> There's no bottom layer program, no server. The WM is the display server. Without a WM you can't run anything. IMO, this is Wayland's original sin. The "Dis

> There's no bottom layer program, no server. The WM is the display server. Without a WM you can't run anything. IMO, this is Wayland's original sin. The "Display Server" part of things is tens of thousands of lines of dealing with obtuse hardware and protocol technicalities. It needs to be fast, reliable, secure, and up to date, but otherwise is very much anonymous infrastructure. The "Compositor/Window Manager" part of things is relatively small and likely to be much more opinionated on what features and behaviour it offered. In the X11 days, a Window Manager could be simple enough to fit in a chapter of a book (the O'reilly X11 books had one IIRC). For Wayland, because they're under one hood, to get to the same place, you're looking at a huge, ongoing development effort, even if that consists of importing something like wlroots and building on top. That's enough to severely crimp the array of choices available. People are being told they have to give up their X11 workflows and configurations, and the replacements are often lacking in some dimension (less functional, difficult to configure the same way, more resource intensive) Nobody should be surprised there was hostility and pushback! Maybe the way to go would have been instead of building the ugliest possible Windows Vista On An Old Pentium 4 That Doesn't Qualify For Aero Glass look on Weston, they should have focused on building a "shim compositor" library that was specifically designed to ease porting X11 window managers, by providing APIs that looked similar to existing X11 ones.