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?
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.
People use Windows in part because they don’t have to deal with “I want people to use Wayland” mentality. It is developed by adults capable of making adult decisions to do the hard things. Not by ideology.
Planned obsolescences are bad, unplanned obsolescences are worse. Wayland is avoided on merit. It is a bad design because it breaks existing systems.
The Wayland developers decided to destroy the Linux ecosystem for ideology.
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.
beanjuiceII•3h ago