On Feb 8, 2013 2:56 PM, "Jan de Groot" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On vr, 2013-02-08 at 10:20 +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote: > > > I appreciate your effort and have no objection against adding Wayland. > > > > However, to limit people's enthusiasm about this, I just want to remark > > that having Wayland installed now is not incredibly useful: Weston is > > AFAIK the only compositor available at this time, and it is, as you > > mention, a demo (there was talk of some tiling WM being ported to > > Wayland, I forgot the name). Also you'll use XWayland most of the time. > > > > When Qt5 gets released and Qt4 applications are ported (which will > > likely happen for all Qt4 applications), there'll be at least many > > applications that can use Wayland natively. When KDE is ported to Qt5, > > we'll also get kwin as a more feature-rich Wayland compositor. > > > > I didn't read about the GTK situation yet, but I guess GTK3 has Wayland > > support already. > > This is my main concern for Wayland at this moment. Though it looks cool > to support new technology and having released versions of Wayland with > 1.x versioning, I doubt there's much use for it at this moment. Running > X inside of wayland is a nice feature for apps that aren't ported yet, > but if you only run apps that aren't ported yet, there's no use for > Wayland at the moment.
Thomas and Jan are right, Wayland does not provide much at the moment. However, I still think it makes a lot of sense to ship it even now, provided it has no negative effects on the non-wayland usecase, and it does not entail too much work. It would at least make life simpler for devs/testers of wayland/weston/kwin and friends. Cheers, Tom
