Linux Mint Forums

What I want to know is mint follow ubuntu into wayland? or will we stay with X.

Mint is based on Ubuntu and Debian. The numbered editions such as 12 or 13 are Ubuntu-based, so will inherit Wayland as soon as Ubuntu switches to it. The Mint team does not want to introduce too much incompatibilities with Ubuntu.
Mint Debian is different. It's based on Debian Testing but with its own way of updating in packs. Debian is quite conservative, so it will still take some years there.

Ahhh okay, just personally i see X as the way to, because its tried and true in a sense. in other words don't fix what ain't broken. x isn't broken, and the reason ubuntu is switich to wayland is because of unity. I don't mean to push things but i see Wayland introducing unnecessary problems.

hellfire695 wrote:Ahhh okay, just personally i see X as the way to, because its tried and true in a sense. in other words don't fix what ain't broken. x isn't broken, and the reason ubuntu is switich to wayland is because of unity. I don't mean to push things but i see Wayland introducing unnecessary problems.

I agree. X is so much better, because it's been around longer. I mean, I still love my giant, heavy, power-hungry, tube television, and would in no way want to change to a slim, power-conservative, better picture, LED type TV.

I'm throwing out the sarcasm to illustrate why we don't want to stick with X forever. Wayland is still in it's infancy (CRT TV), but soon will be very usable (Plasma TV), and one day very efficient (LCD/LED TV), and we'll wonder how we ever got along without it.

Canonical is usually very good about introducing something when it's ready to be introduced. I'll even defend Unity in that respect. It was introduced originally as a Netbook interface, and then slowly became their main interface. I'm not saying everyone liked it, or efficient, but it did work. Wayland will be the same way.

Shibblet wrote:

hellfire695 wrote:Ahhh okay, just personally i see X as the way to, because its tried and true in a sense. in other words don't fix what ain't broken. x isn't broken, and the reason ubuntu is switich to wayland is because of unity. I don't mean to push things but i see Wayland introducing unnecessary problems.

I agree. X is so much better, because it's been around longer. I mean, I still love my giant, heavy, power-hungry, tube television, and would in no way want to change to a slim, power-conservative, better picture, LED type TV.

I'm throwing out the sarcasm to illustrate why we don't want to stick with X forever. Wayland is still in it's infancy (CRT TV), but soon will be very usable (Plasma TV), and one day very efficient (LCD/LED TV), and we'll wonder how we ever got along without it.

Canonical is usually very good about introducing something when it's ready to be introduced. I'll even defend Unity in that respect. It was introduced originally as a Netbook interface, and then slowly became their main interface. I'm not saying everyone liked it, or efficient, but it did work. Wayland will be the same way.

I strongly agree. First of all, watch the why linux sucks presentations. They have a lot about the problems with X. You see, if X worked great, then I'd see wayland as a gnome 3 move (replacing something really good with something broken), but it doesn't. X has problems, and is really old (and outdated). Wayland could be very great, and become much better than X. Also, what Canonical did with Unity is offer it as an option with the first release after the LTS (10.04), then use it as default with the ability to switch back, then make it completely default, and then refine so it's usable by the next LTS (12.04). My guess is this is basically what they'll do with Wayland - give a 12.10 option, make it a very important option in 13.04 (I don't think it'll be ready to be default), make it default in 13.10, and have it refined by 14.04. With Debian, I'd give it a few years (when/if gnome goes to wayland then they won't have a choice).