Comment by kiwijamo

Comment by kiwijamo 5 days ago

4 replies

Wayland was the first display system on Linux I've used that just worked perfectly right out of the box on a bog standard Intel iGPU across several machines. I think that is a big draw for a lot of people like myself who just want to get things done. For me X11 represents the past through experience I had when I had to tinker with the X11 config file to get basic stuff like video playback to work smoothly without tearing. My first Wayland install was literally a "wow this is the future of Linux" for me quite honestly when I realised everything just worked without even a single line of config. I would recommend a Wayland distro like Debian to the average computer user knowing Wayland just works -- prior to Wayland I'd be like "well Linux is great but if you like watching YouTube you'll need to add a line to your xorg config to trun on the thingy that smoothes out video playback on Intel iGPUs". Appreciate others have different perpectives -- I come from the POV of someone who likes to install a OS and have all the basic stuff working out of the box.

ok123456 5 days ago

Xorg.conf has worked out of the box with no or minimal configuration for the past 20 years or so.

It's nowhere near the modline hell of XFree86.

graemep 5 days ago

It is many years, I guess close to a decade, since I needed to change X config manually. I still find the odd rough edge in Wayland (the most recent was failing screenshots with KDE).

  • fransje26 5 days ago

    > It is many years, I guess close to a decade, since I needed to change X config manually.

    Making manual changes in 2015+, for a protocol released in 1987, that's a long time having rough edges..

    • graemep 4 days ago

      Sorry, to clarify, I am not making making manual changes to Wayland config. I have stopped needing to make manual changes to X config.

      Until recently i just switched back to X whenI had problems with Wayland. The last time the issues fixed itself on the next update.