I’ve never done SDL in Wayland, but shouldn’t it be up to applications that use SDL to tell it which to prefer if it’s important for them?

I’ve been switching between the two a lot lately, primarily tweaking “sway” and “spectrwm” Xorg generally uses less RAM and has way more options as far as window managers go, but I like how Xwayland uses the actual names from the /sys/class/drm/card*-* for the screen names (multiscreen randr stuff), although in Xorg my lid-switching script is considerably simpler since it uses xset for DPMS. There’s a reason X11 has been around for so long I guess. I mean I just discovered a window-manager agnostic way of setting my media keys using xbindkeys (which is nice because spectrwm’s custom action bindings are bugged and need a reload after every fresh start), and even compton isn’t so bad once you learn to use it properly (it was ignoring the documented user config path ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯). I mean don’t get me wrong, it’s cool as hell that you can literally run “sway” from the command-line, and set the bg and screen positions in a single config line, or that setting transparency in the “foot” terminal is also a single simple setting, but the complexity of Xorg isn’t always a bug…

There is no advantage to games and average applications preferring Wayland over X11 – only severe performance and unusability regressions right now. Thus, we must revert this change until fifo-v1 and commit-timing-v1 are released and at least in a stable release for major compositors."

Does this mean I’ve been getting reduced performance for using Wayland when playing games? I haven’t noticed any difference but I haven’t been benchmarking.

With the SDL library that’s widely-used by cross-platform games with the current SDL 3.0 development code it prefers Wayland over X11,

Does this read really convoluted/weirdly phrased?