Xorg-server 26.1.0 rc1
lists.x.org
lists.x.org
Arcan is looking like a very promising successor to the X protocol and Xorg server. It's not there yet, but it gets closer year after year.
* https://www.xquartz.org/releases/bare/XQuartz-2.8.6.html
Previously 2.8.5 was out in 2023:
* https://www.xquartz.org/releases/bare/XQuartz-2.8.5.html
There's a XQuartz 2.8.7 beta as well (xorg-server 26.1 rebase):
> OSI approved Yes
I've been using Linux for around 2 decades. I am currently running Fedora 43/KDE Plasma ... and wait for it ... Xorg.
Why? Because it works. It works well!
Why don't I use Wayland? Because it breaks everything.
- Screensharing is just wonky and inconsistent across applications. It has gotten better in the last 2 years, but it's still quite wonky. And janky. And flobby. I **could** put effort into fixing this, but it already works in Xorg.
- I have a bunch of Xorg/xdotool scripts bound to hotkeys. Move, resize windows. If AppX is running and the window isn't shown, show it; otherwise, hide it. If AppX and AppY are both running and meta+y is pressed, then tile in a specific way, else do something different. These scripts are either ungodly difficult to rewrite to work in Wayland or just flat-out impossible in the name of "security".
- Easystroke. https://github.com/mmh0000/easystroke . Nothing like that exists on Wayland (that actually works). And I can not live without it after having it for 20 years.Easystroke is a mouse-gesture program: hold button, draw various lines or shapes, release button. Triggers any action. Like window minimize, execute command
This is the “official” repo but it was abandoned long ago: https://github.com/thjaeger/easystroke
My first linked repo is me and Claude working to fix build errors and app bugs to keep it running.
Out of curiosity: Is there any app that works on Wayland but not on X?
foot, fuzzel, visurf.
OTOH, RedHat seems happy to let X die.
I'm all for people switching to wayland but there should be choice and xorg should not be neglected for ideological reasons.
You are free to spend your own time and resources doing the work, but you don't get to dictate how other people spend theirs.
Wayland is the complete opposite of modular; that's why the compositor has to handle everything. The claimed problem with X11 was it was too modular, easy for different clients to control various aspects of the environment, but perhaps too easy, lacking a security policy framework to limit client access. (Or at least a framework that was fully baked. Wayland put an end to such initiatives.)
The lack of modularity in Wayland has been widening the rift between the desktop environments. It's as-if KDE and GNOME each forked X11 and went their own ways.
Not true. Wayland simply cuts out the middleman. Making the compositor the display server is one of the best things Wayland did. This brings so many advantages, such as true tear-free graphics and lower input latency.
And that's the point. X11 provided a framework for all of this. Not perfect, but deliberately extensible. The Wayland alternatives are so much more complicated and brittle, and have to work around the limitations of Wayland. The effort expended by groups like freedesktop.org to architect and standardize new features would have been (and was) so much more productive in the X11 world.
There's also talk of D-Bus eventually being replaced with Varlink [0], showing that this whole ecosystem is still very much a moving target. What feels like endless breakage and friction right now is really just the noise of a massive architectural migration in progress. Eventually, the dust will settle, the APIs will stabilize, and the whole stack will become boring, reliable, and really good. That is how I prefer to look at it.
If you want to see things move in a specific direction or address any particular problem, the best path forward is to get involved and participate in the projects that interest you.
Curiously, people always seem to list the same advantages, and it's a very short list. Fewer (but still non-zero) torn frames are the top of the list pretty much every time, since that was the very first thing its creator listed in his original goals... but that's a pretty small benefit in exchange for breaking entire categories of functionality. Like, it looks smoother when I scroll, but features I rely on heavily every day are forbidden.
As for input latency... that doesn't seem like it was ever a problem. Using X11, I'm able to get 500 to 1000 inputs per second even on a potato PC. That's faster than the frame rate of pretty much any screen, and fast enough even for audio / midi purposes. Reducing input latency from ~1.5ms to ~1.0ms doesn't really matter when the timeslice scheduling has ~6ms of jitter on an average system, a common screen only draws a frame every ~16ms, and many input devices have 50+ ms of their own additional latency.
> if you want to take a screenshot in a generic way, you have to go through the XDG portal API
This is a symptom of what's wrong with Wayland. Wayland doesn't do screenshots. Like many things users need, they decided it was someone else's problem, and threw it over the fence for the fragmented ecosystem of downstream projects to solve. So each downstream project came up with their own workarounds for essential features not existing. The solutions had to be built entirely outside of Wayland, and even after years of development, the solutions are still incomplete, unreliable, complex, and full of caveats. It required (and still requires) everyone except Wayland's core devs to write a lot more code for less functionality than they used to get with a couple of simple API calls. They had to architect entire complex infrastructure layers in order to work around a missing feature in the core protocol, since the core devs stubbornly refused to allow it.
Similar situation for input automation and remote control. It's a common thing people need. I use it every day and can't use the notebook at my desk without it... but the Wayland folks refused to solve it, so it had to be done outside of Wayland. For example, one workaround is to give the user direct access to the kernel so they can create fake input devices at a kernel level, and generate the inputs they need, which Wayland then sees as a local physical keyboard or mouse. So... problem solved, from Wayland's point of view. The user gets what they need, sort of, and it's implemented outside of Wayland, so Wayland doesn't have any security issues. But... and this is a big "but"... the solution involves giving users device-level kernel access. Which seems significantly worse than the issue it was originally trying to solve.
> I understand where you're coming from, but there is no turning back at this point.
A position of "sure it has major problems, but it's too late now" is not a position of progress. Much like the situation with pulseaudio being deployed everywhere then replaced with pipewire, it's almost never too late to fix bad software architecture. As you said, this whole ecosystem is still very much a moving target.
The ideal solution would be the creation of a new system which supports the features, protocols, and APIs of the older system(s), in a way which "just works". But that requires a very different mindset from the people behind it. Instead of "not my problem, someone else can deal with it" like the Wayland policy, a proper solution needs people to adopt a "the buck stops here" approach, and take responsibility for making the entire system work. Things like accessibility, network transparency, automation, and legacy support... need to be built in from the ground up, not rejected or treated as an afterthought for someone else to handle.
The things I listed are just the tip of the iceberg. Having studied earlier versions of X like X10, X11, and now Wayland, I could go on and on. What I'm trying to emphasize here is not to look at Wayland through an Xorg lens. I know it's easy to look at Wayland and immediately think it's a rigid protocol that breaks everything, but the reality is that it's a lot more flexible than people realize. Once you understand it, I think the closest thing that comes to mind is "There is no spoon." And just like there is no spoon, there are also no windows, only surfaces, but again, that's only the tip of the iceberg.
If you want an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at projects like p9wl. [0] This is using wlroots to create a proxy between Linux and Plan 9 in order to display windows remotely. Such flexibility is only possible when the protocols are small and composable, which Wayland is.
> As for input latency... that doesn't seem like it was ever a problem.
I never said it's impossible to get acceptable input latency on Xorg. I'm just saying that when your input and graphics go directly through your compositor, the experience is on a completely different level. This is even more true with features like direct scanout, where the compositor steps aside to send graphics directly to the GPU and input directly to the game as it goes fullscreen. It simply makes using your computer so much more pleasant. These input latency issues were exactly what Kristian Høgsberg tried to fix in Xorg, and addressing them was one of the primary motivations behind creating Wayland. [1]
> This is a symptom of what's wrong with Wayland. Wayland doesn't do screenshots.
You're thinking through your Xorg lens again. That's understandable, since you're probably used to it. However, to really understand Wayland, you have to look at it through a different lens. Wayland isn't defective, and it's not trying to be Xorg 2. It's a protocol. It doesn't do your laundry, nor does it take screenshots. It's just there to provide the mechanism for sending buffers to your compositor.
You can think of Wayland as thin building blocks to build compositors, just as you can build window managers on X, except this time, the core protocol does one thing and the libraries already exist. Wayland exists because all the infrastructure is already there in the kernel and in libraries.
The screenshot feature is the job of the compositor. Most compositors already have this feature built in. As I mentioned before, XDG portals exist, and interoperability will only keep getting better.
> Similar situation for input automation and remote control.
I agree input automation and remote desktop are still problematic. GNOME and KDE have their own remote desktop solutions, as do most of the others, but I haven't had a need to use them myself. All in all, Wayland really isn't trying to prevent you from doing things, it's just a protocol.
I'm pretty sure all this will be solved eventually, and I understand the frustration of those who need these features. However, I also understand Wayland and compositor developers taking a careful approach here, and it shows.
> A position of "sure it has major problems, but it's too late now" is not a position of progress.
That's not what I intended to say. The intended message was: the core Wayland protocol is set in stone and won't change, but we can build these things that aren't working and make them work. That is already happening every day. Progress has been steady, it's a lot better than it used to be, and it will only keep getting better. Going from Wayland into a whole different windowing system, I don't see that happening, at least not in the next 60+ years, but I definitely see the whole Wayland ecosystem improving.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRx75piIlxo
[1] - https://archive.fosdem.org/2012/interview/kristian-hogsberg....
So I keep hearing. But hardly anyone ever talks about what's underneath the tip... and when they do, it turns out to be a big mess under there, not a mountain of advantages.
> just like there is no spoon, there are also no windows, only surfaces
Yes, I understand. That's why programs can't position their own windows, or get or set the mouse position. It doesn't even assume the coordinates are 2-dimensional. It's all very futuristic and makes a lot of interesting things possible, like using Minecraft as a compositor, or a Facebook style Metaverse compositor. But you're not hearing what I'm saying:
Wayland is solving the wrong problems. What it can do is pretty neat, but what it does is not what people need. It's good at party tricks, but bad at solving the real needs of daily life. It largely solves problems that nobody had, and to do this, it breaks major features people need. Much like how Facebook's Metaverse failed, nobody really wants to do their spreadsheets in Minecraft.
> It doesn't do your laundry
Yeah, and that's part of the problem. To use your analogy, it's like removing someone's washer and dryer, and replacing them with a box of tools which don't do laundry. It may be a really fancy foundation for building efficient laundry appliances, but that's not what people need. People may have used it to build an entire ecosystem of laundry appliances, but they couldn't agree on basic things so the ecosystem became fragmented, such that P-brand soap doesn't work in Q-brand washers, and clothes washed in Q-brand washers can't be dried in R-brand dryers, and if you use a P-brand washer you need to take fifteen extra steps to prepare it for a drying cycle, and T-brand dryers can only be used for pants, and ... etc etc. It's a big complex mess which, after 18 years of development, still doesn't let me get my socks clean. And most of it doesn't work at all for people who use a wheelchair.
> when your input and graphics go directly through your compositor ... input directly to the game
When they cut out the middleware, the middleware stops working. And when they make it impossible to add middleware, it stops being possible to do all sorts of useful things. Sure, it may be a millisecond faster, but in exchange, all my keys get mapped wrong, or I can't use my notebook without physically touching it (and causing repetitive strain injury), or my autoclicker stops working, or my accessibility tools become impossible to fix, or my automatic time tracker is treated as a security violation, or the solution which works for me suddenly won't work for my friend who uses a different compositor, or ... etc etc etc.
It architecturally eliminates entire categories of useful things... in order to make the simplest case slightly faster. This provides a more pleasant experience for average able-bodied normal people with no uncommon needs or preferences, while making things worse for everyone else. In particular, the complete lack of accessibility in Wayland is very able-ist and makes it unusuable for anyone with disabilities. That sort of thing needs to be built deep into the core, but it was instead rejected outright and left as an afterthought exercise for Someone Else to solve.
> [this] feature is the job of the compositor. Most compositors already have this feature ... GNOME and KDE have their own solutions, as do most of the others
This really gets at the nature of Wayland's biggest problem. A ton of important things are rejected and declared to be Someone Else's Problem. The compositors have attempted to deal with the aftermath of this mistake, but they all do their own thing and refuse to agree on a lot, so instead of one robust solution, we end up with an entire fragmented ecosystem of partial solutions which aren't compatible with each other.
It's even more of a nightmare for application developers. Instead of needing to support Windows, MacOS, and X11, suddenly they need to support Windows, MacOS, X11, GNOME, KDE, Sway, Weston, Hyprland, Enlightenment, Niri, etc. Every time two compositors disagree on something, it means every application must add support for both of the ways of doing it, like how they are now required to optionally draw their own title bar and window frame, depending on which compositor the user has... and good luck getting two programs from two different developers to draw their frames in the same visual style.
> Wayland really isn't trying to prevent you from doing things
It may not be trying, but it sure is succeeding.
I agree with your pain points. But the reality is that GNOME is already Wayland-only, KDE will be dropping the X11 session in 6.8, and GTK has deprecated X11 support, so going back isn't realistic.
> so the ecosystem became fragmented
The current fragmentation is frustrating, but Linux and Unix have gone through this exact phase before. Unix and especially Linux have never been static, they are more like living organisms. Back in the late '80s and early '90s, PC Unix suffered from the same growing pains. Multiple commercial and open-source X servers popped up for different hardware, until things eventually settled around X386 and XFree86. Even X developers in 1987 were saying "old window systems don't die" [0], sounds familiar?
We'll likely see compositors come and go, along with new protocols to address today's pain points. But the core protocol is here to stay, and wider adoption will naturally push the ecosystem toward shared solutions, just like we're seeing with River and wlroots. The fragmentation will fade over time.
In the meantime, anyone who still relies on X11 can simply stay on it until Wayland covers their use cases. Standalone X11 window managers aren't going away anytime soon.
Rather than dwelling on the friction, it's probably best to focus on what you can control: test software, file good bug reports, and help resolve the remaining edge cases.
I sympathize with the headache, but many Wayland developers came straight from X.org and know what they're doing. It's an uncomfortable adjustment period, but we'll get through it.
I'm not some anti-wayland zealot but you will pry xfce out of my cold dead hands.
For the life of me, I'll never understand how wayland got traction with the community.
'Hey guys, we decided to implement a display server from scratch! We broke a ton of existing functionality and made a ton of low level stuff that X used to handle the responsibility of WM/DE devs!'
A lot of the "existing functionality" that it broke has nothing to do with displays, it's stuff that got crammed into Xorg at some point whether it made sense or not.
I find it quite funny that many of the same people that rag on systemd and say it does too many things, are big fans of Xorg doing a bunch of things that "display server" probably should not be handling.
Even if Wayland was a "display server", it would still "remove existing functionality" if it meant that in any principled sense, because "display server" is only half of what Xorg does.
But sure, the transition was difficult and took a long time.
I, as an end user, do NOT care.
>A lot of the "existing functionality" that it broke has nothing to do with displays, it's stuff that got crammed into Xorg at some point whether it made sense or not.
I also don't care about ivory tower ideals of what is within the dominion of 'display' and what is not. The fact of the matter is their changes broke a ton of functionality, and instead of even trying to provide feature parity, they basically dumped all that responsibility onto the WM/DE devs.
I have no idea why the community didn't take one look at their proposal and flatly ignore them.
In other words, the Wayland people should perhaps have defined official protocol extensions early on to cover most of what X did, thus preventing all the initial interop issues when Gnome and KDE and Sway tried to reinvent them independently.
1. Add GBM to graphics drivers and start working it up the stack from the bottom, stopping at Xorg. That is, make rootful XWayland the standard Xorg before standalone even is a thing. This reduces maintenance work up front rather than belatedly.
2.a. Implement weston as a standalone compositor.
2.b. Actually make weston fully functional. Figure out everything needed to provide an actual working desktop environment with the features that users expect out of the box. Standardize all the protocols needed for at least a basic XFCE-ish environment rather than hoping someone else will do it.
3. Then, only after these things are done and working, announce to the world that wayland, a quiet project that has until now explicitly suggested nobody use it, is now the future of linux graphical systems and everyone should plan to migrate.
Can it do new things? Eh, probably not. Do I need it to do new things? Not really.
At the time, RedHat basically controlled Gnome via paid devs and donations. And the same for this Wayland nonsense. Oh, and systemd too!
Notice a pattern?
Sure Xwayland exists and mostly (not entirely) works, but that's a band-aid for what is essentially a "we broke it and don't care" approach.
This is a huge part of what "user/dev hostile" means in my book; with Wayland, getting a working desktop always someone else's responsibility, all features have to be reimplemented across DEs endlessly (with often-incompatible variations, of course), and they all blame each other and program authors for bugs while the Wayland project refuses to even acknowledge basic features like desktop automation or screen recording.
> But sure, the transition was difficult and took a long time.
And this irks me too, people are convinced they're done but I still don't have xmacro. And flameshot is broken, while the alternatives suck. And support for everything depends on the DE now. And java.awt.Robot is broken with no replacement. And the clipboard randomly misses copies. And OBS screen recording is broken for me. And there's no support for display resolution scaling. And ssh -X is gone, while waypipe doesn't work all programs.
But hey, at least there's HDR now or something! It was definitely worth replacing a functioning stack for this. I'm so glad that Plasma 6.8 removes X support!
For what it's worth Xorg is the display server, before that it was XFree86, there was also Xsgi and Xsun and for mac Xquartz, I even saw a neat project once where the Xserver was in javascript, I am trying to find it again but our modern search engines are a bit shit. The point being all of these can interoperate with one another.
Around computers it is difficult to find the correct unit of time to
measure progress. Some cathedrals took a century to complete. Can you
imagine the grandeur and scope of a program that would take as long?
-- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
With a reference implementation. Xsgi, Xsun, Xquartz, and all the rest used the reference implementation with platform driver glue.
Bailey: Wayland replaces Xorg
Motte: Wayland is just a protocol
> because "display server" is only half of what Xorg does.
Yes, that's a big part of the problem. X was build for I/O, Wayland was built for O and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into rudimentary I.
As it is, the community got constantly browbeat with 'this is the future' and 'it's so much faster!' when recent benchmarks have proven that to be false.
You'll probably find it to be a not great experience, since almost all the people who spend their time actually working on graphics and GUIs in the Linux world prefer to work on Wayland. So X doesn't get much love these days (and you're not entitled to their efforts after all). But it's not like they erased all the old X code from existence.
I'm confused where I'm likely to be suffering. If I start using Wayland tomorrow would I even notice? Apart from having to switch DEs, of course.
You may notice issues with some GPU drivers if you have hardware with new drivers, because older GPU drivers contain X-specific workarounds which new drivers may lack (I know this is an issue with the Apple M1 GPU, I suspect it might be an issue with Panthor as well). But that's not really relevant with typical consumer hardware.
Desktop environments have varying levels of X support these days. GNOME hasn't been adding new features to X for a while, and GNOME 50 completely drops X. So if you're a GNOME fan you may not like that. KDE ends X11 support in 6.8. But it's always possible to stay on GNOME 49 or KDE Plasma 6.7 forever, or use an X11 window manager.
The X11 back-end is deprecated in GTK 4, so don't expect a ton of improvements to it, but it'll remain supported for all of GTK 4's life so you probably won't notice anything there immediately. But it means GTK 5 will drop the X11 back-end entirely, so at some point in the coming decade, GTK applications will gradually stop working.
Regardless of GUI toolkit, applications are slowly moving towards the XDG Portal way of doing things instead of the X11 way; which is fine, there's no reason why X systems can't support the portal dbus APIs, but I suspect that there will be more issues there once applications start dropping their X11 implementations of things. This is an area under active development and I would expect X11 to not see much of that development. I have no idea if anyone has implemented a portal for X11. Maybe you'd have to do that yourself eventually to keep new versions of certain programs running, I don't know how the state of portals is on X.
There are other things too that software can do to break X11 support even when their toolkit supports X, and expect that this has started happening to some degree and will slowly continue.
Hopefully someone will come up with Wayland emulation layer for x11 then.
Open source developers are not required to spend their time prioritizing your priorities. You just have to look to Xlibre to see that a lot of contributions are quite bad quality, and in a C codebase of Xorg's complexity and security profile it's not a small job to review things.
Not a problem for obviously-correct changes of a couple of lines, but most PRs aren't like that.
Linux security inside a user's session is bad in general. It all started in the '90s from the principle that all installed software is FOSS, sources inspected, and compiled distro packages trusted.
- Permissions are per-user, not per-app. If I ever need permissions to something, every app I run gets the same permissions.
- No isolation for personal files. Any app running as me can read all of them. Bookmarks, firefox passwords, everything.
- No per-app firewall mechanisms. Any app can call home and send user's files, including those passwords.
- System events are broadcasted via dbus to any app wanting to listen to them.
More, a compromized app can execute Signal itself, attach a debugger to it, fake inputs, read outputs, read it's memory, etc. and impersonate you. Also without X.
Even on Signal Desktop, retrieving things from an outside app is very-hard-to-impossible depending on configuration and what you're after.
There's a reason most Signal bots (even benign ones) hook up an event stream to a specially configured Signal daemon and build an external record of data from Signal by watching for events over time.
> More, a compromized app can execute Signal itself, attach a debugger to it, fake inputs, read outputs, read it's memory...
I think you're missing a lot of the attack surface here. "Local execution is game over" is a technically-true-but-incomplete thought-terminating statement; it's more useful to assess "if I grant local execution, what attackers are likely to be interested in that, and what attacks are they likely to perform?"
Like sure, if you install something containing a full userland rootkit designed to attack a given application, and that application isn't running in a container such that you have to pivot through root to access it, you're screwed.
Those do exist, but there are a ton of local attack vectors that aren't that. Many pieces of malicious code that install with local apps aren't that complex, since complexity begets size and suspicious-behavior detection. Less complex malware would prefer to e.g. read Firefox's sqlite database files rather than try to execute new instances of trusted programs like Signal to get data out of them. We know from analysis of a lot of malware that it overwhelmingly prefers low-hanging fruit that's easy to harvest quickly and without doing much that risks detection. Some malware's scarier, but like Mickens said, most people a) aren't gonna get Mossad'd on, and b) can't do much about it if they are: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf
There are also local attack vectors that don't involve installing malware directly. Local programs that run code (browsers) and plenty of other exploits in e.g. decoders are limited enough in what's possible within the exploit chain that they can't calc.exe you and instead rely on info harvesting from speculative execution
Flatpak/Snap/etc., also can assist with a layer of local-app security here.
Put all that together, and you end up at the conclusion that a large volume of data is only practically accessible to a lot of malware by accessing another running app's memory. Two significant ways to do that are 1) reading memory directly (significantly mitigated by hardware permissioning/segmentation/ASLR) and 2) reading data those apps publish to the display system. Wayland makes that second one a lot harder.
Making server side decorations an important part of it. Oh, the irony.
Which is ironic, given that a lot of the tools that underly a container runtime were originally designed to facilitate security, not ease of deployment.
My theory about the motivation behind the extra security is that it's largely driven by corporations wanting to make desktop Linux less free and less open, and normalize proprietary software instead of open-source. Because profit. Proprietary software is inherently not trustworthy, so the execution environment needs extra security and restrictions, and must be generally less powerful to reduce the damage it can do. Essentially, proprietary software needs the same precautions as malware. So the corps needed to "androidify" desktop Linux. Hence the change from curated distro package repositories to corporate app stores, and the reason why there's so much money pushing to replace X11 with Wayland.
In an open-source ecosystem, users and developers are one and the same, or at least on the same "side", cooperating with each other to make tools which work as well as possible for everyone. Each big program tends to be a collaborative effort where a lot of people contribute to make things better for everyone. Things mostly "just work" and people can typically trust their computers not to do anything weird or hostile.
Very different than a proprietary commercial ecosystem, where users and developers have more of an adversarial relationship. Each program tends to be created in a closed silo by one person or a relatively small team, and is designed primarily to extract money from users, with all other concerns being secondary. It is very common for profit-driven developers to engage in deceptive practices, or do things the user doesn't want, like showing advertisements, collecting and selling data, sabotaging products from competitors, using the device as a node in a botnet or secret compute farm, forcing unwanted updates, microtransactions or subscription fees, etc. So nothing can be trusted, and the entire system needs extensive protections against every type of misbehavior imaginable... even if that means reducing the power and features available to the user.
I've really enjoyed the past few decades of living entirely in the open-source world, where those problems pretty much just don't exist. But with corps pushing the androidification of desktop Linux, I fear those days may be coming to an end.
See my other comment too.
There is a lot more to desktop inter-app security than “if an app had a root shell then it could compromise things”. A great many attack vectors that we see constantly have a much narrower ingress than that.
Virtualization is another thing entirely. But if you want it that way, then why not simply start a second X for the untrusted app?
Corporate drive. Originally sponsored by Intel followed by IBM (RedHat) and the rest followed suit.
> Kristian Høgsberg, I work at Intel in the graphics team in the Open Source Technology Center. I'm the founder and maintainer of the Wayland project.
You either pitch or bring it with you. Demonstrate a tech demo and you're granted an engineer or two. It's how Amiga came to be, Steve Jobs with NeXT.
And it appears you can no longer link anything from reddit without being asked to login and they've now nuked old.reddit
If you have an account this thread has some very insightful comments. https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1m0ztn/how_is_waylan...
There were only a few people willing to work on an alternative, and they didn't have to take a vote, so they just did what they wanted. Corporations and projects adopted it because they wanted something different, and it was the only other option.
Now that we have AI, it will be much easier for genuine community alternatives to emerge, even if we have to battle over the legal ramifications. I for one am willing to go without "official support" to have software that doesn't suck.
Hard same. I'm using xfce on my laptop with mint xfce edition, and it's a breath of fresh air. Everything just works how you'd expect it to work, and it gets out of your way.
I tried sway a couple years ago and I lost count of the number of things I needed to go and find wayland specific workarounds for. I know things have gotten better since then, but I didn't see any benefit to switching and a whole lot of hassle.
Wayland is now about 18 years old. So, by Wayland standards, only 3 more years until it, too, will be obsolete and need to be replaced.
That day can't come soon enough. :D
Maybe the next one will actually be able to do the things I need a display system to do. Until then, at least we've still got X11. And Wayland has taught everyone all sorts of things about what not to do.
BTW, what's the policy on that sort of thing here?
I often still use just ALSA, but pipewire is at least pretty decent and mostly "just works". Unlike pulseaudio, which was kind of a plague on Linux audio for ages.
On that note, for about 15 years, a funny thing kept happening. Any time anything on my Linux boxes broke, I'd trace the issue to its origin (bug hunting was literally my job, after all), and about half, maybe even two thirds of the time... it traced back to Lennart Poettering. That man was singlehandedly responsible for more than half the bugs I encountered for a decade and a half. It became so routine that I started practicing my impression of Severus Snape, so I could shake my fist at the sky and exclaim, "Poettering!!!"
Anyway, Wayland feels like another one of those... where someone has to do it wrong and create a lot of trouble before someone else comes along to do it right. But that second part hasn't happened yet. So it's still in a broken state where half the stuff I do on a daily basis isn't even possible in Wayland.
AwesomeWM for me. I've essentially fused with it. Warts and all.
I can't imagine life without AwesomeWM.
There was a bunch of infighting as well as a dispute over license changes. People just abandoned it.