I’m not a super-savvy user. Can someone explain to me why I should care about X vs Wayland? Everything seems to work with X, and as I’ve just read, many programs don’t support Wayland. So will this transition just lead to lots of broken software once someone decides they won’t ship with X by default anymore?
You basically shouldn’t until you are forced to move. Almost all of the improvements so far are in the internal architecture.
You might notice some tiny differences if you switch, like logging in doesn’t show a black screen at any point, and window choosers when screen sharing show a (totally broken) grid of previews instead of a plain list of window titles.
Hopefully when X is fully dead (give it another 10 years) we’ll see some actual improvements, e.g. RDP-style remote desktop, good support for multi-monitor, HDR, HiDPI, etc.
X is broken and the people who understand it at a deep level are pretty much all dead. What’s worse is that the code base is massive and doesn’t follow modern code practices.
Wayland is different as there is no codebase. It is simply a set of standards that allow apps to connect to a desktop.
The X model:
App -> window manager -> X server -> hardware
The Wayland model:
App -> desktop -> hardware
This sounds like it wouldn’t be that big of improvement but unlike X Wayland is designed to take advantage of the modern GPU horse power. X was originally designed to run on UNIX mainframes so to make it run like it does took a bunch of Jacky work arounds.
Many of the people that maintain X are the same people working on Wayland implementations. They’re pushing people towards the new thing because it makes their lives easier, and that’s also the nature of engineer driven product development, it’s not going to consider all the edge cases underserved from replacing legacy software because there’s nobody to keep them in check.
Edit: Guess the thought police decided my factual information isn’t welcome here because it goes against their feefees.
I’m not a super-savvy user. Can someone explain to me why I should care about X vs Wayland? Everything seems to work with X, and as I’ve just read, many programs don’t support Wayland. So will this transition just lead to lots of broken software once someone decides they won’t ship with X by default anymore?
You basically shouldn’t until you are forced to move. Almost all of the improvements so far are in the internal architecture.
You might notice some tiny differences if you switch, like logging in doesn’t show a black screen at any point, and window choosers when screen sharing show a (totally broken) grid of previews instead of a plain list of window titles.
Hopefully when X is fully dead (give it another 10 years) we’ll see some actual improvements, e.g. RDP-style remote desktop, good support for multi-monitor, HDR, HiDPI, etc.
X is broken and the people who understand it at a deep level are pretty much all dead. What’s worse is that the code base is massive and doesn’t follow modern code practices.
Wayland is different as there is no codebase. It is simply a set of standards that allow apps to connect to a desktop.
The X model:
App -> window manager -> X server -> hardware
The Wayland model:
App -> desktop -> hardware
This sounds like it wouldn’t be that big of improvement but unlike X Wayland is designed to take advantage of the modern GPU horse power. X was originally designed to run on UNIX mainframes so to make it run like it does took a bunch of Jacky work arounds.
Many of the people that maintain X are the same people working on Wayland implementations. They’re pushing people towards the new thing because it makes their lives easier, and that’s also the nature of engineer driven product development, it’s not going to consider all the edge cases underserved from replacing legacy software because there’s nobody to keep them in check.
Edit: Guess the thought police decided my factual information isn’t welcome here because it goes against their feefees.