I agree with your points, Nate. At the same time it may be real that this Wayland journey is leading us into a dead-end, and we should be prepared to embrace that possibility.
I can't tell for sure. I guess the only way to know is to try 🤷🏻 Cheers! On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 6:19 PM Nate Graham <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/2/26 10:12 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote: > > That the guy is pissed of doesn't mean the conversation isn't > > constructive or respectful. > > It literally does. > > You can't have a rational conversation with someone who's pissed off. It > drives up your own emotional level and everyone ends up angry and not > listening. > > That's why it's important to keep it professional and technical. > > > > The problems I'm observing myself on Wayland seem diverse and relevant: > > You've already opened bug reports for some of these, and they've been > either acknowledged as issues in KDE code, or traced to issues in > 3rd-party code. Thanks! > > So please continue. Software improves when issues are reported properly, > investigated, and fixed. > > > > Having the applications not isolated, both in the display server and the > > packaging, is an advantage not a drawback. As applications on Linux are > > meant to colaborare, not be separated tools like on a phone. > > > > Having the display protocol specification and the code being a single > > software, is an advantage not a drawback. It allows capturing and > > standardizing all kinds of details you discover LATER on in a single > > place, for every other desktop. > > > > My feeling is this: something like Wayland was quite needed but, at the > > same time, it is quite contaminated by the narrow way of thinking of > > their creators: GNOME. > > > > GNOME and RedHat are Apple wannabes, but without contextualizing > > decisions. They copied the weaknesses of the Apple model, in a context > > it fits even worse. And they NEVER listen. > > Let's keep the discussion technical. Technical issues can be fixed. > Feelings about the state of the world cannot be fixed. > > If we veer off into high-level discussions about how the whole concept > is bad and ought to have been done differently from the start decades > ago and how X or Y organization are bad and suck, we'll never get anywhere. > > > Nate >
