Mozilla Firefox 116 Now Available - Capable Of Wayland-Only Builds

[Sonadow]

Having a Firefox built only with Wayland support is limiting the freedom of choice. You got it totally backwards and you've been screaming how you like it backwards. Linux fans and discrediting Open Source - a match made in heaven.

Among 90% of people that I know who used Linux in the past left it for Windows/MacOS just because they got tired of all the infighting and hateful Linux fans.

"Xorg is dogshit!"
"Redhat is evil!"
"Microsoft/Oracle/NVIDIA/proprietary/patented stuff must die!"

Every fucking day.

Linux is fucked up in many ways that you and I both agree on, but Firefox is not dropping the X code paths. Anybody can pick up the Firefox source and compile it with a simple flag in .mozconfig such that both X and Wayland paths are used.

I choose to build Firefox as wayland-only, obviously I'm not going to share my binary with someone who runs an X-based session.

[-MacNuke-]

just because you wanna save ~50MB of disk space.

Nah... this is not the reason. I just do not want unmaintained crap on my system.

[Sonadow]

I get it, you also don't have Xwayland installed and you've wilfully bereft yourself of all the X11 software just because you wanna save ~50MB of disk space.

No Steam or professional Linux software for you either.

Yeah, just to save nothing 50 megabytes. And then you say headless system and graphics software for Wayland. Maybe you could get it right next time and stop lying and making stuff up.

I knew Wayland fans had zero arguments against Xorg and X11 software, this topic has proved that beyond reasonable doubt. All you have is "I hate the old because the new is better". Why better? Because it's new!

What a disgrace.

As someone who never had any good experience with X, not wanting X in my system is definitely a big thing.

You can argue that X just works. That is, until it doesn't and the autodetection screws up. What next? Try adding random configs in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d and mucking around with stuff in /etc/X11 praying that something works out of sheer luck and black magic? No point even talking about X11 software when I can't even get to the graphical desktop. I'm not making this up. Recently on a server I installed Ubuntu Server 18.04, used apt to install Gnome and tried to enter a graphical desktop; guess what? Xorg autodetection failed and even using driver "Vesa" or driver "modesetting" could not even get us to an X-based Gnome desktop; GDM just straight up failed to start with the dreaded "no screens found" error from X. With Wayland, the only thing that is needed to start a GUI session is llvmpipe. Literally. No messing around with any Xorg configs.

So yes, IMO X deserves to die a painful death sooner than later.

[avis]

The reason it is interesting is not because it saves a few hundred KBs in Firefox, it is interesting because it might prevent all the X-related packages from being pulled in during installation. Of course, you might not care about that. but I hate it when I have a headless system, I install some library, and suddenly I seem to need the the whole X-server installed with most of its packages, even if not running. The situation with Wayland and X is the same. If my goal is to have a graphical desktop based on Wayland, I don't want just one application to pull in all the X-related stuff. Firefox is a popular application especially on Linux, and the ability to build it completely without X is a huge step in allowing this.

I get it, you also don't have Xwayland installed and you've wilfully bereft yourself of all the X11 software just because you wanna save ~50MB of disk space.

No Steam or professional Linux software for you either.

Yeah, just to save nothing 50 megabytes. And then you say headless system and graphics software for Wayland. Maybe you could get it right next time and stop lying and making stuff up.

I knew Wayland fans had zero arguments against Xorg and X11 software, this topic has proved that beyond reasonable doubt. All you have is "I hate the old because the new is better". Why better? Because it's new!

What a disgrace.

[ultimA]

How's limiting freedom become "interesting"? A pure Wayland Firefox build is not any "faster" or "better" than the one which supports X11 as well. Oh, it will save you a hundred of kilobytes of code. At the same time:

$ du -hs /opt/firefox
224M /opt/firefox

That's the official Firefox 116 x86-64 Linux build. Yeah, that's really something ... I mean absolutely nothing to talk about.

The reason it is interesting is not because it saves a few hundred KBs in Firefox, it is interesting because it might prevent all the X-related packages from being pulled in during installation. Of course, you might not care about that. but I hate it when I have a headless system, I install some library, and suddenly I seem to need the the whole X-server installed with most of its packages, even if not running. The situation with Wayland and X is the same. If my goal is to have a graphical desktop based on Wayland, I don't want just one application to pull in all the X-related stuff. Firefox is a popular application especially on Linux, and the ability to build it completely without X is a huge step in allowing this.

[-MacNuke-]

Among 90% of people that I know who used Linux in the past left it for Windows/MacOS just because they got tired of all the infighting and hateful Linux fans.

Sure because if you do not care for freedom of choice, Open Source or freedom in general, Windows and macOS are excellent choices. Everyone gets the same shit stuffed down their throat and gets the same features/apps removed from them. Just today Windows 11 tried to force Edge on me again by opening a link in Edge instead of the system setting "Firefox" and asked me to switch to it.

Its also funny that you say everyone is "hateful" while you being the most aggressive and hateful person in the thread.

[-MacNuke-]

Having a Firefox built only with Wayland support is limiting freedom of choice.

Then do not use a Firefox build that is only compatible with Wayland. Simple as that. But right. You are not doing anything except screaming and expect other people to act on your interests. That's not how "Open Source" works buddy. "Open Souce" and "Freedom" does not mean that others have to agree with _you_.

[avis]

I still do not understand why you are so eager to limiting freedom of choice.

Having a Firefox built only with Wayland support is limiting the freedom of choice. You got it totally backwards and you've been screaming how you like it backwards. Linux fans and discrediting Open Source - a match made in heaven.

Among 90% of people that I know who used Linux in the past left it for Windows/MacOS just because they got tired of all the infighting and hateful Linux fans.

"Xorg is dogshit!"
"Redhat is evil!"
"Microsoft/Oracle/NVIDIA/proprietary/patented stuff must die!"

Every fucking day.

[-MacNuke-]

Which part of "I don't want anything related to X11 in my Linux" screamed by -MacNuke- you failed to understand?

I still do not understand why you are so eager to limiting freedom of choice.

[avis]

I'm confused. You know XWayland exists, right? And it's whole purpose is to provide backwards compatibility? And that it was written by Wayland proponents, in order to allow people to move on to Wayland while keeping their old applications running?

I'm not sure how you can understand all that and write the opinion you did above.

I'm also deeply confused how you think allowing a build option for Firefox to choose the backend it uses is going to affect X in any way. There were already runtime ways of doing this, like environment variables. How does moving it into the build process matter?


LOL, my new drinking game is to grab a shot every time birdie says this or claims he's blocking someone. Hopefully I'm not dead by next week.

Which part of "I don't want anything related to X11 in my Linux" screamed by -MacNuke- you failed to understand?

God, this is pathetic.