Re: Wayland vs X
The Wanderer wrote:
> Another limitation of XWayland as I've heard it described
> (by the same person on whose statements the previous
> paragraph is based, as well as in online discussions related
> to XWeston, below), as compared to a full X server: where
> you can (and, in fact, usually need to) run a window manager
> on top of an X server, I'm given to understand that you
> cannot run a window manager on top of XWayland. Instead, the
> window manager needs to be implemented as a Wayland
> compositor, and you then run XWayland inside of that. (I
> have not actually tried to do this myself, for reasons which
> I'm about to get into, so I may have some of the
> details wrong.)
OK, that stinks, I'm super-happy with my WM and it's
configured and all. See? How do they expect anyone to switch
to a supposedly superior solution when there are all these
obstacles and limitations? If it is just about replacing one
protocol by another why can't that be done for WMs as well?
And there are TONS of different WMs!
--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal
Reply to: