Wayland

>Depends on systemd
Never

>>56461168
systemd-xorg when?

>>56461168
In fedora 24.

>>56461195
There is nothing wrong with systemd

I already use it on Fedora. Works flawlessly.

>>56461168
I never thought I'd say this but Wayland somehow manages to be even worse.

>>56461195
No it doesn't.

>>56461168
Can I do Wayland over SSH?

>>56463689
h-how

>>56463772
its security nerdness makes it nearly unusable

>wayland is coming, guys, soon, we promise
>years later
>still way too many bugs and compatibility problems to make it viable
It will never happen.

>>56461168
I've been hearing "next year" for the past half decade.

It'll probably be ready next year, I can feel it this time. Year of the Linux desktop guise!

>>56461168
Hopefully never, I don't care anymore

I have yet to find a non-meme reason why wayland is better

>wayland is secure
it breaks every remoting, screen recording, even copy and paste, leaving everything up to the compositor/toolkit to implement them (another gnome dependency, possible incompatibilities, gtk/gnome lock-in?)
>wayland is fast/modern
isn't it using the same base as xorg? shouldn't it offer more or less the same performance?

Xorg sucks, no question about it, but wayland is not the answer
It took too long to get done and doesn't offer any advantage
And xorg works, I'll take shit that work over shit that don't work, make everything more difficult and require a lot of dependencies

>>56461168
I'd try it with weston, that was terible.

>>56461168
an r34?

So the only advantage of Wayland for the consumer is the removal of screen tearing?
Or is there more to it for me?