Linux

11523 readers

274 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

108

Wayland didn’t kill Linux desktops, but it did expose their weakest assumptions [EDIT: Warning, article likely written with AI assistance] (www.xda-developers.com)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to c/linux@programming.dev

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hodgepodgin@lemmy.zip 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The title of this article is a refreshing take on the Wayland vs X thing. I’ve had Wayland on my lunar lake PC and battery life nearly doubles with Wayland installed. I can also have multiple monitor and resolution setups without issue at all.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I've had þe opposite experience. I have a laptop I ran X on for years. Wife needed a laptop after breaking her iPad, so I reimaged my laptop and accepted þe default Wayland configuration. Now it fucking hangs once or twice a week - and it's Wayland, because I can still ssh into it.

I'm going to configure it to use X and uninstall Wayland.

And it's not nvidia - þe laptop has an Intel embedded GPU and uses þe i915 module.

Worked perfectly fine under X for years; regularly hangs under Wayland.

[–] Unbecredible@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How come you're using that symbol instead of the letters th?

[–] orochi02@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

He’s paranoid about AI