Hi, Josselin Poiret <d...@jpoiret.xyz> skribis:
> I'm not sure, it does seem like a fraction of people use it on IRC but > then again it's more likely that Wayland users would talk about it, X > being the default. If there are no outstanding bugs with Wayland Gnome > though, I think it'd be a better choice: no tearing in the default > configuration, and better designed. GUI Toolkits seem to have adapted > pretty well, and we still have XWayland for the rest. The most glaring > non-Wayland app would be Emacs, but emacs-next-pgtk is fully > Wayland-native. So plain ‘emacs’ package doesn’t work on Wayland? That sounds like a recipe for a poor user experience, no? (FWIW folks like me who use exwm, ratpoison, or one of these geeky tiling window managers probably can’t switch.) > For me the #1 reason though is onboarding experience: take a user of > another distro that uses their favorite Wayland compositor, and wants to > try out Guix. They install it through the Guix installer, and don't > understand (yet) how to read the whole documentation and write their own > config file fully. They add sway to their system packages, reconfigure, > but next reboot GDM doesn't show Sway in the available sessions; they then > decide it's not worth their time and go back to their old distro. This > default change would make sure that it Just Works Out of The Box™ on > first install. Yeah, understood. (I think we should have a section in the manual documenting, with actual examples, how to set up Wayland!) Surely there’s a geek audience who expects Wayland, and another geek audience who needs X for their tools; in between, there’s probably a lot of people who’s fine either way. I have no objection to defaulting to Wayland, but my gut feeling is that we have enough on our plate for 1.4 already, so I’d rather delay that post-release. WDYT? Ludo’.