<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I think there's a certain necessity in ensuring that something
like this has a standard that remains relatively up to date.</p>
<p>Even if it can't support every use case, why can't that be
something we all collaborate on actively, rather than leaving
ourselves behind and <i>hoping</i> that someone else fixes it?</p>
<p>Not to mention, there are a large amount of use cases wayland <i>can</i> support-
i'm nothing more than a casual user with a pretty standard
workflow, and while i've never appreciated the "it works for me"
logic... it <i>does</i> work for me. And there are a lot more
people like me than there are people like you.</p>
<p>Which isn't to throw shade, it's just to say two things: <i>most
people</i> can use Wayland just fine. Everyone i know personally
probably runs a Wayland system because they don't rely on the
fringe cases that it doesn't support that X still does. And two:
get on wayland, and start contributing. If we had people
developing these protocols to fix the broken fringe use cases that
X supports, it would be fine! But from where i'm standing, it
seems like the only people still fighting for X11 support are
content to use it alone and contribute nothing to making the more
up-to-date alternatives better- all while complaining about the
lack of support in said alternatives.</p>
<p>I'd be lying if i said that i didn't run into issues with
Wayland's lack of protocol support that bugged me at times, but
you know what i do? Work around it, and try my best- as a non-dev-
to actually get someone to change it.</p>
<p>I'm not saying anyone should be forced, but isn't this genuinely
just going to be for the better of Wayland in the end? Once the
complete deprecation of X11 hits, how fast are we going to start
patching these holes out of necessity? No one is doing that now,
because no one necessitates it.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Also @ Valder's point: it's likely that a lot of that usage comes
from people using alternative desktops that have yet to fully
support wayland. And even so, some distros also still ship with
X11 as an option by default. Wouldn't that skew the download
statistics?? Not everyone who owns a package is always actively
using it</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>That's all jut my take, at least. I'm not a dev, nor do i have a
particularly fringe use case, so maybe my perspective is skewed,
but still.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/2/25 04:14, Richard Troy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d66a158f-94da-e252-aa5f-ed24a13c938f@ScienceTools.com">
<br>
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025, Valder N. wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
I hope you understand that even according to the data provided
in the
<br>
article, X11-session is used by 30% of active users. In reality,
this
<br>
number is significantly higher, and to verify this, you can
refer to the
<br>
statistics on the use and downloads of individual software
packages in the
<br>
repositories of active distributions. However, even 30% (!)
should be more
<br>
than enough to justify the need to continue supporting this
protocol.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Valder, you get a BIG thank-you from me:
<br>
<br>
Wayland JUST DOES NOT WORK in my environ at all. Full Stop. I've
tried and gave up.
<br>
<br>
Valder's right: I'm not in the KDE statistics, but the
repo-fetches would show my downloads of the X versions.
<br>
<br>
I've looked into the WHY of Wayland and so far as I can tell - and
I could be wrong - the real motive is to move into a
"containerized" "virtualization" world that most of us just don't
need. The only reason Wayland can "get away with" all the extra
overhead is because many users just don't use all the power of
their machines.
<br>
<br>
If you think I'm wrong don't just TELL ME I'm wrong or ignore
this: EXPLAIN WHAT THE USE CASE IS without resorting to
containerization and / or virtualization - that is, the addition
of overhead for the sole purpose of "isolation" as if one box is
more than one. If there's another important use case, I've never
heard it.
<br>
<br>
This is, in my view, unconscionable on other grounds: YOU may see
it as noise, but as a member of the EBT ("Electricity Brain Trust"
- arrogantly named, I know!), I'm very well aware of just how much
power is going to computing these days, even before the recent
"AI" boom, and the power consumption by data centers is both
driving up electricity rates around the USA and mostly polluting
and "going the wrong way" with the current biosphere's vital
decarbonization needs.
<br>
<br>
Ignore all that if you want, but what's NOT arguable is that
Wayland is a LONG, LONG way from ready for prime-time and anyone
who tells you otherwise is ignorant of important facts such as
Valder just articulated.
<br>
<br>
Further, there's no real need to change OFF of x-11. It's MORE
WORK to switch to Wayland. Why do it? Because we can? Well so far
you can't!
<br>
<br>
ALL talk of eliminating support for x-11 is hugely misguided and,
dare I say it, a stupid move.
<br>
<br>
...If x-11 support ever is removed, I might end up a
source-code-warrior like Cristian, "fighting to keep the stupid at
bay" or however he might articulate his willingness to go hack
source code to keep the tools useful, but I'd rather not!
<br>
<br>
LET Wayland PROVE ITSELF FULLY before any such talk. As I said,
it's a long way off.
<br>
<br>
Richard
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
Richard Troy, Chief Scientist
<br>
Science Tools Corporation
<br>
510-717-6942
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rtroy@ScienceTools.com">rtroy@ScienceTools.com</a>, <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ScienceTools.com/">http://ScienceTools.com/</a>
<br>
<br>
I pledge allegiance to We, The People, to mutual peace and
harmony, and
<br>
to the natural Earth and biosphere upon which We, The People,
depend.
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>