Comment by ok123456

Wayland supports HDR, it's very easy to configure VRR, and it's fractional scaling (if implemented properly) is far superior to anything X11 can offer.

Furthermore, all of these options can be enabled individually on multiple screens on the same system and still offer a good mix-used environment. As someone who has been using HiDPI displays on Linux for the past 7 years, wayland was such a game changer for how my system works.

Even if you dislike Wayland, forwards-going development is clearly centred around it.

Development of X11 has largely ended and the major desktop environments and several mainstream Linux distributions are likewise ending support for it. There is one effort I know of to revive and modernize X11 but it’s both controversial and also highly niche.

You don’t have to like the future for it to be the future.

It's mostly coz nobody really wants to improve X11. I don't think there is many wayland features that would be impossible to implement in X11 it's just nobody wants to dig into crusty codebase to do it.

And sadly wayland decided to just not learn any lessons from X11 and it shows.

We’re accustomed to "the future" connoting progress and improvement. Unfortunately, it isn’t always so (no matter how heavily implied). Just that it’s literally expected to be the future state if matters.

Wayland was the first display system on Linux I've used that just worked perfectly right out of the box on a bog standard Intel iGPU across several machines. I think that is a big draw for a lot of people like myself who just want to get things done. For me X11 represents the past through experience I had when I had to tinker with the X11 config file to get basic stuff like video playback to work smoothly without tearing. My first Wayland install was literally a "wow this is the future of Linux" for me quite honestly when I realised everything just worked without even a single line of config. I would recommend a Wayland distro like Debian to the average computer user knowing Wayland just works -- prior to Wayland I'd be like "well Linux is great but if you like watching YouTube you'll need to add a line to your xorg config to trun on the thingy that smoothes out video playback on Intel iGPUs". Appreciate others have different perpectives -- I come from the POV of someone who likes to install a OS and have all the basic stuff working out of the box.

Because X is not getting much development at this point (personally I still use i3, haven’t switched to Sway, the present works fine for me).

I've been on and off linux desktops since the advent of Wayland. Unsure of the actual issues people run into at this point outside of very niche workflows or applications, to which, there are X11 fallbacks for.

Also, by "commercial linux vendors", you do realize Wayland is directly supported (afaik, correct me if wrong) by the largest commercial linux contributors, Red Hat, Canoncial. They're not simply 'vendors'.

> it doesn't have Android-like separation — a feature no one really wants.

It's certainly a feature I want. Pretty sure I'm not alone in wanting isolation between applications--even GUI ones. There's no reason that various applications from various vendors shouldn't be isolated into their own sandboxes (at least in the common case).

> given that we already had a working GUI. (Maybe that was the intention.)

Neither X11 nor Wayland provide a GUI. Your GUI is provided by GTK or QT or TCL or whatever. X11 had primitive rendering instructions that allowed those GUIs to delegate drawing to a central system service, but very few things do that anymore anyway. Meaning X11 is already just a dumb compositor in practice, except it's badly designed to be a dumb compositor because that wasn't its original purpose. As such, Wayland is really just aligning the protocol to what clients actually want & do.

> "yuck code older than me"

You mean like the code that the Manchester Baby, ENIAC, the Manchester Mark 1, EDSAC and EDVAC ran? Or maybe Plankalkül...

Here's my PoV:

- Having a single X server that almost everyone used lead to ossification. Having Wayland explicitly be only a protocol is helping to avoid that, though it comes with its own growing pains.

- Wayland-the-Protocol (sounds like a Sonic the Hedgehog character when you say it like that) is not free of cruft, but it has been forward-thinking. It's compositor-centric, unlike X11 which predates desktop compositing; that alone allows a lot of clean-up. It approaches features like DPI scaling, refresh rates, multi-head, and HDR from first principles. Native Wayland enables a much better laptop docking experience.

- Linux desktop security and privacy absolutely sucks, and X.org is part of that. I don't think there is a meaningful future in running all applications in their own nested X servers, but I also believe that trying to refactor X.org to shoehorn in namespaces is not worth the effort. Wayland goes pretty radical in the direction of isolating clients, but I think it is a good start.

I think a ton of the growing pains with Wayland come from just how radical the design really is. For example, there is deliberately no global coordinate space. Windows don't even know where they are on screen. When you drag a window, it doesn't know where it's going, how much it's moving, anything. There isn't even a coordinate space to express global positions, from a protocol PoV. This is crazy. Pretty much no other desktop windowing system works this way.

I'm not even bothered that people are skeptical that this could even work; it would be weird to not be. But what's really crazy, is that it does work. I'm using it right now. It doesn't only work, but it works very well, for all of the applications I use. If anything, KDE has never felt less buggy than it does now, nor has it ever felt more integrated than it does now. I basically have no problems at all with the current status quo, and it has greatly improved my experience as someone who likes to dock my laptop.

But you do raise a point:

> It feels like a regression to me and a lot of other people who have run into serious usability problems.

The real major downside of Wayland development is that it takes forever. It's design-by-committee. The results are actually pretty good (My go-to example is the color management protocol, which is probably one of the most solid color management APIs so far) but it really does take forever (My go-to example is the color management protocol, which took about 5 years from MR opening to merging.)

The developers of software like KiCad don't want to deal with this, they would greatly prefer if software just continued to work how it always did. And to be fair, for the most part XWayland should give this to you. (In KDE, XWayland can do almost everything it always could, including screen capture and controlling the mouse if you allow it to.) XWayland is not deprecated and not planned to be.

However, the Wayland developers have taken a stance of not just implementing raw tools that can be used to implement various UI features, but instead implement protocols for those specific UI features.

An example is how dragging a window works in Wayland: when a user clicks or interacts with a draggable client area, all the client does is signal that they have, and the compositor takes over from there and initiates a drag.

Another example would be how detachable tabs in Chrome work in Wayland: it uses a slightly augmented invocation of the drag'n'drop protocol that lets you attach a window drag to it as well. I think it's a pretty elegant solution.

But that's definitely where things are stuck at. Some applications have UI features that they can't implement in Wayland. xdg-session-management for being able to save and restore window positions is still not merged, so there is no standard way to implement this in Wayland. ext-zones for positioning multi-window application windows relative to each-other is still not merged, so there is no standard way to implement this in Wayland. Older techniques like directly embedding windows from other applications have some potential approaches: embedding a small Wayland compositor into an application seems to be one of the main approaches in large UI toolkits (sounds crazy, but Wayland compositors can be pretty small, so it's not as bad as it seems) whereas there is xdg-foreign which is supported by many compositors (Supported by GNOME, KDE, Sway, but missing in Mir, Hyprland and Weston. Fragmentation!) but it doesn't support every possible thing you could do in X11 (like passing an xid to mpv to embed it in your application, for example.)

I don't think it's unreasonable that people are frustrated, especially about how long the progress can take sometimes, but when I read these MRs and see the resulting protocols, I can't exactly blame the developers of the protocols. It's a long and hard process for a reason, and screwing up a protocol is not a cheap mistake for the entire ecosystem.

But I don't think all of this time is wasted; I think Wayland will be easier to adapt and evolve into the future. Even if we wound up with a one-true-compositor situation, there'd be really no reason to entirely get rid of Wayland as a protocol for applications to speak. Wayland doesn't really need much to operate; as far as I know, pretty much just UNIX domain sockets and the driver infrastructure to implement a WSI for Vulkan/GL.

It's a downgrade that we have no choice but to accept in order to continue using our machines. Anyone familiar with Microsoft or Apple already knows that's the future.

Amen brother