On 9/17/25 9:58 PM, Javier Martinez wrote: > Let's play urbanterror online. Can you?, and openarena? > And warzone2100?. Well something easier, pokerth. Or one chess game, > what about xboard? > > You have almost told us all software that has support of wayland. > > How many software exists that does not know what wayland is? > > How many software has wayland use flag available? > > I see, xfce, dunst, firefox, gparted, spice, freerdp, vlc, parole, mpv > and conky and some libraries and nothing more. > > Please, be realistic, wayland support is tiny.
I'm quite happy with my existing Xorg setup and see no compelling urge to change. My DE doesn't even support wayland and my DE is a heck of a lot more important to me than the display tech. But I know how this works and I will push back against bad arguments used to defend even things I'm happy with. "Most" software uses Gtk or Qt for display purposes. You get a *lot* of mileage out of your toolkit seamlessly supporting X / wayland, so you don't need to. Packages which have a "wayland" USE flag are like packages which have an "X" USE flag: relatively uncommon. It indicates the package does something "special", when running on wayland, that requires specific custom code which the *GUI Toolkit* cannot automatically handle, and which *also* requires calling directly into wayland-client/wlroots/QWayland/gdk_wayland to code around it. But the garden path software does not CARE what it is running on so it has no USE. To be even more specific: USE=wayland does not mean, "supports running on wayland", it means "has to be recompiled before running on wayland". Using "number of packages without USE=wayland" to measure "packages that run via xorg emulation instead of natively on wayland", is very dumb. Sorry. It's like saying "many packages don't have USE=X, that must mean they don't support Xorg -- only wayland". -- Eli Schwartz
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
