81
X11 vs Wayland (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

What's the difference for a real user between using X11 or Wayland nowdays? I haven't found anything useful on the internet, so I'm asking you. Internet articles on the topic (and about WMs too) seem to be advertising slop since they explain anything but the real things. Also, if anyone used the XLibre fork, I would love to hear about your experience with it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Honestly, on a running system with average hardware, the average user won't notice any difference. Depending on your de/wm of choice on x11, you may have to swap to something similar but different, but there it. Depending on what you used, something will require different solutions, like screenshots, but 90+% of stuff, there is no difference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago*

    I'd like to chime in on the "average hardware" claim.

    The idea that Wayland is more demanding to run than X11 is a misconception.

    Mutter (Gnome's compositor) and kwin (KDE's compositor) are more demanding than xorg plus a simple window manager. Usually that's what people used to compare when they said that Wayland is demanding, and now they just keep repeating it.

    In actuality, the Wayland protocol is more efficient by nature. So a light Wayland compositor (e.g. labwc) will run better on limited hardware, than a light X11 window manager.

    Tho, Wayland requires proper EGL support, which you might not have on some old exotic hardware (e.g. a Tegra 2/3/4 tablet).

    The example I usually make is:

    • Dig up an old intel atom netbook (it's old and
    • Try using regular lxqt on x11
    • Now try lxqt on labwc
    • See which one you'd rather use
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent