I think the problem with btrfs is that it entered the spotlight way to early. With Wayland there was time to work on a lot of the kinks before everyone started seriously switching.
On btrfs a bunch of people switched blindly and then lost data. This caused many to have a bad impression of btrfs. These days it is significantly better but because there was so much fear there is less attention paid to it and it is less widely used.
With Wayland there was time to work on a lot of the kinks before everyone started seriously switching.
Not if you were using Ubuntu in 2017 when they switched to Weston as the default display server for 17.10 and lots of people suffered a great deal from how half-baked the project was at the time. For me personally, the 17.10 upgrade failed to start the display server and I ended up reinstalling completely, then in 18.04 they set the default back to XOrg and that upgrade also failed for me, resulting in another reinstall.
I have no doubt that this single decision was responsible for a large amount of the Wayland scepticism that followed.
Not if you were using Ubuntu in 2017 when they switched to Weston as the default display server for 17.10
Do you have any source on Ubuntu using Weston as its default? As far as I know Ubuntu has always been GNOME, which doesn’t use Weston.
I stated the version number (17.10), the release notes are here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArtfulAardvark/ReleaseNotes
@drspod @possiblylinux127 Since I am using Intel graphics and there is an Xorg X server baked into the Linux kernel for Intel graphics, I switched to it at that time and have been using it ever since.
People pretend Ubuntu is this great thing but in reality it hasn’t been great in 15 years.
Out of all distros I’ve tried over the years, Ubuntu has always been the buggiest by far.
@possiblylinux127 @drspod Expect a comment like this from Lemmy, bet you’re running Windows 11, I’ve got servers running Ubuntu 24.04, 22.04, 20.04, Debian Bookworm, Mint, MxLinux, Zorin, Fedora, Alma, Rocky, and Manjaro, the Ubuntu machines consistently give me less headaches even though I do have to purge them of snapd.
Stop spreading disinformation (again). Wayland was a fucking mess and caused countless of issues, especially in a lot of “edge cases”. Meanwhile, dumbos were spreading lies about how it runs perfect and without issues while I kept switching back to X after merely minutes to hours whenever I tried to use Wayland again. It’s just bullshit that never was grounded in reality. Even now there’s games & applications who don’t run with Wayland, and likely never will since they have zero incentive to do so or aren’t even in active development anymore and that stupid X11 bridge still is required to run in the background for a lot of them.
Wayland didn’t work out networking, even to this day, which is why I’m still using Xorg.
X’s network transparency is overrated IMHO. Since ages most data on desktops is sent via shared memory to the X server (MIT-SHM extension) otherwise the performance would suck. This does not work over the network and so X over the network is actually quite slow. Waypipe works way better for me than SSH X forwarding.
@hummus273 It’s overrated because you don’t use it, I frequently do. If all you want to do is emulate Windows than Wayland is fine. If you need network functionality it is not.
You assume I’m not using it. On the contrary, I use it a lot at work. We have some old TK interfaces. They take ages to load over the network. The interfaces load much faster when using Xvnc running on the remote machine rather than X forwarding (but it is not as convenient).
@hummus273 Xvnc does not allow you to display individual applications only an entire desktop. I’m monitoring about 20 different computers doing different things and for me it is a significant advantage not to have to bring up a whole desktop but to be able to launch a single graphical application on my existing desktop.
I don’t really understand the degree of emotional attachment people have to one solution or another. For me it’s a simple application case, for me Wayland is not desirable, not only does it not network, but the embedded X-server as part of the kernel works very effectively by avoiding the kernel/userland switches an ordinary X server would require.
So for my use case, Wayland is NOT a replacement and so I have to object to people arguing that it is a full replacement for X, it is not.
@hummus273 Xvnc does not allow you to display individual applications only an entire desktop. I’m monitoring about 20 different computers doing different things and for me it is a significant advantage not to have to bring up a whole desktop but to be able to launch a single graphical application on my existing desktop.
Yes, that is what I meant with not as convenient.
I don’t really understand the degree of emotional attachment people have to one solution or another. For me it’s a simple application case, for me Wayland is not desirable, not only does it not network
Your use case is covered by waypipe (which in my tests is much more responsive than X11 forwarding).
the embedded X-server as part of the kernel works very effectively by avoiding the kernel/userland switches an ordinary X server would require.
I think you are confusing stuff here. Which kernel has an embedded X server?
So for my use case, Wayland is NOT a replacement and so I have to object to people arguing that it is a full replacement for X, it is not.
What part of your use case is not covered by waypipe?
Wayland as a protocol that apps use to talk to the desktop. It doesn’t use network at all really.
You need something like freeRDP for network access.
@possiblylinux127 It is touted as a replacement for X-windows but the PRIMARY ADVANTAGE of X-windows is that you can run a program on one machine and display it on anther making Wayland completely useless in a networked context.
It is not trying to be a one to one replacement. It is a totally different thing. You are wanting a motorcycle to replace your 2002 pickup truck.
Also X forwarding is broken for most stuff. It probably will work but it will run poorly and use lots of bandwidth. This is because there are layers and layers of work arounds to make modern hardware and software work on it. The X protocol was intended for mainframes in the 80’s. It should’ve died long ago.
@possiblylinux127 It strikes me as weird someone down votes a simple statement of fact. I guess they have a problem with reality.
I think the main difference is that while a graphical session can work through some issurs, a file system is not allowed to fail under any circumstances. The bar is way higher and stability a lot more important.
Both Fedora and openSUSE default to Btrfs. That’s all the praise it needs really.
With Bcachefs still being relatively immature and the situation surrounding (Open)ZFS unchanged, Btrfs is the only CoW-viable option we got. So people will definitely find it, if they need it. Which is where the actual issue is; why would someone for which ext4 has worked splendidly so far, even consider switching? It’s the age-old discussion in which peeps simply like to stick to what already works.
Tbh, if only Debian would default to Btrfs, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
what ZFS situation?
I’ll keep it brief. But it comes down to the fact that, out of the more popular distros, it’s only officially supported on Ubuntu.
https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Getting Started/index.html
i’ve found to work without issue on Fedora, Arch and Ubuntu so maybe it’s supported very well
tbh the situation with Wayland was not too different, and wouldn’t have been better. Compared to Wayland, brtfs dodged a bullet. Overhyped, oversold, overcrowdsourced, literally years behind the system it was supposed to “replace” when it was thrown into production. To this day, wayland can’t even complete a full desktop session login on my machine.
So, if you ask me, btrfs should *definitively not * have been Wayland! Can you imagine if btrfs had launched on Fedora, and then you formatted your partition as btrfs to install Linux, but the installer could not install into it? “
brtfsreports a writer is not available”, says the installer. You go to the forums to ask what’s going on, why the brtfs does not work. The devs of brtfs respond with “oh it’s just a protocol; everyone who wants to write files into our new partition format have to implement a writer themselves”.Clearly you have had some bad experiences
Maybe you shouldn’t take your experience from 5 years ago and apply now. Wayland is solid and so is Btrfs. I know that because people use both.
I was mostly curious about btrfs with raid 1 on Proxmox but my doubts have been answered.
Except: I try Wayland every 6 months or so and still have problems with it.
Wayland’s problem isn’t Wayland; it’s all of the stuff that needs to work in Wayland that doesn’t. Using Wayland, to me, feels like using Windows, out a Mac: as long as you don’t stray out of the playground, it’s mostly fine (if a bit slow). As soon as you try to do any outside-the-box setup, like changing the status bar, things start getting all f’ed up. Like, last time I tried, I couldn’t get DPI font scaling to work - fonts would either be too small everywhere, or big in most apps but really tiny in the status bar. Whenever I encounter things like this, I search for solutions for, maybe an hour, see that other people have the same problem and there’s no fix yet, and bail back to X11, which Just Works.
Also, while I know some people have had bad experiences with btrfs, I’ve been using it for years. I originally switched because I had multiple separate cases of data loss using ext4, across different systems. It’s always baffled me that folks complain about btrfs, but ext4 was far less reliably. IME.
I have had the opposite experience from you with wayland and btrfs. Recent data loss with btrfs but perfect functionality with Wayland (on KDE and Arch Linux). Moving panels just works. Fractional scaling just works (though i do miss the old method where smaller screens just got supersampled instead of the way they do it now).
Maybe you shouldn’t take your experience from 5 years ago and apply now. Wayland is solid and so is Btrfs.
My 2 year old AMD-based laptop begs to differ. X11 is rock-solid, whereas Wayland locks up completely on a regular basis, without producing any useful logging. Every so often I try it to see if things have gotten better, but until today unfortunately not. Personally I prefer X11, I need to perform work on my Linux machine, not spend time debugging a faulty compositor, protocol or wherever the problem lies.
Wayland itself can’t crash, it’s just a set of protocol specs. The implementation you’re using (gnome/KDE/wlroots…) does. Obviously this doesn’t solve your problem as an end-user, just saying that this particular issue isn’t to blame on Wayland in itself.
Fine, in that case both Gnome and KDE handle the Wayland protocol in a crappy manner on my hardware. As the end-user I don’t care: I have no issues with KDE and Gnome on X11, when using the Wayland protocol they are unstable. For my use-case X11 is the better choice , as using the Wayland protocol comes with issues and does not provide any benefits over X11.
@Aganim @loutr This makes sense, these people that have some irrational emotion attachment to Wayland in spite of it’s lack of functionality, do not. Now, if they have a use case that makes sense to them, they’re playing a game that needs 200fps, then fine, but if the use case doesn’t fit then don’t use it.
This feels more like long time Linux guy digging in there heals because they like the old days
This sounds like a driver issue or something if all desktops are breaking for you. Have you tried reporting it anywhere?
@possiblylinux127 @lambalicious Wayland may be solid as a local display manager but it does not network.
It is a protocol not a display manager. The desktop runs everything and the apps connect to it.
Network was never part of the design and never will be
@possiblylinux127 Yes idiots keep touting it as a replacement for Xorg which IS a networking display and that is a feature I need, and I suspect if more people knew how to use it they’d also need it.
I think most people aren’t living in the past. What is your use case exactly? What do you need a remote GUI for? RDP and other protocols exist and are much better especially in terms of performance.
@possiblylinux127 Again rdp, vnc, x2go, ONLY work for full desktops, they do not work for individual applications. If I’ve got a terminal session into a server and decide I want to fire up synaptic, X does that for me, Wayland doesn’t and the overhead of starting an entire desktop to run a single app for a few minutes does not make sense.
they do not work for individual applications
as someone else replied to you earlier, waypipe exists, and is packaged in distros, and does what you’re asking for.
There is also a newer thing called wprs, “Like xpra, but for Wayland, and written in Rust”: https://github.com/wayland-transpositor/wprs#comparison-to-waypipe which sounds promising
And there is were the community has kind diverged. Now days it is either headless servers or desktops.
Running individual apps is interesting but I am afraid that it is not super practical in 2024. However, there is this: https://github.com/udevbe/greenfield
Xorg is no longer being maintained for the most part and because the code base is so large there isn’t anyone who understands the codebase. I still use it for my semi virtual PC as Xorg allows for a lot more flexibility than Wayland plus Xfce4 isn’t completely ported yet. There will be a day when I move completely though. Probably when Xfce4 is Wayland native.
