Wayland vs not wayland?

In the login screen there is this option to choose zorin with wayland. what is the suggested one to be used in zorin, wayland or without wayland? what are the differences for the user (not the architectural differences, but user experience)?

Well, you have gone and lit the fire, now… :wink:

I believe that the debate of Wayland vs. Wayland will rage on for a long time. But for now, My Own Opinion is that Wayland is Unready for Use.

Wayland offers some very pointed advantages. It is a proposed replacement for the Xwindow system, that reduces the ‘middle-man’ back and forth communication, offering a more direct means of the display communicating with the kernel. But in experiencing Wayland, it comes clear that many things Do Not Work in Wayland that do work under the Xwindow compositor.
Wayland was first introduced about 12 years ago… So why exactly, it operates as it does (or does not operate as it should) is a mystery to me.

Wayland lacks the API to allow calibration and profiling. It cannot support different displays needing different calibration and profiles, or for applications to discover and use profiles for each display.
This person makes the following opinion:

1 Like

I don’t know. I logged in with wayland and a lot of those things mentioned in the article work. I don’t know if they are the same but firefox works, gpaste works, gnome gesture extension works, etc.

That link leads to an article from Feb of '19… Who knows if some things have been fixed or not.

It becomes an interesting point - breaking trust by releasing something Too Soon… As we all await the release of Zorin 16.

Either way- if something stops working soon, I am sure you know the first thing to check. :wink:

1 Like

yes, logout and log in again, like always :slight_smile:
but either the team behind wayland did a lot of works the recent months/weeks or I didn’t do much to put it on test

have been digging just a little bit more into wayland. it seems that in some distros and in some DE it works better, and in some other worse and causes problems. but the pros when it works are much better compared to xorg. also, xorg is something from 1984/1987, that’s older than linux!! and yeah, not wayland is xorg, learned that too :stuck_out_tongue:

Unix predates both. And keep in mind that much of what makes Windows and Mac run relies on coding that is around that same time frame.
Another viewpoint would be: If code has been working well, while actively developing, since 1987, then it must be doing something right.
By all means, keep digging. Knowledge is not gained by accepting without question, nor by merely agreeing with others around you.

Yes, I think there are definite pros to Wayland- when it works. But the “when it works” caveat is pretty important. I am not a fan of xorg, but when it comes down to it; It works.

1 Like