Ubuntu Budgie Switches to an Xfce Approach to Wayland (theregister.com) 71
Last January the Register reported that the Budgie desktop environment was planning to switch from using GNOME to Enlightenment. But this week Budgie's project lead David Mohammed and packaging guru Sam Lane "passed on news of a rift — and indeed possible divorce — between Budgie and Enlightenment," the Register reported. "And it's caused by Wayland."
The development team of the Budgie desktop is changing course and will work with the Xfce developers toward Budgie's Wayland future...
While Enlightenment does have some Wayland support, in the project's own words this is "still considered experimental and not for regular end users." Mohammed told us... "Progress though towards a full implementation currently doesn't fit into the deemed urgent nature to move to Wayland (Red Hat dropping further X11 development, and questions as to any organisation stepping up, etc.)"
So, instead, Budgie is exploring different ways to build a Wayland-only environment. For now, as we mentioned when looking at Ubuntu's 23.10 release, there's a new windowing library, Magpie. Magpie 0.9 is what the project describes as "a soft-fork of GNOME's mutter at version 43" — the term soft fork meaning it's a temporary means to an end, rather than intended to form an on-going independent continuation.
For the future, though, Mohammed told us... "[T]he Budgie team has been evaluating options to move forward. XFCE are doing some really great work in this area with libxfce4windowing — a compatibility layer bridging Wayland and X11, allowing the move in a logical direction without needing a big-bang approach. To date, most of the current codebase has already been reworked and is ready for a Wayland-only approach without impacting further development and enhancements."
Mohammed later told the Register, "It makes sense for the more dynamic smaller projects to work together where there are shared aims."
While Enlightenment does have some Wayland support, in the project's own words this is "still considered experimental and not for regular end users." Mohammed told us... "Progress though towards a full implementation currently doesn't fit into the deemed urgent nature to move to Wayland (Red Hat dropping further X11 development, and questions as to any organisation stepping up, etc.)"
So, instead, Budgie is exploring different ways to build a Wayland-only environment. For now, as we mentioned when looking at Ubuntu's 23.10 release, there's a new windowing library, Magpie. Magpie 0.9 is what the project describes as "a soft-fork of GNOME's mutter at version 43" — the term soft fork meaning it's a temporary means to an end, rather than intended to form an on-going independent continuation.
For the future, though, Mohammed told us... "[T]he Budgie team has been evaluating options to move forward. XFCE are doing some really great work in this area with libxfce4windowing — a compatibility layer bridging Wayland and X11, allowing the move in a logical direction without needing a big-bang approach. To date, most of the current codebase has already been reworked and is ready for a Wayland-only approach without impacting further development and enhancements."
Mohammed later told the Register, "It makes sense for the more dynamic smaller projects to work together where there are shared aims."
sounds good to me (Score:2)
I do not want to use a DE, but I have used GNOME3 (at work). I played with KDE and recently XFCE on Slackware. If I *have* to use Wayland and a DE, I would use XFCE, to me it is closest to my needs.
I would prefer fvwm under wayland, but from what I have read, moving a WM to wayland is a awful lot of work :(
Re: sounds good to me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Wayland and X11 are window servers aka the APIs which desktop environments (specifically their window managers) use to place windows on the screen. X11 is the old API, Wayland is supposed to be its replacement.
The main problem with Wayland seems to be that people have been using X11 for a very long time now and rely on its various features. Wayland has an opinionated design which seems to prevent the developers from offering every feature that X11 did, sometimes for security reasons. As newer tech it's also
Re: (Score:1)
display servers*
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
starting with systemd !
Re: (Score:2)
> Wayland and X11 are window servers aka the APIs which desktop environments (specifically their window managers) use to place windows on the screen. X11 is the old API, Wayland is supposed to be its replacement.
Well they are not API's. They provide them, but are not them.
Re: (Score:2)
What is wayland and why is it a problem?
X11 and Wayland are X Display Servers that interface with the screen, keyboard, mouse, etc... and communicate with X Clients like Xterm, etc...
X11 was invented at MIT in 1984, works well, is available on Unix, Linux, Windows, etc... but is a little broken, mostly in ways most people don't care about. Wayland is new(er), invented by people at Red Hat in 2008, is primarily (only?) available on Linux, with currently fewer features, but fixes some of those broken thing (that people don't really care about),
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
X11 and Wayland are X Display Servers...
Wayland is not an X server (X is a protocol, and Wayland does not implement it), and has no network support at all. It is a local display manager toy, and a piss-poor one at that. It seems to be minimally effective if you have a single monitor (maybe even a specific monitor brand, but I'm not sure) and don't sneeze too hard while you're near it, once you manage to get it working at all, but it COMPLETELY fails with multiple monitors.
Fifteen years after its initial release, and years after active development
Re: (Score:1)
Good points, thanks. I know that about X11 -- I have the X Protocol Reference Manual, Volume 0 on my shelf and have written programs that implement it to monitor, intercept and control traffic between X Clients and X Servers. I'm less familiar with the idiosyncrasies of Wayland. I was just providing a simpler explanation of the two. At some (high) level the difference between the protocol and server is w/o distinction and Wayland attempts to provide (some of) the functionality of X11. I currently use
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using it for years now, with multiple monitors, with no problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: sounds good to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Wayland is a solution to a problem that never existed.
X11 - especially Xorg - is perfectly capable of handling all the stuff Wayland is supposed to handle, and more and also perfectly capable of being extended to support anything new.
Moreover, X is a protocol that has existed for nearly 40 years. That makes it pretty much a stable protocol. And, that my friends, is the main issue some people have with X: it has a stable protocol. X provides the canvas, with a couple of extensions. It is up to another program to provide, for instance, the compositing or the window manager.
Some people tried to merge the canvas and compositing part with Wayland, which one should never do.
Re: (Score:3)
A bit same for me, I use fluxbox on X11, I don't have the competences to port a WM to Wayland (or the time and dedication to acquire said competences), but since I use gentoo I have good hopes X11 will be supported by my distro still for a long time.
Visually that's quite a difference (Score:3)
Shifting from Enlightenment to Xfce would be pretty jarring.
Illiterate slashdot weekend (Score:1)
What is this:
> Mohammed told us... "Progress though towards a full implementation currently doesn't fit into the deemed urgent nature to move to Wayland (Red Hat dropping further X11 development, and questions as to any organisation stepping up, etc.)"
ChatGPT says this meaningless drivel above says:
Mohammed informed us that the current urgency to transition to Wayland is not aligned with the progress made towards its full implementation. This is due to factors such as Red Hat reducing further development
Translation: (Score:2, Informative)
Wayland is not ready for prime time and we should keep X11 working for the time beingâ¦
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
we should keep X11 working
By all means have at it. [freedesktop.org] Literally, there's so many open places for devs to maintain and add new things to Xorg, just pick anything, and likely you're the head maintainer of it.
Or if straight development isn't your jam, start answering some of the outstanding tickets. [freedesktop.org]
At this point anyone who says "we need to keep X". I'm just going to point them to the xorg project and tell them "Doctor heal thyself" at this point. If the folks who say they want to keep X aren't going to actually code, then you all just sit back and watch X die. Nobody wants to work on the code and if any of you spend 15 minutes with it, you'll quickly be changing your tune on keeping it.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody wants to work on the code and if any of you spend 15 minutes with it, you'll quickly be changing your tune on keeping it.
X is just a protocol, so the (assumed) bad code of xorg... well, the people who wrote that bad code are now writing Wayland. Given they've taken 15 years to not make it better (how do you get employed for 15 years on a project that goes only slightly more than nowhere??) I suspect they did not do a substantially better job second time.
Re: (Score:1)
But it's cool and new.
Re: (Score:2)
so the (assumed) bad code of xorg
That's a big assumption. But if you recall there was a whole conversation about how video cards were changing and that hardware makers were opening up some of the device side for work on the BSDs and Linux. When everyone started looking at the evolution, it was clear that the X protocol having itself sit in between everything wasn't going to work well for the hardware that was starting to appear.
the people who wrote that bad code are now writing Wayland
The people writing Wayland offered a chance for something else. Xgl. But the RedHat folks weren't having it.
Re: (Score:2)
That ship sailed a long fucking time ago, and you didn't even know it. Tells me you're talking out of your ass.
It's urgent ot move to Wayland (Score:1, Flamebait)
It's urgent to move to Wayland because it's been in development for 15 years, X11 has hardly seen any development for the last 10, Wayland is still inadequate and it's getting embarrassing. Maybe if we force the issue and get everyone on to Wayland then eventually it will work well.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow that reminded me of how my employer approaches fiscal spending decisions... [seattletimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I was reading your link and though "haha sounds like you've been Oracled, suckaaaaahh" and sure enough it turned out you had! It was predictable from 3 lines in. My last employer had workday too, massive fucking piece of shit.
Once I was trying to gather some stats, so I got it to do a report for all employees (5000?). This should be a trivial join executing in in a few ms on a 90s era database server. It took 15 minutes. I suspect the "engine" queried all employees, then populated every field for every empl
Re: (Score:2)
Spread the data across multiple applications in different data centers on shared hardware?
*cough*
Re:It's urgent ot move to Wayland (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
15 years sounds like a long time, but Microsoft has spent over a dozen years trying to get the Windows Settings app to replace the Control Panel. When viewed from that lens, Wayland development is happening at warp speed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: It's urgent ot move to Wayland (Score:3)
For something that's a glorified high level framebuffer thenwayland team seem to be making a right meal of getting it to work.
As for X development, tbh the core X server has been a done deal since X11R6 came out in 1994. The only dev on it has been porting to x86 first via XFree86 then xorg, ,debugging and display drivers. All the main X server dev happens in the extensions (wayland doesnt have those either afaik).
Re: (Score:3)
For something that's a glorified high level framebuffer thenwayland team seem to be making a right meal of getting it to work.
I thin that's probably a good part of the problem: that's all it is. The problem is a desktop system needs more than just a frame buffer. There's all sorts of tooling needs to exist too, because people need more than to just passively look at pixels. But the tooling is basically what's missing and "out of scope" and left to a bunch of third party libraries.
It's like they looked at X
Re: It's urgent ot move to Wayland (Score:3)
Yes, the wayland team have taken the VGA console approach - here's some low level display IO with bit of windowing, the rest is up to you. Seriously in 2023? Fuck right off.
Re extensions, yes they're new API calls but crucially the extensions are shared libraries and so operate inside the same unix process as the X server so have full access to its memory space. Theres no cretinous message passing or other nonsense that looks great on a kool kids whiteboard but just slows everything down.
Re: (Score:2)
For something that's a glorified high level framebuffer
The hell you are talking about? If you want to give a bad summary of what Wayland does, you can do so by indicating that Wayland brings the server and the windowing manager together and simplifies the messaging and queue handling. fbdev is a glorified frame buffer, Wayland is about as a framebuffer as pure xlib is to fbdev.
tbh the core X server has been a done deal since X11R6 came out in 1994
Yeah, that's why it's core architecture matches no modern hardware. Video cards today mostly expect direct channels between the GPU and CPU, that's why you see direct PCIe lines runnin
Re: (Score:2)
modern video cards are *just a hint* more complex than video cards in the 1990s.
Most obvious of them is gpu which is nowadays is used as general parallel processor too. However there are strictly videocard domain advances too, such as adaptive sync and HDR. I'm not sure how good linux support for them is atm but changing display technologies probably wouldn't accelerate things..
Re: It's urgent ot move to Wayland (Score:3)
Define window management. X11 does the low level side and allows userspace progs to do the higher level, eg borders. How is wayland different?
As for wayland extensions, they sit on the side, they're not loaded in as shared libraries to become part of the unix process like X extensions are with all the efficiencies of the latter.
You're waffle about graphics cards is a straw man. X extensions have solved that problem already - how do you think modern graphics works in X systems? Yes maybe it's a bit whacky bu
Re: (Score:2)
How is wayland different?
Because the WMs want to handle it directly without asking mother may I. The WMs are smart enough to handle directly too. There's no need for the low level to setup a picnic nobody needs when everyone came with a picnic basket for themselves. WMs can fire up an EGL and let the kernel take it the rest of the way from there. Why have a middleman? Modern video cards aren't expecting a middleman and adding one is a source of stutter because you have to go out of your way to convince things one way when the
Re: (Score:2)
" Network transparency? Xorg doesn't even do that anymore"
Thats odd because I'm using it networked now.
" In fact, it's better that they aren't. A bug in one would pull the rest down. It's better to isolate that shit out "
Ah he we go. When Wayland makes some compromises for speed and efficiency its a Good Thing. When X does it its a Bad Thing. My god how many times do I see this in these discussions.
" Let me know when your first commit hits,"
It works fine for me and has done for 20 years. I'll let you know w
Re: (Score:3)
Wow the fanboiiism is strong in this one.
X11's core protocol gets in the way of that, because it assumes that things are just hunks of VRAM and up/down counters with a DAC and EEPROM for control.
No it doesn't, that's jut flat out wrong.
But here's the real fanboiism:
but there's a lot of X11 that you cannot just "extension" your way out of
Note well the scare quotes around extension. Extensions (a.k.a. new API calls) are bad in X11.
What are you even talking about? There is a very rich set of extensions for Way
Re: (Score:2)
Extensions (a.k.a. new API calls) are bad in X11
No. There's people who believe that you can do extensions as some get out of legacy free card. And that's a completely bad take because extensions don't do that in X, they add to the capabilities of the server but you always have to come back to the server to be dealt with. If a WM has open a direct channel to the video card, what's the point of first routing to the X server, going through all that switching to then just be told to head back to the CPU where the kernel can then schedule you out on a DMA
Re: (Score:3)
Back when I switched Window Managers like clothes this might have mattered, now I just want something that just works. X11 plus XFCE works for me. Don't force bugs on us that don't give a damn.
Re: (Score:3)
Back when I switched Window Managers like clothes this might have mattered, now I just want something that just works. X11 plus XFCE works for me. Don't force bugs on us that don't give a damn.
Yeah, I've tried other DE's and keep coming back to XFCE. Thunar has a few quirks I don't love, OTOH it also has Bulk File Rename. I use that a lot; it can be used with other FM's but integration isn't as good.
XFCE just has the best features for me and mostly stays out of my way. Mint has been good too - very stable, and updates are painless. I hope Mint's dependence on Ubuntu doesn't end with Mint discontinuing support for XFCE - I really don't want to go distro shopping again.
Re: (Score:2)
I've tried other DE's and keep coming back to XFCE. Thunar has a few quirks I don't love
One of my friends was distro hopping recently. He tried Debian with Xfce and Xubuntu and failed to find a GUI tool to create a Samba share or browse Samba shares under Thunar. GUI is non-negotiable to him. What would you recommend?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem with Linux - the GUIs are all limiting. Honestly, they're all so terrible you're better off just using Linux from the command line. If anything, the situation with Linux desktop environments is worse than it was in the mid '00s.
Re: (Score:2)
There's not even a question. Plasma - you can configure it to look like Xfce. I was long time Xfce user, I had issues with tearing and VRR on multiple monitors. So best alternative was to switch to Wayland+Plasma.
I still use Thunar though.
For sharing, there are Plasma addons that allow creating shares from context menus.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people for whom tearing is still an issue are nvidia binary driver users. But even we can fix it, by spending some VRAM. Enable triple buffering. Sadly you do also have to choose between the best performance and indirect GLX, disabling that is also necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Triple buffering was in fact the fix, via an obscure X configuration option.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, and a bit over my head. Most people here are way more into the nuts and bolts of Linux than I am; I'm a GUI suck who calls for help when things get too hairy. I fixed the tearing by switching my compositor to Compton.
Re: (Score:2)
I've tried other DE's and keep coming back to XFCE. Thunar has a few quirks I don't love
One of my friends was distro hopping recently. He tried Debian with Xfce and Xubuntu and failed to find a GUI tool to create a Samba share or browse Samba shares under Thunar. GUI is non-negotiable to him. What would you recommend?
Sorry, I have no advice to offer. I'm lucky enough to not need a local network so I don't use Samba. I played with it a long time ago with the help of a friend, and I'll call him again when I inevitably need to set up network and put my wife's Windows machines on it.
As an earlier reply to your question indicated, GUI setup for Linux is terribly inconsistent. Even the main menu editor I use is very limited, sometime behaves as though it's broken, and seems to split its configuration files among directories i
Re: (Score:2)
Mint keeps a project going that builds off Debian instead of Ubuntu too: https://linuxmint.com/download... [linuxmint.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I tried LMDE a few years ago and was dissatisfied with it for some reason I can't recall - maybe it's time to try it again.
When I first started with Linux I was on Debian, first with Gnome 2 and then with XFCE. But I did an upgrade once - in the Stable branch - and a bunch of stuff broke. I switched to Ubuntu and had no problems. Then I switched to Mint when Ubuntu's GUI direction got a bit silly. And I still long for the days of GTK2.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying in 15 years they have not been able to approach the functionality of X11 which has been sitting, doing nothing while laughing on it's ass all that time?
It's not the goal of the project to replicate the functionality of X11.
Back when I switched Window Managers like clothes this might have mattered, now I just want something that just works. X11 plus XFCE works for me. Don't force bugs on us that don't give a damn.
You're free to keep using X11 until it stops working.
Nobody is forcing shit on you.
Eventually, they'll get compositing to not suck in XFCE, and they'll implement a Wayland compositor in it, and this argument will become moot.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the goal of the project to replicate the functionality of X11.
The goal is to have a working desktop presumably, something which X11 does in fact provide. Wayland is still somewhat haphazard and fragmented unless you stick exclusively with in the incredibly shitty GNOME ecosystem.
I do love how the Wayland defenders essentially say everything, up and to having a working machine is out of scope of Wayland.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not defending it, I'm pointing out to everyone reading that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
An API that missed essential functionality that the thing it's trying to replace got.
The result is the said essential functionality is delegated to a bunch of fragmented, incompatible third party libraries.
Yelling "out of scope" doesn't magically make screen capture a smooth experience on a Wayland based desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
An API that missed essential functionality that the thing it's trying to replace got.
Again proving you don't know what you're talking about.
Things that should never have been in a centralized display server separate from the compositor are now handled by toolkits themselves, or their specific compositors.
Your complaint belongs with mutter or kwin, not libwayland.
Trying to shove every fucking thing anyone wants into the protocol to the display server is precisely what turned X11 into a shit-show.
The result is the said essential functionality is delegated to a bunch of fragmented, incompatible third party libraries.
incompatible third party libraries? What the fuck does that even mean?
Any library that's used
Re: (Score:2)
Things that should never have been in a centralized display server separate from the compositor are now handled by toolkits themselves, or their specific compositors.
Opinions aren't facts no matter how hard you feel them.
I think you mean "incompatible with the tool I want to use" which was never updated to use it.
How many times do I have to repeat the verifiable fact that screen capture is a shitshow under Wayland. Stop making the most stupid possible readings of basic words that you can to try and prove yo
Re: (Score:2)
Opinions aren't facts no matter how hard you feel them.
Of course they aren't.
There is no such thing as fact in this opinionated matter. What matters is that my opinion is the majority of developer's opinion, and the one that has become reality.
How many times do I have to repeat the verifiable fact that screen capture is a shitshow under Wayland. Stop making the most stupid possible readings of basic words that you can to try and prove yourself "right".
Repeat it until you're blue in the face. Won't make it any more true.
There are 2 methods to screencap on a DE running a Wayland compositor. libpipewire (assuming the Compositor supports it) and KMS scanout buffer capturing.
You're making it quite clear that you don't really use Wayland.
As mentioned, you can do it in OB
Re: (Score:2)
> > That's flat out false
>No, it's a flat truth. You're correct,
OK I couldn't resist, but I'm just going to leave it at this little gem of completely blind fanboyism. You directly contradict me, followed by telling me I'm completely right only to go and then further contradict yourself later.
Are you actually a Wayland fanboi or is this some sort of perormance art? If the later, then goo show my fine fellow!
Re: (Score:2)
I claimed:
Screen capture is a cleaner process in Wayland
To which you said:
This is outright false. Wayland has no provision for screen capture. None. It's all third party systems which are not all compatible.
I roll my eyes and accept your nit, and then demonstrate why your nit is bullshit:
You're correct, Wayland has absolutely no provision for screen capture. Which means we use pipewire and DMA-BUFs.
We don't want the Display Server in the path for (in)securely transporting screen buffers around.
So when you claim to mean "Wayland", where it really only made sense to mean "Wayland desktops", I give you the benefit of the doubt and answer that.
Comparing feature parity of Xorg and libwayland is as stupid as c
Re: (Score:2)
I roll my eyes and accept your nit,
Ah yes, key facts about the system which are being debated are "nits". And thus speaks the Wayland fanatic.
Re: (Score:2)
Gaslight away, fucker.
X11 and Wayland are not protocols that are trying to do the same thing.
If there had been a desire for feature parity, then there would be. The desire is the opposite.
It is however desired that the desktop ecosystems have parity. And they do.
You roam back and forth at random between criticizing Wayland (as a desktop ecosystem) and as a protocol, so it's really hard to reassembly your scattered blathering.
You got punked when you found out that OBS works just fine on a
Re: It's urgent ot move to Wayland (Score:2)
How about Remote Desktop, Remote Windowing, Screenshots, Screen Sharing, Screen Savers and Lock Screens, Containers? Pretty much the corner stone of modern desktops, impossible to implement in Wayland, every single document on each of those topics begins with: Install XWayland or run Xorg as the compositor.
Re: (Score:2)
How about Remote Desktop, Remote Windowing, Screenshots, Screen Sharing, Screen Savers and Lock Screens, Containers? Pretty much the corner stone of modern desktops, impossible to implement in Wayland, every single document on each of those topics begins with: Install XWayland or run Xorg as the compositor.
Patently false.
Wayland is just a protocol. Remote desktop/sharing/screenshots are up to the compositor, which will be provided by your DE in most cases.
You're complaining that tools that were written for X11 don't work with a Wayland compositor, to which I can only say, "No shit, Sherlock."
Re: (Score:2)
So instead of having X handle your remote desktop environment, you now have fractured the landscape into each DE having to implement remoting. No wonder nobody wants to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite.
If you read his other replies, he yells loudly that Wayland can do it and also ti's not Waylad's job so don't complain about Wayland complain about all the compositors instead.
He's definitely a "wayland for it's own sake" kind of guy.
you now have fractured the landscape into each DE having to implement remoting
Precisely. Wayland is a very, very low level system being billed as a replacement for a somewhat higher level one. Because the Wayland people want it to be "simple", they push the complexity to
Re: (Score:2)
not the goal of the project to replicate the functionality of X11
From wikipedia: '... free and open-source community-driven project with the aim of replacing the X Window System with a modern, secure, and simpler windowing system for Linux and other Unix-like operating systems'.
So the goal is to replace something while dropping features. Why is Wayland hated so much again?
Nobody is forcing shit on you.
Read the OP's post, last sentence. This was not directed at you but somehow here you are defending Wayland instead of using that precious time fixing it.
Re: (Score:2)
From wikipedia: '... free and open-source community-driven project with the aim of replacing the X Window System with a modern, secure, and simpler windowing system for Linux and other Unix-like operating systems'.
If that is indeed what the wikipedia article says, then it is wrong.
Wayland aims to replace one single part of the X11 system, and throw away the rest, because it is fucking garbage.
So the goal is to replace something while dropping features. Why is Wayland hated so much again?
Absolutely.
If, for example, you wanted to "replace SystemD", you would do it while dropping significant "features".
Read the OP's post, last sentence. This was not directed at you but somehow here you are defending Wayland instead of using that precious time fixing it.
I'm defending Wayland against ignorance. And this is directed at you, since you also seem to be confused about what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
15 years?
Tis but a child. Still in nappies.
Wayland offers no advantage for end users (Score:2)
Reduced functionality. Keyboard layout, additional behaviors for multiple displays, and input methods are some of the casaulities.
A confusing, decentralized configuration. Each window manager is responsible for much of that the X server used to do, and implementations are incomplete or wrong.
Difficulty with hardware support over multiple OSes. If your graphics drivers aren't done the way Mesa decided to do things on Linux then Wayland implementations like Weston or wlroots struggles with some hardware, such
I CBA with Wayland (Score:2)
Until is is featire complete and usable that is.
It is a total mistake to move the compositor into the DE/WM. At some point someone will go "Aha!" and separate the two, then I may bite as then DE/WM's can do DE/WM stuff and not compositing which is as strange as my car having the ability to run on rails.
Another reason I'll leav Wayland way behind is my WM will very unlikely support it. I use Window Maker, I doubt that will be refactored to do without the features and functionality of X11.