Comment by thisislife2

14 days ago

Yeah, I am staunch proponent of "don't try to fix what is not broken". Current XFCE is fast, light-weight, usable and works fine without major issues. While I don't fully understand the advantages / disadvantages of XFCE using Wayland instead of X, if, as someone else pointed out here on HN, running XFCE on Wayland is going to make it slower, it means these developers will be crippling one of XFCE's strongest feature. In that case other minor advantages seems pointless to users like me.

5 comments

thisislife2

Reply
happymellon  14 days ago

> running XFCE on Wayland is going to make it slower

Citation. None of the other desktops have slowed with Wayland, and gaming is as fast as, if not marginally faster on KDE/Gnome with Wayland vs LXDE on X.

https://www.phoronix.com/review/ubuntu-2504-x11-gaming

  • thisislife2  14 days ago

    I based it on this thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46780901

    • jchw  14 days ago

      Latency and throughput are very different things. However, it's worth noting that the comparison here is with and without compositing. If you were using compositing already on X11 (I believe XFCE offers it with "Desktop Effects" or something to that tune) then you've already been eating compositing latency, and you should actually get less latency in some situations.

      But as far as it performing worse overall, I don't think that would be expected. Compositing itself does lean more on hardware acceleration to provide a good experience, though, so if you compare it on a machine that has no hardware accelerated graphics with compositing disabled, then it really would be worse, yeah.

      1 reply →