Hacker News Reader

Comment by ciupicri | Hacker News Reader

> After I learned how much some Red Hat people wanted to cripple and kill the X11

What is he talking about?

Ages ago Redhat people wanted to stop supporting X11 since it was old and harder to maintain with all the weird extensions and it being older C code. They wanted to move to Wayland and people claim that maybe in maintaining X11 Redhat also made some changes that made X11 worse. You can find all kinds of discussion of why Wayland is bad or why X11 is bad and Wayland is the one and only future. Now things are settled and Wayland won.

The details are in other article I linked to - here:

- https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2026/01/18/200-mb-ram-freebsd...

What did they actually do to kill it?

The 2 quotes just say "they killed it", but the way I read it having followed most linux stuff is just they are finally happy that they were able to "kill X.Org" in RHEL by being able to provide an alternative that they are able to actually improve upon.

And metux was banned from my knowledge after multiple times pushing uncompilable and breaking changes to the actual X.Org repo, which later needed to be reverted and just being stubborn as all hell to work with. Recently even Artix had to drop XLibre support for causing too many issues[0] to put it lightly.

[0]: https://artixlinux.org/news.php#XLibre_support_discontinued

> What did they actually do to kill it?

They did Wayland instead, that killed X11 since X11 windows and such can be spawned under Wayland. but wayland isn't x11 so people miss shit and wish it was there.

Well it is open source, so if enough people miss it, they are free to keep it going, isn't how it always gets talked about?

Except the reality never plays that way, unless we are talking about tiny projects.

Lets see for how long xlibre keeps going.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com