It ' s 75 week , but as long as it ' s downloads from known sources such as steam or Google , they won ' t call you in unless you go REALLY overboard . <| sep |> It is a good thought experiment . Though if the House of troubles also accompanied Veloth then it is interesting to think about how they also fit into the rest of velothi beliefs and practices . <| sep |> He chops a vocal sample . It ' s pretty cool . <| sep |> Careful . Rpolitics is gonna label you some crazy conspiricy theorist for not just accepting the truths told to you . <| sep |> Spending time with my family <| sep |> As an end user , you can expect Minor improvements in responsiveness Probably the end to some longstanding artifacts of the software stack , like tearing or the ocassional blackening of application windows More eye candy , as wayland raises the baseline in needed hardware Far more competing wayland servers there already exist more working ones than ever existed for X Window frames titlebar , closeminimize buttons etc . can be supplied by the client application The cons are probably more noticeable to you No longer able to connect client and server via ssh , or any networking for that matter less robustcomplete feature set mostly in input handling decreased performance in applications that are not yet ported to native wayland the requirement for actual graphics hardware that can handle framebuffers . Although any graka that can boot via efi should be able to run wayland anyway , so the last point is rather insignificant . Window frames titlebar , closeminimize buttons etc . can be supplied by the client application As for why that isThe differences between X and Wayland are primarily in the architecture . X is basically a complete 2 D rendering engine with different backends including a software renderer for drawing primitives , where compositing , proper hardware acceleration and actual window management are done by pluggable subsystems , all mediated through the X Server . Whereas wayland is kinda what you get if you take the compositor and expand its functionality to encompass window management and rendering of the final composit directly on the hardware . Specifically , apart from what is needed for compositing , wayland is no longer able to render primitives , instead relying on passing around portions of framescreenbuffers . So what wayland does is basically making hardware acceleration and compositing the default , and thereby more closely mirrors how most X Servers and the underlying hardware are actually configured and working . This simplifies and unifies the whole stack and hopefully removes problems caused by semiindependent systems trying to figure each other out . But Networking ability had to go , since it is really hard to share even only parts of framebuffers , as they usually reside in your grakas vram . Also , one cannot readily implement a Xfallback into wayland servers , since the X Protocol does actually have far more legacyfeatures . Thus , applications that are only buildable against X are run through a special X Server on top of wayland , resulting in more overhead than running it purely through X . Biggest advantage of the wayland aproach is the ability to run on the actual EFI framebufferIt makes it possible to have a working display server right from the moment where initramfs is mounted , providing a flicker free full resolution hardware accelerated render target throughout all of the boot process . I actually want to build a system on top of that , combining bootsplash , login screen and DE into one coherent unit using the same backend without the need for modesetting changes . As you can imagine , this is more of a developer centric change , since it is more focused on removing cruft and overhead , and bringing the display system more in line with modern hardware . Basically catching up to where Microsoft went with Windows 7 . The advantage for you as an end user lies more in what is yet to come , i . e . what developers make out of wayland , rather than any immediate advantage you might get by switching to it .