Comment by antisol
8 months ago
Thanks for your anecdotes. Here's a couple of counter-anecdotes:
---
X has "just worked" for me since at least ubuntu 8.04 (that's 2008, april, over 17 years ago, for those counting), probably earlier.
I don't recall having any particular issues with X on the fedora machines I ran before I switched to ubuntu 8.04, but I don't recall clearly enough to be able to confidently say that I didn't have any X issues.
OTOH, I also don't specifically recall having X issues since some time around Red Hat 6 or so, which would be around 1998 or 1999, so it might be more like 25-26 years since X didn't "just work" for me.
---
About a year ago, I heard that wayland might be approaching a usable state. So I decided to give it a try on a raspberry pi that I was setting up.
It took literally about 15 minutes before I ran into a problem where I wasn't able to do something I've been doing for decades on X. And I want to stress that I was hoping it would work - I was not out to find a reason not to use wayland, I just happened to run into one inside of about 15 minutes.
I spent a couple of hours trying to figure out how to do what I wanted to do on wayland. I put a nontrivial amount of effort into trying to solve the issue on wayland. During the course of this, I found several different/conflicting pieces of advice, none of which worked for me. I think IIRC I found one option which sounded promising but which meant recompiling the compositor, or something very-nontrivial like that.
I balked at that and switched the system over to X.
And the problem instantly went away, and everything started working again. And that machine currently has an uptime of well over a hundred days.
I would love for wayland to be a thing that actually works to the point that it's a viable replacement for X, but I grow more and more skeptical every year that this doesn't happen. I Expected it like a decade ago.
The reason X "just worked" is that it's very bad, obolsete software that nobody would touch so we all just got used to the things that didn't work.
High DPI, multiple monitors, hot-plugging, OpenGL... these things were hacks and pretty much never worked right. There's also very necessary for modern computers. We all just didn't care.
So what if my thunderbolt dock needed a reboot to connect a monitor? So what if youtube drops a few frames here or there? So what if I need to enforce vsync across the entire desktop just so I don't get splitting? So what if vertical bars appear for a few seconds after suspend? So what if 1.25 scaling looks like ass?
> The reason X "just worked" is that it's very bad
Yeah, sure, most bad software "just works", and there's nothing contradictory about this statement at all.
> High DPI, multiple monitors, hot-plugging, OpenGL
Of these 4 examples, I have literally never had any problems with 75% of them since at least 2008 - maybe 1999 - they all "just work". And I've never tried to do the other one, it may or may not.
You can argue about how old == bad as much as you like. Meanwhile I'll be getting work done using the bad old tech, rather than trying to debug the new broken thing.
> So what if my thunderbolt dock needed a reboot to connect a monitor?
Well if you needed to reboot, i.e restarting X didn't solve it, then that sounds like it's not an X problem at all. Maybe something in the USB stack.
> So what... So what... So what...
So what if the new thing people are trying to force on us doesn't support features we've enjoyed using for decades and use every day to get work done? So what if I've been using network transparency just fine for over a quarter century? So what if the new protocol doesn't support really basic things like screen savers properly? So what if it's suddenly a problem if an application has multiple windows, or wants to record the screen, or automate desktop usage, or reparent some other program, or have a not-rectangular window?
I'm talking about very, very basic features like changing input/output at runtime, graphics acceleration, and scaling.
These are janky on X. I'm sorry, they are and we all know it, across many drivers, not just nvidia.
Yes, Wayland is missing some very niche usecases. For my money, I'd rather be able to plug in a monitor without a restart than have a "not-rectangular window". If your priorities are different then fine, I can't argue with lived experience.
Also, for the record, some X "features" were always a bad idea. The whole "every application being to record everything at any time with no permission model" isn't a feature, it's just a vulnerability. Yes, that means we now have to be much more deliberate with how we control these things, so we have popups and portals and whatnot. But that is actually a big improvement from the alternative, which is every application comes with a built-in free keylogger and screenlogger that you're just kind of hoping nobody is using for nefarious purposes.
14 replies →
X just worked for a large subset of users. However Wayland just works for a large subset as well. In either case if you are in the subset where it doesn't work then you will complain. Wayland has a design such that if things don't work for you today we have a hope that we can make it work for you in the future. Many of the issues where X didn't work for some people could not be fixed, and some of those were issues that are becoming more important.
> Wayland has a design such that if things don't work for you today we have a hope that we can make it work for you in the future.
The reason we hate Wayland so much is that X is being killed off now, with things only ever maybe working again in the future. Wayland would be way better if the people behind it added support for all of the missing features and use cases first, and only then killed off X.
You are welcome to naintain x if you want. However there is a reason nobody wants to. Wayland is not perfect but it is a lot easier to maintain.
5 replies →