There used to be something called TinyX, I wish it had become more widespread, as I don't need half of what is in Xorg, all I need outside of regular programs, as a desktop user, is an internet connection, & TinyX was quite adequate for this.

No, I haven't 'used' Wayland, & have no need to, as Xorg works well for my needs, sorry.

Then it doesn't work with DXVK in Wine. Last time I tried it I got half the fps I get with Xorg. When the only difference was Xorg vs Wayland in Gnome that leads me to believe that my problem is Wayland.

I have yet to discover a distribution that offers Wayland that does not also offer X.org. I do not see a "force" here, just options. Right now, x.org is the better option for me most of the time. Wayland also works, just not the same. I expect BOTH to get better with time!

Systemd is a different issue. Many distributions followed the RH lead and jumped on it, and some of the advantages it offers. Other still offer classic init.d, runit, or other options. The problems there are for the developers: if they support systemd then it is a LOT more work to also support other options, and if they do NOT then they lose compatibility with those systemd distributions. Rough choices. As a result the distributions that avoid systemd or allow alternatives are rare (but special in a good way).

I use systemd where I must, it is not terrible. I run other options where I can, because they are easier and have fewer single points of failure. They all work in the no-problem case. I like dependable in the problem case, and systemd is not that. Wayland and x-org are about equal in troubleshooting recovery, and that is a good thing.

I understand that the very long evolution of Xorg has resulted in a patchwork quilt of spaghetti code and that ideally Xorg should be replaced by far less convoluted code with vastly less cruft... BUT, Xorg does work remarkably well and especially with Plasma on Nvidia, the time is not here for Wayland just yet . I will keep testing from time to time, but until it can actually compete with Xorg for me, I won't replace Xorg. Things aren't good just because they are new or because they are old. Things are good because they do a job well.

wpeckham, thank you for these words, esp. about Xorg/wayland. I fully agree.

ArchLinux (and other distros I'm sure) has a very modular approach to X.org.
Of course the xorg-server package depends on many others, but itself weighs in at only 3.74 MiB installed size.

I believe that the reason TinyX went unsupported was because X.Org adopted the coding and technique into X.Org during a rewrite a few years ago. About that time X.Org suddenly ran faster in less memory. The full code package did not shrink (or at least not much) but the in-ram footprint shrank to about the same size as TinyX.

X.Org has been through several rewrites (it was born of a rewrite of XWindows) and optimizations to reduce bloat. It handles a LOT of edge cases because of that maturity, but also includes a lot of legacy conditions that are seldome (if ever) encountered on modern equipment. Wayland has great potential to do things faster, smarter, in less ram, and I expect great things from it. What Wayland lacks is that maturity and refinement that comes only with time.

There is no need to "pick one" as long as both serve different people or on different hardware well anymore than we must pick between gnome, mate, Xfce, KDE (with or without full plasma), or other desktops software. They all work well in their target space, serve a purpose better than others, and should be in our toolset.

The Steam Deck uses Wayland, doesn't it?

As for me, I have an NVidia card, which has been behind on Wayland support for a long time, and I haven't bothered to retest it.

I agree 100% on both counts, but it does seem like we'll all have to switch eventually: https://blog.desdelinux.net/en/red-h...ervidor-x-org/
It's interesting to see an honest opinion such as this, more than 10 years into systemd's development. None of my systems use systemd because I've avoided it like the plague. Your opinion makes me think I'm on the right path.

Your hostility is uncalled for.
Dormant just happens to be to most accurate translation from my language (blame the English language for being over-simplified).

Do note that's actually a step up as it was (mostly*) unmaintained when Adam Jackson stepped down (with nobody willing to step in till "Povilas Kanapickas" did with the help of a crowdfunding campaign).
See: https://ajaxnwnk.blogspot.com/2020/1...-x-server.html and https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/...server_21_1_0/

Wile low on resources, he did manage a new release though that mostly meant splitting up X11(as a server) and Xwayland.

*X11/X.org was almost entirely a redhat project and they've kept adding compatibility (drivers/...) and security patches. Just nothing functionality wise.

Wayland seems to be encountering the same difficulty as GTK 4: effort is required to port application software to it, and afterwards, the software will run more-or-less the same as it did under X11/GTK 3. Developers have more important problems to solve.
Ed

I wonder if I'm alone in finding such discussions profoundly uninteresting? I use what I'm given — that's the point of having a distro for me. Evaluating new products is a job for their developers, not me. My main computer doesn't have wayland or systemd because PCLinuxOS has neither. My laptop has X11 and systemd because they are the Debian defaults. When the distros change, I'll change and hopefully I won't notice any difference. If I do, I can always change distros!

Don't be such a pessimist

In Linux, by the end, You will have no choice Wayland for all.

Still, you can run another platform like Windows, Mac OS, or BSD to not use Wayland.

Is there a fud campaign running?

"no other choice, but..."? In the Linux world?


https://dudemanguy.github.io/blog/po...land-xorg.html

Found among the comments https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...Might-Drop-X11

At the moment Wayland seems to be something that only big desktops use. When fluxbox starts using it, I'll convert.