| 1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 11.07.2017 kell 18:16, kirjutas R0b0t1: |
| 2 |
> In any case if you are asking the question that OP did, I would |
| 3 |
> suggest Wayland might not be for you. You may not receive any benefit |
| 4 |
> from using it unless, for some reason, the differing underlying |
| 5 |
> implementation fixes a bug - but I see this as being a bit of a |
| 6 |
> stretch, because if you don't go out of your way to run Wayland only |
| 7 |
> programs, you will still be running X11 on top of Wayland. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
There are no grabs in Wayland, and thus the bug he had, related to |
| 10 |
tooltips or context menus, might very well be related to the switch, as |
| 11 |
tooltips and context menus are done completely differently. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Most programs written for Wayland still seem to be at early |
| 14 |
> experimental stages, and are things like tiling window managers. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Most programs don't need to be written for Wayland, they just use a |
| 17 |
toolkit while avoiding to make their own libX11/XCB/etc calls. |
| 18 |
This means most GTK3 programs and Qt programs run natively on wayland |
| 19 |
out of the box without doing anything. |
| 20 |
Running things needing X11, and thus going through Xwayland, can still |
| 21 |
be smoother as well. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Mart |
Archives