> “Wayland sucks!” is a conspiracy theory with no basis in truth, and its supporters have spent years harassing Wayland maintainers, contributors, and users.
See that "and"? Your comment here only addresses the second half of that sentence, which is probably true, and people shouldn't do that. Most of this thread is discussing the first half, which doesn't seem like it's actually correct. You can't say "people are missing the point" when he's making two points in the same rant.
There are pro-wayland people in this thread arguing the former point ("Wayland works for almost everyone"), and mostly they aren't putting up convincing arguments. So far I've seen: "it's really someone else's fault" (ok, in the meantime wayland doesn't work for me") -- "actually no operating system should support this" (ok, back to windows or apple or non-wayland linux it is).
> More likely, it does work, and you swallowed some propaganda based on an assumption which might have been correct 7 years ago.
> [Wayland] invented some new, fixable problems in the process — most of which have been fucking fixed already, and years ago!
> Most of the lies you’ve heard about ways that it’s broken are just that: lies.
The author didn't support these statements at all (which is the whole point of the rant, he's tired of doing that. that's fine). Someone else has to do that for this rant to make sense. So people are saying, "here is my common use case. how does it work on wayland now?" If they only thought it was broken due to lies and propaganda, it would be easy to explain how it's since been fixed. But people aren't.
See that "and"? Your comment here only addresses the second half of that sentence, which is probably true, and people shouldn't do that. Most of this thread is discussing the first half, which doesn't seem like it's actually correct. You can't say "people are missing the point" when he's making two points in the same rant.
There are pro-wayland people in this thread arguing the former point ("Wayland works for almost everyone"), and mostly they aren't putting up convincing arguments. So far I've seen: "it's really someone else's fault" (ok, in the meantime wayland doesn't work for me") -- "actually no operating system should support this" (ok, back to windows or apple or non-wayland linux it is).
> More likely, it does work, and you swallowed some propaganda based on an assumption which might have been correct 7 years ago.
> [Wayland] invented some new, fixable problems in the process — most of which have been fucking fixed already, and years ago!
> Most of the lies you’ve heard about ways that it’s broken are just that: lies.
The author didn't support these statements at all (which is the whole point of the rant, he's tired of doing that. that's fine). Someone else has to do that for this rant to make sense. So people are saying, "here is my common use case. how does it work on wayland now?" If they only thought it was broken due to lies and propaganda, it would be easy to explain how it's since been fixed. But people aren't.