• neo [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Xorg is pretty bad, in the sense that it has so many tack-on features that it's unmaintainable. That's a problem from a developer's perspective (and there aren't people who want to develop it anymore, literally almost everybody has given up/moved on).

    From a user's perspective, X might have some convenient features (X forwarding. I love it!), but the two big wins for Wayland are enhanced security, where applications can't just read your input unless you allow them tom and lag/tear free rendering.

    A lot of people complain about Wayland issues, and they're justified complaints when you take one thing that currently works and substitute in its place something which might not work yet, but Wayland's time is near. It's design might be

    Another set of complaints is how some Wayland things work on one implementation, but not another. This is partly a complaint about how the protocol is defined, and another about how different implementations might introduce non-standard extensions. Personally, I don't care about this so long as things get standardized, but of course this is one of the weaknesses of FOSS - different people, different opinions, disjointed work and effort. At least with Windows and macOS they get one implementation (for better or worse) and that's that.

    If you want to compare things, I think Wayland can be considered equivalent to DWM on Windows. And with PipeWire (the Linux analog to macOS's CoreAudio) en route, I think Linux desktops are going to get really strong in the next year or two. Hopefully I'm not spreading bogus info in this comment.