74
Are there any other display servers aside from Wayland and X11 with its forks? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago (14 children)

It was not truly ready for end users until the latest years but was shipped despite. It also broke some kinds (I mean a lot of) software, I cannot imagine how many lines of code had to be rewritten because of Wayland. And it also lacks screensavers. And is more resource-demanding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Now, I like a good screensaver but I don't think that's useful to anyone without a CRT.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It simply looks cool. If screensavers are redundant, then LED keyboards, animated wallpapers, and a lot of other common things are as well.

    Weird how people downvote my comment with obvious and objective reasons why people dislike Wayland, as if I personally hated Wayland. Why does shit like Wayland vs X11 become some kind of religion?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (10 children)

    It does not lack screensavers and there is no reason it has to be more demanding. The protocol isn't more demanding, the implementations are

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    There is no way to get a real screensaver work, prove me wrong. And no one cares if it is the protocol or the implementation. It just works worse than X11 on modest hardware, and people dislike it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    no one cares if it's the protocol or the implementation. it just works worse than x11 on modest hardware

    Actually, people that are not hell bent on using x11 do care... That is because the protocol is inherently more efficient than x11, and the compositor matters.

    So if you try to run kwin or mutter, there's no doubt they are going to be more demanding than a plain xorg server (but not more than xorg+KDE or xorg+gnome). But if you try to use a compositor made for low hardware like labwc, it's gonna run laps around xorg. And you can even use labwc on lxqt, so you get your familiar desktop environment but with a modern Wayland compositor.

    Just try it. Dig up an old intel atom netbook and see if you prefer using xorg or labwc

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    The old machines I have are that old, that they barely get along with LXQt (X11 if I memory serves), and my main one can even stand KDE (with Wayland ofc)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Well, try lxqt+labwc. You'll need to set it up, but if you are already willing to tinker with xorg in that machine it won't throw you off too much. You'll be pleased with the result

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent