Wayland does not support screen savers: it does not have any provision that allows screen savers to even exist in any meaningful way. If you value screen savers, that’s kind of a problem.

Adding screen savers to Wayland is not simply a matter of “port the XScreenSaver daemon”, because under the Wayland model, screen blanking and locking should not be a third-party user-space app; much of the logic must be embedded into the display manager itself. This is a good thing! It is a better model than what we have under X11.

But that means that accomplishing that task means not just writing code, but engaging with whatever passes for a standards body or design committee in the Wayland world, and that is… how shall I put this… not something that I personally feel highly motivated to do.

  • spauldo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Other than rumors that HiDPI stuff works better on Wayland (which only affects me on my laptop since I was stupid enough to buy a 4k one), I’ve seen no real reason to switch away from X. It’s always just worked for me, and has since the 90s.

    Maybe I’ll reevaluate again in another decade. Perhaps Wayland will be finished by then.

    • Pantherina@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its more secure. It is way better on multiple displays already. It is actually maintained. Windows are not just random things but there is actually a system behind it. Programs need manual portal permission to spy on you. No app can register your keystrokes or film your desktop.

      “Dont ask yourself IF it works, but HOW it works” - Peter stuge

        • Pantherina@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          He was referring to proprietary BIOSes that work for sure but suck. Coreboot on the other hand also works but doesnt suck