In response to Wayland Breaks Your Bad Software

I say that the technical merits are irrelevant because I don’t believe that they’re a major factor any more in most people moving or not moving to Wayland.

With only a slight amount of generalization, none of these people will be moved by Wayland’s technical merits. The energetic people who could be persuaded by technical merits to go through switching desktop environments or in some cases replacing hardware (or accepting limited features) have mostly moved to Wayland already. The people who remain on X are there either because they don’t want to rebuild their desktop environment, they don’t want to do without features and performance they currently have, or their Linux distribution doesn’t think their desktop should switch to Wayland yet.

  • woelkchen@lemmy.world
    1·
    10 months ago

    I never said it’s because the Wayland port is incomplete

    Yes, because you don’t understand the difference between an incomplete Plasma port to Wayland and the maturity of Wayland itself. I showed you how dumb your argument is but you did not even manage to understand that.

    I think it doesn’t work on key software in 2023.

    First it was most software, then it was most software you personally use, and now it’s key software…

    that’s a long time and if there’s still questions about its maturity then that’s a fatal flaw.

    The fatal flaw is with your knowledge.

    Gnome is certainly popular but is that because of Wayland or other reasons?

    That has nothing to do with the fact that adoption is high.

    I think it’s a bad idea to even recommend Gnome by default because it deviates too far from Windows design

    That as well has nothing to do with the widespread adoption of Wayland.

    I don’t currently know

    Yes, I can see that.

    • gataloca@lemmy.world
      1·
      10 months ago

      There is no difference between the maturity of wayland and the plasma port. The maturity of wayland hinges on its usage. Thats what this topic is about.

      It’s after all the cited reason for the limited support for wayland (outside of gnome apparently).

      You claim wayland is widely adopted but you’re lying about that. Most applications still require xwayland as far as my experience is concerned. So why would I accept your arguments?

      Your argument is basically that it works on gnome and since gnome is used by the biggest distributions so it works on most things. It sounds like the goal of wayland as you describe it is to work on gnome and nothing else. It’s “a thing for gnome”. Am I understanding you correctly?