But first he will accidentally the whole thing.

I appreciate the information, and I’m willing to give it a shot again when I next need to do a distro switch or a new installation, but until now my experiences with Wayland have basically been a stream of broken things over several days as I try to reestablish my workflow in a new desktop environment. The time it all goes successfully is the time I’ll be sold.

Like I said, I use Linux in my classroom, and I heavily use global shortcut keys set via script for individual lessons, with fullscreen opening of applications that don’t have automatic support and shortcut key based window switching all without mouse input to create a seamless presentation for my students.

Global shortcuts and wmctrl, which form the critical backbones of this system, simply don’t work in Wayland.

And to suggest it’s just a perfect transition is wrong. I don’t use Steam Link, but if I did? Doesn’t work in Wayland. Everyone constantly bemoans that applications should be rewritten for Wayland, but one of Linux’s advantages is eternal backwards compatibility so software can actually be FINISHED.

Wayland isn’t the kernel and it shouldn’t be held to the standard of the Linux kernel, but do you remember when Linus Torvalds publicly screamed at and berated a developer for a change to the kernel that broke a userspace application and then having the sheer GALL to suggest the application developer was at fault? Wayland evangelists could stand to be a little more understanding that people don’t like it when you break functional userspace applications, force developers to work on stuff that is FINISHED to get it working again, and then blame them for not getting on board with your changes. You know who does that? Google.

Look, Wayland works for you and that’s fantastic. Use whatever you like. Linux is Linux and one of the most beautiful points of Linux is freedom of choice. What I take exception to is the people in this thread who are acting like anybody who isn’t on Wayland is crazy and insisting there’s no good reason to still be on X11 just because they personally don’t understand why someone would need features they need. Anyone expounding that “Wayland is a 1 to 1 replacement for X11 and superior in every way!” is either being intentionally disingenous or a cultist. You know who insists users are wrong for having their own use cases and workflow and wants them to change to their preferred system because THEY don’t think the other use cases matter? Microsoft.

I’ll be happy to make the switch to Wayland… when I do a system install or update and it happens invisibly and I don’t suddenly have to wonder why all of my custom scripts no longer work.

It’s not that I have issues - it works just fine in the domain it’s designed for. It’s that the Wayland system does not provide feature parity with X11. I make extensive use of window manipulation using xdotool and wmctrl for my daily use case, and those are both unsupported on Wayland. It’s a fine system for users whose use case fit with its design. It is not a feature complete replacement for X11.

I’ll never make the claim that X11 is perfect, but my use case requires features that are either not built into Wayland yet or simply won’t be built into it in the future.

I’m sure it’s a fine product, but asking me to change my workflow to use it is a non-starter. When it reaches feature complete support of X11 functionality, I’ll consider changing.

Just off the top of my head, Linux Mint, which I know because Waydroid is incompatible with the machines I use in my classrooms. Even if it were compatible, unless the lack of global hotkeys has been addressed changing is a non-starter.

That’s a fair point, and it’s the Waydroid team’s unquestioned right to use whatever technologies they want to build their software on.

But just throwing it out as a solution to a general Linux question when there’s a VERY good chance it’s incompatible with major distros is omitting critical information.

It saddens me to see you being downvoted by the Wayland evangelists when it is CLEARLY not a (EDIT: feature complete) replacement for X11 yet. If I could upvote you twice, I would.

Major, MAJOR caveat here.

“Your honor, rather than pay his outstanding debts, this shiftless f***wit used 75 million dollars to fund a SuperPAC to bother people at their homes for the benefit of the Trump campaign.”

Not the original, but…

https://bash-org-archive.com/

Edit: Sorry! I misread your comment at first. Yeah, now that you say that, that makes the most sense.

But from the standpoint of anti-competitivity and Android vs iOS with Apple…

One’s behavior is denying access to their app store without agreeing to a set of device restrictions, but everything on the app store is available without the app store at developer discretion.

The other is an app store which MUST be installed, and is in fact the ONLY way to get software for the device.

One is CLEARLY more anti-competitive than the other, and yet the one that’s LESS problematic is the one that gets court action. It’s a joke.

https://source.android.com/license

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)

“At its core, the operating system is known as the Android Open Source Project (AOSP)[5] and is free and open-source software (FOSS) primarily licensed under the Apache License. However, most devices run on the proprietary Android version developed by Google, which ships with additional proprietary closed-source software pre-installed,[6] most notably Google Mobile Services (GMS),[7] which includes core apps such as Google Chrome, the digital distribution platform Google Play, and the associated Google Play Services development platform. Firebase Cloud Messaging is used for push notifications. While AOSP is free, the “Android” name and logo are trademarks of Google, which imposes standards to restrict the use of Android branding by “uncertified” devices outside their ecosystem.[8][9]”

Android itself DOES NOT require ANY concessions of ANY kind to Google.

Android itself DOES NOT require ANY concessions of ANY kind to Google. Maybe “opening the app store” means making Google’s services available without requiring those concessions to Google, in which case, that both makes sense and is a great idea.

This is the clearest and most sensible explanation of the situation, but I’m still not sure what’s meant by “opening the app store”. The reality is apps can be sideloaded and distributed freely on Android, even unrooted. Sure, Google requires OEMs to push Google services and tracking, and that’s evil and horrible and nasty, but do they actually force that onto app developers as well?

That’s not actually true though.

Android is open source and many devices, mostly Chinese products, launch with custom Android builds completely free of Google services. This is not a Google constraint - manufacturers CHOOSE to use Android builds that use Google’s services. Creating your own build simply stops you from integrating Google’s services into the OS, which is actually a PLUS if you ask me.

Even if they WERE requiring it, that would have nothing to do with end user store front installation, which is already something you can do, as shown by the 2 non-Google app stores I have installed on my phone.

Again… I’m not defending Google as some kind of good company here. I’m simply stating there is no way to make an anti-competitivity argument against Google in mobile that doesn’t apply at least as much to Apple. This is a nonsensical double-standard.

I appreciate you guys fighting the good fight.

At least SOMEONE’S on it.

I wouldn’t say Google has been “beaten into submission”. They still interweave their crap services into every Android phone with no ability to remove or disable them, couple their apps with an intrusive, privacy violating, system degrading backend with special rules for its own apps versus everybody else… even force the default system web browser to be an unremovable Chrome installation, and not even a peep from regulators that any of this might be anti-competitive.

No company has been properly beaten into submission since Ma Bell. Even the big Microsoft browser decision in the 90s turned out to be a joke - they’re right back to doing the same thing with impunity.

Apple was first. And the courts ruled it no problem.

I hate Google as much as anybody else, but that Google has been ordered to open up when they already allow side loading, and Apple is apparently all good, is all you need to know this whole system is a joke.