CHchaxor·Oct 29, 2024
This does not make sense at all as an argument really.
I think your argument is about specific implementations of WM.
While the argument of "I deal with X11-based WMs because it's fine when I don't care about security at all" may be valid in very narrow cases (such as air-gapped systems), the argument more generally is pretty weak.
Its not surpising that x11 based WMs, such as the almighty [awesomeWM](https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome), have more features implemented than, for instance, [jay](https://github.com/mahkoh/jay) due to the enormous time it has had to develop (though I am _very_ excited to see `jay` develop more fully, and expect it to be well used by the more tech-savy devs).
However, some WMs in the Wayland space are doing quite well on that front. I recently had some substantial problems arise in my system which (surprisi
Read the rest
ngly to me, but perhaps some are getting used to this) would have been prevented by using a memory safety language for my WM, so I have made the switch to (for better or worse) only ever consider Wayland+Rust WMs. In this space, [niri](https://github.com/YaLTeR/niri) is actually quite good, and to the point - it is developing correctly _and very quickly_. So, any issues on some WM not implementing some desired feature are quickly disappearing.
IIRC, all the major 'gateway' linux distros, such as Ubuntu or Fedora, are all on Wayland by default now - so I don't imagine x11 will stay relevant much longer.