I think OP is mistaken and that most Linux installs use Wayland rather than an X server.
I guess it's obvious that people who create and maintain QT and other GUI libraries definitely use X/Wayland directly, is there anything else?
QT == QuickTime.
That’s the problem with Wayland.
What you like, is not an engineering criterion.
Wayland breaks my working system.
That is a good definition of badly engineered.
If you want adoption, cowboy up and make it backward compatible.
Good luck.
> That is a good definition of badly engineered.
One could argue that the hacks and whatnot that apps use to do what they do on X are based on poor engineering. Security certainly is an engineering criterion.
In ordinary Linux Fu, the command line is the secure alternative to X.
[1] to be clear Wayland addresses the need to document compliance with best practices and other aspects of security theatre.
X11 allows you to have "network transparency" and run (authenticated) malware attached to your display on a different host and read your keypresses remotely; but Wayland's network scope is limited; waypipe exists, but nobody talks about it, does it work? can you do ssh -something to setup a tunnel and run things and have it just work (at least to the standard of tunneled X)? Taking care of networked malware by ignoring networking for a decade doesn't like not addressing the user needs and then you shouldn't be be surprised when adoption is slow.
I'm not opposed to using Wayland, but I am a dedicated XFCE user. As such, I won't move to Wayland until XFCE fully supports it.
And once it does, I assume my preferred distro (Fedora[2]) will make Wayland the default for XFCE (as it already does for Gnome and KDE).
My assumption would be that by now, it would be 80+% on Wayland.
Or about 0.001% of Linux systems?
I guess I can blame my docking station and the DisplayLink drivers.
Now Wayland is my default session and no issues so far.
Where are you seeing such high figures for X?
beanjuiceII•9mo ago