Wayland seems ready to me but the main problem that many programs are not configured / compiled to support it. Why is that? I know it’s not easy as “Wayland support? Yes” (but in many cases adding a flag is enough but maybe it’s not a perfect support). What am I missing? Even Blender says if it fails to use Wayland it will use X11.
When Wayland is detected, it is the preferred system, otherwise X11 will be used
Also XWayland has many limitations as X11 does.
Your arguments kinda weak, no offense. I do have a solution for you though. If you want to stick with a version of Linux that’s guaranteed to support xorg for eight years, I’d recommend Rocky linux! When that reaches EOL I guess you could just stay on it.
Enterprise plans on being fully switched over to Wayland by the next major version. You won’t be able to install xorg on redhat for example. The biggest contributors to xorg(Enterprise) are going to shift focus to xwayland to support legacy software on wayland.
Besides it’s exciting finally catching up to truly hardware accelerated desktops like Mac OS 10.0 and windows vista. At its heart xorg is a purely single threaded software accelerated bitmap based windowing system from 84. They’ve had to rewrite small but incredibly complex chunks of the code just to try to keep up with the modern world. Just look at the history of 3D acceleration in x11.
Your free to give it a good go though! The very same team that actively maintained xorg threw in the towel ten years ago when they diverted resources towards a new windowing protocol and they’re not going back.
new features are fine. But first and foremost, is not breaking existing apps, or committing to porting them yourself. So if desktop apps need to do xyz, then wayland needs to support doing xyz. period. No ‘but that’s insecure’, no ‘but why would you want to do that’ (for setting a window icon or positioning the window ffs). Support existing applications. I’m not saying it should support x protocols. But it should offer replacement features for existing apps to be ported to. And it needs to be wayland. Because it’s already the case that certain functionality is implemented for gnome, or kde, with incompatible apis, to fill in the void left by wayland itself. If I want an app to work as I want it, consistently, everywhere? X, with all its warts, is my only choice.
As an example, the accessibility protocols. They’re good to have. Except they’re opt-in. So incompatible with existing apps. Some apps need to restrict access. They could declare that and make use of additional functionality. But no, choose a default that break everything instead.
The argument that apps just need to be ported also assumes the app is still maintained. Are you willing to do the work yourself if not? Probably not. You’re just the one looking down on people like me for wanting functionality in existing apps to be “not literally impossible to implement”
This whole argument ignores xwayland and the fact that new features are added as a standard of Wayland literally every day.
For as long as xwayland is supported you can use your old apps. Wayland actually supports different window icons for multi window apps. But Wayland has always supported window icons, kde just had an annoying bug they finally fixed. Chromium and electron apps kinda just didn’t support window icons very well in wayland for a while.
For accessibility, it’s been broken on Linux for literally years but there’s an active effort to make it better and more universal than it ever could have been on x11. The effort of building a fully featured accessibility stack is being led by the gnome team with help from the free desktop organization and kde.
This is my last response, this conversation isn’t going anywhere anyway. I’m not the one transitioning the Linux world to Wayland, I don’t see why you could blame me for it anyhow.