it winds down.
If every desktop makes a very public announcement about the xwayland protocol being put into maintenance mode, actively supported apps should switch over. It’s up to the public how long they want to keep maintaining xwayland (open source etc).
So, even though KDE Plasma has significantly advanced Wayland, a stronger push is still needed to drive the change further.
I don’t think kde plasma was the only one. Anyway, it just feels natural for xwayland to stop pushing for feature parody and for focus to switch over to Wayland after a while.
The biggest target for developers is the Ubuntu/Debian platform so their switch to Wayland should motivate other projects and paid applications to at least take notice.
New projects will try to support both but typically will focus more on Wayland. There’s already an unintentional incentive to partially support xdg protocols Wayland relies on thanks to flatpak.
Please explain
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