Originally posted by Malsabku
View Post
1. As has already been pointed out, KDE was already in not the best of shape when Wayland was being implemented. Of course Wayland wouldn't be stable if X11 wasn't either. That being said:
2. As far as I understand, unlike Windows or Mac OS, KDE doesn't have a constant cash flow. Not only has it been rather limited in resources, but it's often not the default choice of any popular distro. Meanwhile, ever notice how dramatically KDE has been improving ever since Valve got involved? Really shows how much of a difference it makes when you've got corporate backing.
3. I got the impression things like WDDM and Quartz were gradual evolutions; I'm not sure they ever had a complete breakage in functionality in the way Wayland did. In other words: the upgrades Windows and Mac underwent were more like swapping out a gasoline engine to a diesel engine - perhaps not a simple or quick change, but functionally not all that different. Meanwhile going from X11 to Wayland would be like swapping gasoline to electric - simple in principle, but the challenge is how they're so fundamentally different.
4. Android may be operated through a Linux host but I don't think Android itself is all that Linux compatible. To my understanding (and perhaps I'm wrong), Google didn't even use it themselves for ChromeOS, which is a lot closer to actual Linux.
5. Wayland hasn't been around for 20 years; I would say it wasn't really adopted until about 10 years ago. So, beyond the past decade, people preferred X11 because it was the only real option. Otherwise, you'd have to go back 30 years.
6. I know this is just anecdotal and should just be taken with a grain of salt: I've been using KDE+Wayland for years. I've had a pretty rock solid experience for almost 2 years now. Seems to me Wayland breaks with more complex configurations, or with oddly specific scenarios. With a single 1080p IPS display, Intel GPU, and nothing run in WINE, I've had a rather bulletproof experience.
Comment