• skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      There are some really major deficiencies in Xorg that aren’t present in Wayland. The main one that made me switch was proper support for variable refresh rate, and the ability to mix and match any fixed or variable refresh rate displays you want.

      It’s a super common use case to have a primary monitor with high refresh rate and VRR, plus one or two cheaper monitors that don’t. Xorg doesn’t really support that at all without some really hokey tricks that severely impede usability.

      Proper sync support is another one. Yes, you can set tearfree in X but the implementation is crap. You’ll still get tearing in a lot of programs and at least in my experience, it introduces a pretty significant and perceptible input lag, far more than needed to eliminate tearing.

      • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s a super common use case to have a primary monitor with high refresh rate and VRR, plus one or two cheaper monitors that don’t. Xorg doesn’t really support that at all without some really hokey tricks that severely impede usability.

        I wish Wayland shills would stop spreading this lie. It literally just works. In fact, I’m doing it now on my laptop with a 144Hz 1080p monitor, and an external 60Hz 1440p monitor connected with Thunderbolt, with a dual-GPU setup (iGPU + nVidia, which Wayland doesn’t properly support, yet this is nVidia’s fault somehow even though Wayland compositors run entirely in user space, without interacting with the driver directly).

          • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Mixed VRR is not an obscure feature for one. Most of my friends with gaming rigs have a primary monitor with VRR and use their old fixed rate monitors as secondary displays. Does it make a massive difference to run fixed refresh rate? No but it is noticeable and nice to have. Windows can do it and I paid for the hardware. Without parity on this kind of stuff, Linux is a hard sell to the people who do care about it.

            Does it matter to Joe Schmoe? Probably not, but Joe Schmoe probably doesn’t care about Linux to begin with. You have to go for the tech enthusiasts first before you can get it to the masses.

        • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          With VRR? Xorg definitely did not support this as of a year or so ago without running a separate xorg screen for each monitor which prevents you from doing stuff like moving windows between your displays.

          Mixed refresh rates worked okay-ish but VRR definitely did not work well in multi monitor setups.

        • HolyDuckTurtle@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I believe we’re specifically talking VRR, which for me in Kubuntu did not work properly without switching to Wayland.

      • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        It is not a 'fad". Major distros have defaulted to Wayland (Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat, Debian, Manjaro etc).

        X11 is old and designed for use cases in the 1980s. A lot of features have gradually moved out of X11 into the kernel or into other compositor systems. But the core X11 system is still limited by legacy design decisions and needing work arounds (which are complex to build and maintain).

        Wayland is built to be the modern system that is built for current usage and needs. A lot of the benefits are not immediately obvious to the end user - a desktop is a desktop. But desktop interface projects like KDE who build user interfaces are hitting X11s limitations all the time, and a lot of effort goes in to working around X11s limits compared to working with Wayland. Effort spent working to work around X11 is time and work that could have been spent elsewhere on other fixes or new features and innovations.

        The push to Wayland is deliberate and necessary, but was not always inevitable. Now that it’s being adopted so widely as the default by big distros and projects it is likely inevitable. It has essentially reached critical mass.

        I think a lot of people asking “what’s the point” are not the ones working to build systems and distros at the back end. It’s easy for us as end users to take for granted all the work behind the scenes that make our desktops “just work”. But if you’re a volunteer building a compositor fit for 2024, I can see why it’d be frustrating working around the limitations of a system built for 1984.

        X11 has served us incredibly well and is a hugely important project. But Wayland is the way forward.

        • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          When Wayland can do and run everything X11 can, without problems, plus everything it promisses it can do, then I’ll make the switch. Till that time comes, I’m sorry, but it’s just not for me 🤷.

        • someacnt_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          While I don’t think X11 is great, I do not think wayland compositor is made to be easier to develop with. Wlroots had to be made to make things easier for compositor devs.