On Feb 8, 2013 2:56 PM, "Jan de Groot" email@example.com wrote:
On vr, 2013-02-08 at 10:20 +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
I appreciate your effort and have no objection against adding Wayland.
However, to limit people's enthusiasm about this, I just want to remark that having Wayland installed now is not incredibly useful: Weston is AFAIK the only compositor available at this time, and it is, as you mention, a demo (there was talk of some tiling WM being ported to Wayland, I forgot the name). Also you'll use XWayland most of the time.
When Qt5 gets released and Qt4 applications are ported (which will likely happen for all Qt4 applications), there'll be at least many applications that can use Wayland natively. When KDE is ported to Qt5, we'll also get kwin as a more feature-rich Wayland compositor.
I didn't read about the GTK situation yet, but I guess GTK3 has Wayland support already.
This is my main concern for Wayland at this moment. Though it looks cool to support new technology and having released versions of Wayland with 1.x versioning, I doubt there's much use for it at this moment. Running X inside of wayland is a nice feature for apps that aren't ported yet, but if you only run apps that aren't ported yet, there's no use for Wayland at the moment.
Thomas and Jan are right, Wayland does not provide much at the moment.
However, I still think it makes a lot of sense to ship it even now, provided it has no negative effects on the non-wayland usecase, and it does not entail too much work. It would at least make life simpler for devs/testers of wayland/weston/kwin and friends.