I mean Wine even indefinitely shelved their Wayland port once they found out they couldn't map WinAPI to it because the "future of Unix" is to be more limited than Windows—just like Red Hat wants it. wayland isn't really about performance but about a very explicit presentation protocol, which x11 has not had. Is Wayland better than X11?
wayland is more about removing glitches than adding speed. X11 was designed during a time where things like touchscreens, multimonitor and highDPI screens were not a thing.
I know this seems like a very broad question but I want to know if there is any real reason for me to switch to Wayland. having no copies helps with speed but see #1. Wayland is a new approach to it that by design does less than …
Wayland is a fucking slap in the face to anyone whose intellect is high enough to nope the fuck away from GNOME. And, unlike with X, Wayland doesn’t have a separate window manager per se, so there are fewer “mix and match” opportunities.
I haven't really had any problems with X in the 3 years I've been using it, so I don't see why I should move to something different. etc.) Also X11 can do things that are not really relevant any more. Instead each Wayland compositor has to do basically what x11, the window manager, and optional compositor do, although there are libraries they can use, so each compositor doesn’t have to do everything from scratch. it would be possible to create it on top of x11 but then you keep all the cruft too. Wayland is great for developers, it's both technologically and architecturally superior to X, but X is the de-facto standard display server protocol for the *nix world for so long that you can basically expect everything to work with X (user applications, graphics drivers, DEs, etc. which cannot be said for Wayland. Therefore it has some issues with them.