Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yeah - I have no clue why you're being downvoted. I have the exact same professional experience where Wayland is slow out-of-box vs X. I also share the experience of getting X to work on ancient hardware without much difficulty.

Let's be real here - if you're needing something to "just work" you're going to install X. Sorry Wayland, you're just not there yet.



> Yeah - I have no clue why you're being downvoted.

I didn't downvote but it's because parents comment are anecdotal and not providing further data one might be able to engage/confirm/refute ... and therefore I learned nothing from reading it.

I'm also running a dual setup of i3/sway and the only reason why I still keep i3 around is screen-sharing in jitsi and similar. and my experience is that wayland has a lower use of CPU/memory than when running X (i3) but it's not why I prefer sway. (I'm using sway with "xwayland disable" so maybe this is where a lot of resources are saved). But the whole discussion is pointless without verifiable benchmarks.


Well, the anecdotes are kind of real, and vast in numbers. I suspect many readers here never used X on a 90s PC or workstation, so they could be forgiven for not realizing it was up to the task on hardware that is now pitiful.

Another example I like is the Nokia N900, which ran X on a phone no less, phone hardware from 2009, and it was pretty good there.

Part of the problem is surely software bloat over time on higher parts of the stack, rather than X itself. You couldn't get the 486 in the comment above to run recent gnome or a recent browser. But you could run software of the era well.


Maybe someone could try to install Wayland on an old device, where latest Xorg works fast, and see if Wayland also does. Comparison video would be nice.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: