this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
75 points (97.5% liked)
Linux
6313 readers
311 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system
Also check out:
Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wayland was such a bad implementation and execution from the start. Almost 2 decades passed and it's still not usable. Xorg with all its faults is still much more usable and the architecture, though bad, makes much more sense than what wayland is doing.
Downvote me all you want.
Wayland works just fine for me which xoeg doesn't
Curious why Xorg doesn't work for you?
It felt very janky when I used it no proper fractional scaling, bad performance etc.
Can't downvoted truth.
Compiz and XGL came out in 2006 and showed the way. Then this overengineered mess started.
Except it's a nonsense point, x.org working is precisely why there was no reason to rush it out. They made an EXCELLENT implementation rather than the MVP that x.org is.
There was no reason to rush, because x.org still worked... the point was to create an excellent from the ground up implementation, that takes tons of time.
Why would they rush it out if there's something that already works fine? That'd completely defeat the purpose of it.