What's the verdict? Is it usable yet?

>>What is "TearFree"?
>>What is compositor?
>What is band-aid

X servers and clients need a whole lot more calls to each other than Wayland architecture, where window managers does most of the jobs by itself. Wayland is just more efficient by design.

No, it can't be
Old = better
Unix philosophy

Attached: 1.jpg (1013x765, 165K)

Nothing will ever be ported to Wayland if not absolutely necessary.
Nothing will ever use Wayland if not absolutely necessary.
Everything now is written for X. X applications work better with X. Everyone uses X. Since Wayland provides XWayland, compatibility for Wayland is guaranteed for software compatible with X. Wayland support will always be an afterthought.
The inclusion of Xwayland for Wayland shows that Wayland itself is only an afterthought. The replacement for X isn't Wayland, it's Xwayland.

literally who?

This in no way invalidates my post. Tearing is a Boogeyman. It's easily and efficiently fixed without sacrificing everything the way Wayland tries to do.
>Wayland is just more efficient by design.
Yet it needs tons of arbitrary bullshit in the compositing manager just to reach some feature parity with X11.
It's also more monolithic, meaning that stuff like screenshooter or keyboard daemon to name a few must be a part of *compositor* and can't be switched out.

Depends on what you mean.
Wayland is pretty barebones and lacks standards for common tasks such as taking screenshots, recording video, redshift, or even a fucking color picker.
As for desktops and compositors, GNOME was an unstable mess last I tried it (Fedora 26), Sway looks good but it's just a tiling compositor and not for everyone, KDE is making progress but still isn't there, and I don't know much about others.
Maybe in *another* ten years it will all amount to something. Right now it's just fucking over early adopters.

Is thatt a xephyr like meme?

>It's also more monolithic, meaning that stuff like screenshooter or keyboard daemon to name a few must be a part of *compositor* and can't be switched out.
Sounds good to me. Why would I want any random program to be able to take a screenshot of my screen?

it's not a meme, X was consciously designed to allow that

>I don't need something that means no one needs it
stay retarded
the rest of us may like a feature or two of an alternate program and don't want to rely only on the implementation by the compositor

>Tearing is a Boogeyman.
Didn't read any further

>Why would I want any random program to be able to take a screenshot of my screen?
Why would you have random programs that take screenshots in the first place? All that does is effectively removes user choice. For example, I prefer maim to scrot, but under Wayland I have no choice and must use what WM author decided.
This also doesn't stop random programs from calling the WM's screenshot function, so it's not more secure.

No idea what you are talking about.
I installed sway and launched it from the terminal in X.

Old = better is not the Unix philosophy

So a Wayland window in x running sway?
Like i3 running in xephyer running on x

>you can't be wrong if you don't read opposing arguments

Attached: 1498242289354.gif (256x256, 455K)

I don't read posts that start with a LIE

So you think X has no way of dealing with screen tearing?

No
You will have to use XWayland or you will experience performance issues in browsers since they are still lacking EGL support (both Chromium based and Firefox based browsers use GLX on Linux)

Attached: 1534242688484.png (726x720, 230K)

>or you will experience performance issues in browsers
And if you have Intel iGPU, you will have serious problems with video in X programs because it defaults to shotty built-in "modesetting" driver.

Modesetting is the fastest Intel driver you can get.

>Modesetting is the fastest Intel driver you can get.
Maybe, but:
1. It has no "TearFree" option
2. Video turns green
3. Abysmal performance in wine

Yeah, by using vendor specific band-aid patches that Wayland doesn't require.

> 1. It has no "TearFree" option
You should use a compositor to prevent tearing issues with X, since TearFree option does not solve the problem completely
> 2. Video turns green
Never had this issue
> 3. Abysmal performance in wine
Are you sure you have to blame Modesetting for this? The driver works just right on all of my computers (HD4000, UHD620)

>> 1. It has no "TearFree" option
>You should use a compositor to prevent tearing issues with X, since TearFree option does not solve the problem completely
I don't use compositors, since I don't need them (TearFree solves the problem) and don't like all the problems I've encountered with them(terminal bugs and such).
>> 2. Video turns green
>Never had this issue
Good for you, I suppose.
>> 3. Abysmal performance in wine
>Are you sure you have to blame Modesetting for this? The driver works just right on all of my computers (HD4000, UHD620)
Pretty sure. My HD 520 runs way better with xf86-video-intel.
And then again, it's useless for me without TearFree anyway.

It's infested with gnomeisms, what do you think?
The whole idea needs to be scrapped, redhat needs to be burned to the ground, Poettering shot in the head, the remaining gnome "developers" need to be chained in the basement, and then we can start developing something useful.