throwaway84932

Questionable posts? Care to explain? So not having the same opinion that you have or being in favor of Wayland is questionable now?

I understand where you're coming from, but there is no turning back at this point. Sure, you could still run dwm on Xorg or Xlibre and pretend Wayland doesn't exist, but the reality is that the vast majority of Linux distributions and desktop environments have already committed to this stack, and application developers are going to target these portals.

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.

[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsVhkz2Xl0E&t=1415s

Ah, got it! Thanks for clarifying. That makes a lot of sense.

I'm aware, I've been there since Xgl when Kristian Høgsberg worked on AIGLX. Wayland makes the current X model the default, it is X.

You're aware of the VM escape issues over the past decade? There's no perfect, and high overhead from running many guests can also create security risks. Wayland with all of its problems remains a logical step forward from the X model.

Again, not true: if you want to take a screenshot in a generic way, you have to go through the XDG portal API, which is generic across all the compositors that support them, i.e. most of them.

Wayland didn't start as a corporate project, and even if it had, you might be shocked to learn that the majority of contributions to projects like the Linux kernel and Mesa actually come from corporations, not individuals, right?

So many people spreading FUD about Wayland who don't have a clue.

Qubes OS achieves isolation by separating apps into VMs. Wayland does this at the display protocol level. If Qubes OS is serious about security, they should consider Wayland with containerization. It would result in a similar level of isolation with significantly lower resource overhead.

> Wayland is the complete opposite of modular

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.

Wayland security is a side effect of how the core protocol works. In X, you have one giant buffer, while in Wayland, each application renders to its own buffer and pushes that buffer to the compositor when ready.