Hacker News Reader

Comment by wayneftw | Hacker News Reader

> Maybe Wayland doesn’t work for your precious use-case.

> Wayland works for almost everyone...

Oh good. Tell me how to get XFCE running with Wayland then?

I'm not a user of X11 or Wayland, not really. I just picked a DE that I liked. I guess my choice puts me firmly in the anti-Wayland camp though since I won't be running it anytime soon.

View on HN

Not sure why you are getting down-voted. I use a window manager that has no Wayland support, so I am not switching anytime soon either. Perhaps I will when and if it ever gets Wayland support, but for now, everything works on my end with Arch Linux. I also have "~/.xinitrc", "~/.Xdefaults", and I use "startx" to start my window manager. I have absolutely no clue how to have the equivalent of those in Wayland, including "xsetroot", "xset", and "setxkbmap", among a lot of other stuff, but that is due to my ignorance, so if anyone knows, lead the way please. :)

Depends on what you plan on use when you do make a switch. In general, X applications will keep using Xdefaults because they run on XWayland, and the window manager will handle input configuration, displays, wallpaper and so on.

There are some ad-hoc implementations for doing what you want iirc, but it really is more "integrated" than what you are used for.

I have to test, have not done that in quite a while, but I think that you can just call let's say "sway" on the CLI and it will start wayland directly.

That was a conscious decision by the XFCE devs. They stated they were not ready to do a technological overhaul, and update to GTK-4 (which does support Wayland) for the 4.16 release cycle.

As they just released 4.16 last month, we should see an announcement regarding dependencies for 4.18 anytime now.

That's not a Wayland problem. It's up to XFCE to implement it.

Not really though.

XFCE works fine under X11. Stay with X11 in that case, but it's incredibly arrogant and dismissive of the Wayland folks to say "your use case will work under Wayland, you have no excuses" and then also say "well, actually, it will work if you force your upstream to port your DE to it".

Right? XFCE is definitely not what I would call a precious use-case.

Someone in the XFCE camp needs to roll up their sleeves and get it working. This is not an easy task, KDE and GNOME have been at it for many years, but it is doable.

I don't use or follow XFCE myself, but a quick search suggests the developers are working on it, though they won't get there anytime soon. (most of what I can find seems to be from 4+ years ago, so not anytime soon could be yesterday for all I know)

You know, unlike GNOME, rolling up sleeves with XFCE4 doesn't come with any kind of Red Hat/IBM sponsorship whatsoever.

Most of KDE doesn't get that either and they have support for wayland.

I can excuse XFCE for being slow. However that is very different from the claim that because XFCE is a bit slow that Wayland is in general bad.

KDE has more manpower, and while it still has far too many bugs to be my daily driver, I only have tons of respect for the galaxy-brain maniacs who work on it.

XFCE doesn't have such a big team, and they are careful to maintain stability, so they are going to work slower. I accept this.

The reasons I _personally_ am convinced Wayland is bad has nothing to do with XFCE support, really.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com