On 2022-03-11 at 16:07, Emanuel Berg wrote: > The Wanderer wrote: > >> Another limitation of XWayland as I've heard it described (by the >> same person on whose statements the previous paragraph is based, as >> well as in online discussions related to XWeston, below), as >> compared to a full X server: where you can (and, in fact, usually >> need to) run a window manager on top of an X server, I'm given to >> understand that you cannot run a window manager on top of XWayland. >> Instead, the window manager needs to be implemented as a Wayland >> compositor, and you then run XWayland inside of that. (I have not >> actually tried to do this myself, for reasons which I'm about to >> get into, so I may have some of the details wrong.) > > OK, that stinks, I'm super-happy with my WM and it's configured and > all. See? How do they expect anyone to switch to a supposedly > superior solution when there are all these obstacles and limitations? > If it is just about replacing one protocol by another why can't that > be done for WMs as well?
There may be multiple reasons, but one of them is that the feature set supported by Wayland (and/or the associated protocol, if any) is not a superset of the feature set supported by the X protocol. That said, you may still find value in XWeston, and I'd be interested to hear reports from anyone who tries it - the more obscure and niche the window manager they try it with, the better. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
