Linux

I just think people who have issues with Wayland and btrfs are hitting bugs that developers can't trigger. It's an unfortunate situation but these people should work closer with developers to get them more info.

The situation sucks because Wayland and btrfs offer so many features but there's those few people who can't seem to get them to work reliably.

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.

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? "brtfs reports 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".

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.

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.

Wayland didn't work out networking, even to this day, which is why I'm still using Xorg.

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.