6 ms·

You'll never find me saying that Wayland development is good in its present state. I think it's a mess and it has a lot of issues. But let's be honest about Xo

You'll never find me saying that Wayland development is good in its present state. I think it's a mess and it has a lot of issues. But let's be honest about Xorg. The overwhelming majority of people who worked on Xorg are now developing Wayland. Why? Because developing Xorg is a massive pain in the butt. It is a 400K LOC behemoth of a project and it has a ridiculous amount of technical debt. I would have to imagine that if the Xorg developers thought they could fix Xorg, they would do that instead of making a new thing.

charcircuit 11mo ago
There wasn't a need to have 10s of different wayland compositors. There is not a need to endlessly bikeshed over extentions instead of delivering user value. These are failures of leadership in driving the replacement of X. Just compare this to Windows and how they made this rearchitecture of making their compositor more modern without splitting into 10s of compositors and breaking a ton of apps.
- bryanlarsen 11mo ago
  "Failures of leadership" implies that leadership actually exists. Does it?
  - resonious 11mo ago
    Right, this is basically peoples' hobby projects. Nobody is incentivized to "lead" the Wayland project.
    - bryanlarsen 11mo ago
      Actually, that'd probably be a better outcome. But as it is, Red Hat & Ubuntu et al pay people to work on Wayland and those people follow corporate priorities rather than centralized priorities.
      - wmf 11mo ago
        I think Red Hat wants a working desktop but I don't think they have strong official opinions on how to get there. I think individual people are responsible for the GNOME/Wayland/Freedesktop messes.
- jemmyw 11mo ago
  Here you're just comparing proprietary closed source development to open source development. In the proprietary version the goal is to improve a product. The OSS goals are much harder to pin down and can be different person to person, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a goal of "make it so that other devs can make their own compositors easily" and therefore you're describing an obvious success. Short term this might be a far slower and worse approach. It's not clear that's the case long term though, making things easier to try out different ideas and then finding a winning compositor project could be better than being stuck with one.
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    Perhaps proprietary closed source development is better for making operating systems. Is it a coincidence that Google was able to scale Linux to billions of devices while open source development ones weren't? Open source development should take some lessons if they want to be successful and not aggrevate developers writing apps for your platform like what happened in the article, forcing them to do extra work. If development for X is ceasing now, there isn't time to experiment on finding the true successor.
    - davidsainez 11mo ago
      Access to virtually infinite cash had more to do with Android's success than the source being proprietary.
    - linguae 11mo ago
      I think the hard part about the Linux desktop ecosystem and its development pattern is the cobbled-up-parts nature of the system, where different teams and individuals work on different subsystems with no higher leadership directing how all of these parts should be assembled to create a cohesive whole. We have a situation where GUI applications depended on X.org, yet the X.org developers didn't want to work on X.org any more. If the desktop Linux ecosystem were more like FreeBSD in the sense that FreeBSD has control over both the kernel and its bundled userland, there'd be a clearer transition away from X.org since X.org would have been owned by the overall Linux project. However, that's not how development in the Linux ecosystem works, and what we ended up with is a very messy, dragged-out transition from X to Wayland, complete with competing compositors. Bazaar-style development seems to work for command-line tools, but I don't think it works well for a coherent desktop experience. We've had so much fragmentation, from KDE/Qt vs GNOME/GTK, to now X11 vs Wayland. Even X11 itself didn't come from the bazaar, but rather from MIT, DEC, and IBM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System).
- kmeisthax 11mo ago
  Windows gets to completely rearchitecture their compositor because they only provide one stable ABI to get pixels on the screen: link to USER32.DLL, create the necessary objects to represent a window of your application's class, then create and pump a message queue for it. It's ancient, but it works, and more specifically will never change. Even the higher level toolkits Windows ships ultimately are creating USER windows, and USER has been the only UI ABI since version 1. macOS is the same way, except Carbon (a light modification to the procedural Toolbox API) and Cocoa (the Mac's first OOP toolkit) were "toll-free bridged" to each other rather than, say, writing Cocoa in terms of Carbon. In contrast, X11 is a protocol anyone can implement and speak. There is no blessed library that you must use. No, Xlib doesn't count. Servers have to take their clients as they come. And Wayland, while very much deliberately stripped down from X, still retains this property of "the demarc point is a protocol" while every proprietary OS (and Android) went with "the demarc point is a library".
- gf000 11mo ago
  How can you compare the Cathedral with a bazaar? This is not a technical difference at all. Apple/Microsoft can do whatever they want, just break compatibility at any point and everyone else wanting to have their programs supported on their platform will adapt. Meanwhile for Linux network effect has a much bigger role to play, you can't tell anyone else what to do, but protocols can only emerge from working together. Also, I wouldn't bring up Microsoft's display stack as a positive example at all.
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    User experience and developer experience for an OS are real things. It's easy to make a bad experience, people have to actually care about being able to deliver a good experience. Even if you can't tell people what to do, it should be possible to align on something that can deliver a good experience for users and developers. >This is not a technical difference at all. Which is why I said it was a problem with leadership than with the technical merrits.
  - flohofwoe 11mo ago
    > Apple/Microsoft can do whatever they want Those two are worlds apart when it comes to backward compatibility. > Also, I wouldn't bring up Microsoft's display stack as a positive example at all. Why not? It's doing exactly what it's supposed to do, and has been since the late 90s. There's tons of fundamental improvements since then, but they're all under the hood without affecting user-facing features. I'd say the Windows display stack modernization is an excellent example of how it should be done (a real shame though that Microsoft is actively ruining Windows by adding user-hostile features on top of the pretty good technical base).
toast0 11mo ago
You don't see me working on this stuff, but people keep complaining about this because instead of one thing that works but is a pain, we have two things that work but are a pain. It's pretty obvious that while Xorg works for a lot of people, it's not the way forward; but I think it's apparent that Wayland might not be either... although I think it's likely some will end up running a wayland server with Xwayland as the single wayland client to get continuing driver support. This is a lot different than say OSS vs ALSA. OSS really could have worked (and still does on FreeBSD afaik), but ALSA fully replaced OSS. I think pipewire seems likely to replace PulseAudio, even if it may not have PulseAudio's key functionality of ruining audio when things used to work just fine.
- gldrk 11mo ago
  >This is a lot different than say OSS vs ALSA. ALSA is an absolute nightmare to work with infinitely worse than Wayland. At best 10% of it is ‘documented’ through Doxygen. For the rest the only reference is the source code. This is one reason applications don’t tend to support ALSA anymore.
  - bcrl 10mo ago
    It's easier to write documentation than to completely rewrite a subsystem.
ux266478 11mo ago
You're right, Xorg and X11 should be abandoned and for good reason. That should have happened decades ago. But Wayland doesn't actually fix anything that really needed fixing, other than wiping the slate clean. It's a good thing that Arcan exists, or the future of Unixland would be quite bleak.
- wahern 11mo ago
  How big is the Arcan development team? Is there any prospect of Gtk or Qt adding at least basic native support?
  - foul 11mo ago
    I don't know about GTK (and frankly hope anything will be ported to something else and the whole GNOME project get nixed), about QT they recently implemented a QPA. https://codeberg.org/vimpostor/qtarcan https://codeberg.org/vimpostor/qtarcan
yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
Right, I think we can all mostly agree that the old state of things wasn't great/sustainable. The problem, IMHO, is that they went hard on the second-system syndrome and went way too far the other way. This allowed them to replace a massive messy codebase with a nice clean codebase that doesn't do the things people actually need from it. Xorg put everything - way too many features - into one single display server (Xorg). Wayland put everything in the hands of the compositor, and then spawned an endless array of them (most of them implementing only a fraction of needed features). X11 de jure and de facto required all those features to be present. In theory you could have an X server missing new features, but there was no way to get rid of really old features, and in practice you really needed all the new ones or apps would break. Wayland made essentially everything optional, to the point of fracturing the ecosystem. Xorg was a monolithic reference implementation. Wayland ships a reference implementation in the form of weston, and it's so feature poor as to be useless. X11 has, in practice, really poor security. (There were/are attempts to improve this, but it's not been terribly successful.) Wayland is really big on security. So much so that they refused to implement little things like screen shots and a11y features because they could be abused. IMHO, with hindsight, they should have done this in 2 stages: First, do the backend refactoring to get the nice driver-facing parts (GBM, AIUI). Essentially, make rootful XWayland the only Xorg, but in a way that is completely invisible to users. (Or, put differently, ship https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayback/wayback https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayback/wayback in 2010 instead of 2025.) Second, after you've done that and vastly simplified a huge chunk of code and made upkeep and refactoring easier, start working on X12. For the sake of argument, this can still be basically the same protocol as the wayland we actually got. However, don't actually ship that at first. Instead, go build/port an actual complete desktop environment to it, including all the features people actually want - clipboard, screen sharing, a11y and automation tools, remote desktop, etc. - and actually implement all the protocols needed for those. By all means make them optional add-ons to the core protocol, but make them up front. Also, I really recommend making one of those a window management protocol, so that 90% of window managers don't have to be a compositor, though some will. Then, after the thing is actually functional, start trying to get people to switch over. Don't start pushing people to adopt something half-baked and mess about for years on basic protocols that should have shipped day one (last I checked, in 2025 there are still 3 different incompatible wayland screenshot protocols). Make it an improvement, not a regression that only benefits you the Xorg developers.
PunchyHamster 11mo ago
That begs a question: if they had that much experience why they chose to structure wayland in a way that's such PITA to write for ? This just looks like some massive second system effect. They just decided X11 did everything wrong and did it differently rather than pick up the pieces (if in spirit of idea, not code) that work and fix parts that don't
- yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
  Well, yes. As you say: Q: if they had that much experience why they chose to structure wayland in a way that's such PITA to write for ? A: Because they were reacting to Xorg, so they wrote the exact opposite of that. And for bonus points, because one of the problems they wanted to solve was "Xorg is hard to maintain", they made sure that the replacement was much much easier to maintain and develop... for them. Not for application devs, not for users, but for the folks making wayland, I have no doubt it's very well streamlined and easy to work on.
  - flohofwoe 11mo ago
    > they made sure that the replacement was much much easier to maintain and develop... for them Tbh, if that were the case I would expect much faster progress.
    - suby 10mo ago
      The reason Wayland progress is slow is not technical. We have a coordination problem, people have differing priorities and views on what should be allowed. There are people opposed to things like a allowing windows to specify their own bounds, and unless all the stakeholders agree to implement such protocols in their respective projects, the ecosystem will remain fragmented. Multiply this against every feature that people want.
- dadoum 11mo ago
  I wrote an app using Wayland and XCB/X11 and honestly, I found the Wayland part to be much easier to write than the XCB part, even though it required me to write more code. This is partly due to the fact that everything you can do with Wayland is defined in protocols that are straightforward to use whereas in X11 you have atoms and messages with arcane name and structures for everything, a lackluster documentation and terrible error handling.
jauntywundrkind 11mo ago
There's so much hot debate about how bad Wayland is, how incorrect it is. But theres something I respect enormously about Wayland which is that: it is so so so much less than Xorg. It uses the kernel's graphics buffers. It uses the kernel's mode setting. These alone are humongous differeniatiors. There's so many other amazing glorious ways that Wayland is less. The protocol-centricity is vastly under rated, a massive win for the bazaar that can keep seeking truth versus the (imo utterly pathetic clining) absolutionist monolith style. It's revolting to see such persistent bitter angry low user disdain, anger. Without any acknowledgement at all. That protocols allowing multiple implementations allows constant honing in, allows for dynamic change and evolution. Reflecting on the Hindu Trimurti, a cycle of creation/newness, stasis/pattern, and decay & rot, it's amazing how the protest no-change/stasis-only voice has such a loud undying protest going. X is never getting better, has no room to improve, cursed by its own egocentric insanity which it has recursed into far far too far: which the core devs all agree. It's not pleasant for everyone that Wayland allows a freedom of implementation. But generally most of the protest here has fallen away: support for major features is just here, on most implementations. That competitors can compete, don't have to keep using the same base is hugely advantageous to humanity. But the protest no-change anger-only voice is so loud. Doesn't know doesn't care. Humanity should respect systems where competition and improvement are possible. X was a single consigned fate, with no growth or improvement. The competition of Wayland is an incredible breath of fresh air, and the growth of protocol competition here is telling, to not necessarily the "everything just works and is great" desire path of the low tech-ig orant beggar class, but which has enable so much Bazaar democratic figuring shit out, that still shares the ideas while allowing innovation within, in a way that few projects have ever enabled before. We are in a magic age of so so much, such cooperative competitive improvement, and it's just so unspoken, so missed, amid the squeaky wheels offering no actual technical critiques, unable to reflect upon the different (much better) age of possibility the bazaar model has opened us into.
- tsimionescu 11mo ago
  This is exactly backwards. Whenever some team that is maintaining a monolith will look at the possibility of splitting it up and going with this protocol idea, they will look at Wayland as a cautionary tail of just how badly that works out in practice.
noosphr 11mo ago
The overwhelming majority of people who worked on x11 are retired and a growing minority are dead. This is the fourth incarnation of x11 and the people working on it now have nothing to do with the people who developed it. Xorg is the castodian group who started life as a fork, of a fork, of a fork of an spinout from mit. Them trying to kill X11 is laughable to anyone who knows anything about its history. Wayland on the other hand is now 18 years old and we've been told it will be good any day now for 18 years.
- dvntsemicolon 11mo ago
  I mean, Wayland works fine for me. I'm using niri and an nvidia card.
  - seanhunter 10mo ago
    Yeah. From what you read on here you would think it was totally unusable. Yet I use wayland all day every day. I use an AMD card and it even works. Sway for work KDE plasma for games. Everything I use works completely fine in wayland.
themafia 11mo ago
> The overwhelming majority of people who worked on Xorg are now developing Wayland. I've never seen this documented. > It is a 400K LOC behemoth of a project and it has a ridiculous amount of technical debt. So we have people who want to create features but do not want to pay for technical debt. So.. they create more technical debt? Is there some indication that the wisdom of the crowd is particularly valuable here? > I would have to imagine that if the Xorg developers thought they could fix Xorg, they would do that instead of making a new thing. It seems like all the paid developers are working on Wayland while many of the volunteers are working hard to continue Xorg despite all the sponsored efforts to artificially shutter the project. The article authors main complaint seems to be that distributions forced users to choose between one or the other when, at this point in history, there are zero good reasons to have done that. Open source used to be about choice. Now it's about paid interests bullying you out of that choice. And Hacker News readily defends this in the name of modernity for it's own sake. It's truly a bizarre outcome to me.
- cycomanic 11mo ago
  > > The overwhelming majority of people who worked on Xorg are now developing Wayland. > I've never seen this documented. What do you mean you can look at the history of wayland on Wikipedia (it was started by Kristian Høgsberg) the person who wrote the DRI2 implementation for xorg. Other major xorg contributors like Hutterer have also been major wayland contributors. I think the misconception is that people thought there are lots of xorg developers. That's just false, around the time when wayland was started there were maybe 10. And now there are even less. > > It is a 400K LOC behemoth of a project and it has a ridiculous amount of technical debt. > So we have people who want to create features but do not want to pay for technical debt. So.. they create more technical debt? Is there some indication that the wisdom of the crowd is particularly valuable here? But that's not what they did? > > I would have to imagine that if the Xorg developers thought they could fix Xorg, they would do that instead of making a new thing. > It seems like all the paid developers are working on Wayland while many of the volunteers are working hard to continue Xorg despite all the sponsored efforts to artificially shutter the project. Who? Looking at xorgs git there is essentially 1 developer making changes that are not related to xwayland? > The article authors main complaint seems to be that distributions forced users to choose between one or the other when, at this point in history, there are zero good reasons to have done that. > Open source used to be about choice. Now it's about paid interests bullying you out of that choice. And Hacker News readily defends this in the name of modernity for it's own sake. It's truly a bizarre outcome to me. You mean the choice not to work on xorg? You're welcome to use X, but you can't bully others into keeping it going for you. The reoccurring theme in these comments is that the people complaining have little knowledge of X internals, have usually not done any work programming a WM, a compositor or X or wayland libraries. Listening to the people who have done that (e.g. Rasterman, deVault...) are widely positive about wayland over xorg. It's also an indication that most recent interesting desktop experiments/projects (niri, sway, hyprland...) have been happening under wayland. And AFAIK none were corporate sponsored.
eqvinox 11mo ago
It's unfortunately possible for multiple things to be true here. Xorg is an unmaintainable piece of tech debt. And Wayland made several poor design decisions that are now sending it down an eerily similar path, just with different, fresh tech debt.
- vrighter 11mo ago
  And that tech debt possibly duplicated across multiple different projects now, too.
flohofwoe 11mo ago
> Because developing Xorg is a massive pain in the butt. That's really no reason to build an entirely new system, and then half-ass it the way Wayland did. The Wayland gang should have started with a new, modernized, cleaned up window system API running as a layer on top of X11 and then start replacing the cruft piece by piece while keeping both the original X11 API and the new API working all the time, basically build the whole project from the user perspective (both 'regular' Linux users and programmers who need to build Linux apps). I guess though the main problem is that feature parity with X11 wasn't even a design goal, they intentionally threw out the baby with the bathwater, and also intentionally fragmented the Linux desktop even more. It almost smells like sabotage (at least self-sabotage). Also, it's been 17 years since Wayland was released, that's as if X11 would have barely started to become usable by around 2005.
- veeti 11mo ago
  > It almost smells like sabotage (at least self-sabotage). See also: Ubuntu Unity, Gnome 3, KDE 4... all widely panned by their most loyal users. 2010s were the lost decade of Linux.
  - johnny22 11mo ago
    there were many of us who really liked gnome 3 though. Not that it was issue free, but the workflow was very appealing.
    - veeti 10mo ago
      Sure, I quite enjoy it myself now. But I'd be lying if I said it wasn't borderline unusable for years.
- stinkbeetle 11mo ago
  It's not sabotage or self-sabotage, implying some intention behind it. It's just classic second system syndrome: hyper-fixating on real or perceived flaws that were never able to be solved or done right in the previous system, which can be to the detriment of other considerations.
hulitu 11mo ago
> The overwhelming majority of people who worked on Xorg are now developing Wayland. Why? CADT.

charcircuit 11mo ago

There wasn't a need to have 10s of different wayland compositors. There is not a need to endlessly bikeshed over extentions instead of delivering user value. These are failures of leadership in driving the replacement of X. Just compare this to Windows and how they made this rearchitecture of making their compositor more modern without splitting into 10s of compositors and breaking a ton of apps.

bryanlarsen 11mo ago
"Failures of leadership" implies that leadership actually exists. Does it?
- resonious 11mo ago
  Right, this is basically peoples' hobby projects. Nobody is incentivized to "lead" the Wayland project.
  - bryanlarsen 11mo ago
    Actually, that'd probably be a better outcome. But as it is, Red Hat & Ubuntu et al pay people to work on Wayland and those people follow corporate priorities rather than centralized priorities.
    - wmf 11mo ago
      I think Red Hat wants a working desktop but I don't think they have strong official opinions on how to get there. I think individual people are responsible for the GNOME/Wayland/Freedesktop messes.
jemmyw 11mo ago
Here you're just comparing proprietary closed source development to open source development. In the proprietary version the goal is to improve a product. The OSS goals are much harder to pin down and can be different person to person, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a goal of "make it so that other devs can make their own compositors easily" and therefore you're describing an obvious success. Short term this might be a far slower and worse approach. It's not clear that's the case long term though, making things easier to try out different ideas and then finding a winning compositor project could be better than being stuck with one.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  Perhaps proprietary closed source development is better for making operating systems. Is it a coincidence that Google was able to scale Linux to billions of devices while open source development ones weren't? Open source development should take some lessons if they want to be successful and not aggrevate developers writing apps for your platform like what happened in the article, forcing them to do extra work. If development for X is ceasing now, there isn't time to experiment on finding the true successor.
  - davidsainez 11mo ago
    Access to virtually infinite cash had more to do with Android's success than the source being proprietary.
  - linguae 11mo ago
    I think the hard part about the Linux desktop ecosystem and its development pattern is the cobbled-up-parts nature of the system, where different teams and individuals work on different subsystems with no higher leadership directing how all of these parts should be assembled to create a cohesive whole. We have a situation where GUI applications depended on X.org, yet the X.org developers didn't want to work on X.org any more. If the desktop Linux ecosystem were more like FreeBSD in the sense that FreeBSD has control over both the kernel and its bundled userland, there'd be a clearer transition away from X.org since X.org would have been owned by the overall Linux project. However, that's not how development in the Linux ecosystem works, and what we ended up with is a very messy, dragged-out transition from X to Wayland, complete with competing compositors. Bazaar-style development seems to work for command-line tools, but I don't think it works well for a coherent desktop experience. We've had so much fragmentation, from KDE/Qt vs GNOME/GTK, to now X11 vs Wayland. Even X11 itself didn't come from the bazaar, but rather from MIT, DEC, and IBM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System).
kmeisthax 11mo ago
Windows gets to completely rearchitecture their compositor because they only provide one stable ABI to get pixels on the screen: link to USER32.DLL, create the necessary objects to represent a window of your application's class, then create and pump a message queue for it. It's ancient, but it works, and more specifically will never change. Even the higher level toolkits Windows ships ultimately are creating USER windows, and USER has been the only UI ABI since version 1. macOS is the same way, except Carbon (a light modification to the procedural Toolbox API) and Cocoa (the Mac's first OOP toolkit) were "toll-free bridged" to each other rather than, say, writing Cocoa in terms of Carbon. In contrast, X11 is a protocol anyone can implement and speak. There is no blessed library that you must use. No, Xlib doesn't count. Servers have to take their clients as they come. And Wayland, while very much deliberately stripped down from X, still retains this property of "the demarc point is a protocol" while every proprietary OS (and Android) went with "the demarc point is a library".
gf000 11mo ago
How can you compare the Cathedral with a bazaar? This is not a technical difference at all. Apple/Microsoft can do whatever they want, just break compatibility at any point and everyone else wanting to have their programs supported on their platform will adapt. Meanwhile for Linux network effect has a much bigger role to play, you can't tell anyone else what to do, but protocols can only emerge from working together. Also, I wouldn't bring up Microsoft's display stack as a positive example at all.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  User experience and developer experience for an OS are real things. It's easy to make a bad experience, people have to actually care about being able to deliver a good experience. Even if you can't tell people what to do, it should be possible to align on something that can deliver a good experience for users and developers. >This is not a technical difference at all. Which is why I said it was a problem with leadership than with the technical merrits.
- flohofwoe 11mo ago
  > Apple/Microsoft can do whatever they want Those two are worlds apart when it comes to backward compatibility. > Also, I wouldn't bring up Microsoft's display stack as a positive example at all. Why not? It's doing exactly what it's supposed to do, and has been since the late 90s. There's tons of fundamental improvements since then, but they're all under the hood without affecting user-facing features. I'd say the Windows display stack modernization is an excellent example of how it should be done (a real shame though that Microsoft is actively ruining Windows by adding user-hostile features on top of the pretty good technical base).

toast0 11mo ago

You don't see me working on this stuff, but people keep complaining about this because instead of one thing that works but is a pain, we have two things that work but are a pain. It's pretty obvious that while Xorg works for a lot of people, it's not the way forward; but I think it's apparent that Wayland might not be either... although I think it's likely some will end up running a wayland server with Xwayland as the single wayland client to get continuing driver support. This is a lot different than say OSS vs ALSA. OSS really could have worked (and still does on FreeBSD afaik), but ALSA fully replaced OSS. I think pipewire seems likely to replace PulseAudio, even if it may not have PulseAudio's key functionality of ruining audio when things used to work just fine.

gldrk 11mo ago
>This is a lot different than say OSS vs ALSA. ALSA is an absolute nightmare to work with infinitely worse than Wayland. At best 10% of it is ‘documented’ through Doxygen. For the rest the only reference is the source code. This is one reason applications don’t tend to support ALSA anymore.
- bcrl 10mo ago
  It's easier to write documentation than to completely rewrite a subsystem.

ux266478 11mo ago

You're right, Xorg and X11 should be abandoned and for good reason. That should have happened decades ago. But Wayland doesn't actually fix anything that really needed fixing, other than wiping the slate clean. It's a good thing that Arcan exists, or the future of Unixland would be quite bleak.

wahern 11mo ago
How big is the Arcan development team? Is there any prospect of Gtk or Qt adding at least basic native support?
- foul 11mo ago
  I don't know about GTK (and frankly hope anything will be ported to something else and the whole GNOME project get nixed), about QT they recently implemented a QPA. https://codeberg.org/vimpostor/qtarcan https://codeberg.org/vimpostor/qtarcan

yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago

Right, I think we can all mostly agree that the old state of things wasn't great/sustainable. The problem, IMHO, is that they went hard on the second-system syndrome and went way too far the other way. This allowed them to replace a massive messy codebase with a nice clean codebase that doesn't do the things people actually need from it. Xorg put everything - way too many features - into one single display server (Xorg). Wayland put everything in the hands of the compositor, and then spawned an endless array of them (most of them implementing only a fraction of needed features). X11 de jure and de facto required all those features to be present. In theory you could have an X server missing new features, but there was no way to get rid of really old features, and in practice you really needed all the new ones or apps would break. Wayland made essentially everything optional, to the point of fracturing the ecosystem. Xorg was a monolithic reference implementation. Wayland ships a reference implementation in the form of weston, and it's so feature poor as to be useless. X11 has, in practice, really poor security. (There were/are attempts to improve this, but it's not been terribly successful.) Wayland is really big on security. So much so that they refused to implement little things like screen shots and a11y features because they could be abused. IMHO, with hindsight, they should have done this in 2 stages: First, do the backend refactoring to get the nice driver-facing parts (GBM, AIUI). Essentially, make rootful XWayland the only Xorg, but in a way that is completely invisible to users. (Or, put differently, ship https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayback/wayback https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayback/wayback in 2010 instead of 2025.) Second, after you've done that and vastly simplified a huge chunk of code and made upkeep and refactoring easier, start working on X12. For the sake of argument, this can still be basically the same protocol as the wayland we actually got. However, don't actually ship that at first. Instead, go build/port an actual complete desktop environment to it, including all the features people actually want - clipboard, screen sharing, a11y and automation tools, remote desktop, etc. - and actually implement all the protocols needed for those. By all means make them optional add-ons to the core protocol, but make them up front. Also, I really recommend making one of those a window management protocol, so that 90% of window managers don't have to be a compositor, though some will. Then, after the thing is actually functional, start trying to get people to switch over. Don't start pushing people to adopt something half-baked and mess about for years on basic protocols that should have shipped day one (last I checked, in 2025 there are still 3 different incompatible wayland screenshot protocols). Make it an improvement, not a regression that only benefits you the Xorg developers.

PunchyHamster 11mo ago

That begs a question: if they had that much experience why they chose to structure wayland in a way that's such PITA to write for ? This just looks like some massive second system effect. They just decided X11 did everything wrong and did it differently rather than pick up the pieces (if in spirit of idea, not code) that work and fix parts that don't

yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
Well, yes. As you say: Q: if they had that much experience why they chose to structure wayland in a way that's such PITA to write for ? A: Because they were reacting to Xorg, so they wrote the exact opposite of that. And for bonus points, because one of the problems they wanted to solve was "Xorg is hard to maintain", they made sure that the replacement was much much easier to maintain and develop... for them. Not for application devs, not for users, but for the folks making wayland, I have no doubt it's very well streamlined and easy to work on.
- flohofwoe 11mo ago
  > they made sure that the replacement was much much easier to maintain and develop... for them Tbh, if that were the case I would expect much faster progress.
  - suby 10mo ago
    The reason Wayland progress is slow is not technical. We have a coordination problem, people have differing priorities and views on what should be allowed. There are people opposed to things like a allowing windows to specify their own bounds, and unless all the stakeholders agree to implement such protocols in their respective projects, the ecosystem will remain fragmented. Multiply this against every feature that people want.
dadoum 11mo ago
I wrote an app using Wayland and XCB/X11 and honestly, I found the Wayland part to be much easier to write than the XCB part, even though it required me to write more code. This is partly due to the fact that everything you can do with Wayland is defined in protocols that are straightforward to use whereas in X11 you have atoms and messages with arcane name and structures for everything, a lackluster documentation and terrible error handling.

jauntywundrkind 11mo ago

There's so much hot debate about how bad Wayland is, how incorrect it is. But theres something I respect enormously about Wayland which is that: it is so so so much less than Xorg. It uses the kernel's graphics buffers. It uses the kernel's mode setting. These alone are humongous differeniatiors. There's so many other amazing glorious ways that Wayland is less. The protocol-centricity is vastly under rated, a massive win for the bazaar that can keep seeking truth versus the (imo utterly pathetic clining) absolutionist monolith style. It's revolting to see such persistent bitter angry low user disdain, anger. Without any acknowledgement at all. That protocols allowing multiple implementations allows constant honing in, allows for dynamic change and evolution. Reflecting on the Hindu Trimurti, a cycle of creation/newness, stasis/pattern, and decay & rot, it's amazing how the protest no-change/stasis-only voice has such a loud undying protest going. X is never getting better, has no room to improve, cursed by its own egocentric insanity which it has recursed into far far too far: which the core devs all agree. It's not pleasant for everyone that Wayland allows a freedom of implementation. But generally most of the protest here has fallen away: support for major features is just here, on most implementations. That competitors can compete, don't have to keep using the same base is hugely advantageous to humanity. But the protest no-change anger-only voice is so loud. Doesn't know doesn't care. Humanity should respect systems where competition and improvement are possible. X was a single consigned fate, with no growth or improvement. The competition of Wayland is an incredible breath of fresh air, and the growth of protocol competition here is telling, to not necessarily the "everything just works and is great" desire path of the low tech-ig orant beggar class, but which has enable so much Bazaar democratic figuring shit out, that still shares the ideas while allowing innovation within, in a way that few projects have ever enabled before. We are in a magic age of so so much, such cooperative competitive improvement, and it's just so unspoken, so missed, amid the squeaky wheels offering no actual technical critiques, unable to reflect upon the different (much better) age of possibility the bazaar model has opened us into.

tsimionescu 11mo ago
This is exactly backwards. Whenever some team that is maintaining a monolith will look at the possibility of splitting it up and going with this protocol idea, they will look at Wayland as a cautionary tail of just how badly that works out in practice.

noosphr 11mo ago

The overwhelming majority of people who worked on x11 are retired and a growing minority are dead. This is the fourth incarnation of x11 and the people working on it now have nothing to do with the people who developed it. Xorg is the castodian group who started life as a fork, of a fork, of a fork of an spinout from mit. Them trying to kill X11 is laughable to anyone who knows anything about its history. Wayland on the other hand is now 18 years old and we've been told it will be good any day now for 18 years.

dvntsemicolon 11mo ago
I mean, Wayland works fine for me. I'm using niri and an nvidia card.
- seanhunter 10mo ago
  Yeah. From what you read on here you would think it was totally unusable. Yet I use wayland all day every day. I use an AMD card and it even works. Sway for work KDE plasma for games. Everything I use works completely fine in wayland.

themafia 11mo ago

> The overwhelming majority of people who worked on Xorg are now developing Wayland. I've never seen this documented. > It is a 400K LOC behemoth of a project and it has a ridiculous amount of technical debt. So we have people who want to create features but do not want to pay for technical debt. So.. they create more technical debt? Is there some indication that the wisdom of the crowd is particularly valuable here? > I would have to imagine that if the Xorg developers thought they could fix Xorg, they would do that instead of making a new thing. It seems like all the paid developers are working on Wayland while many of the volunteers are working hard to continue Xorg despite all the sponsored efforts to artificially shutter the project. The article authors main complaint seems to be that distributions forced users to choose between one or the other when, at this point in history, there are zero good reasons to have done that. Open source used to be about choice. Now it's about paid interests bullying you out of that choice. And Hacker News readily defends this in the name of modernity for it's own sake. It's truly a bizarre outcome to me.

cycomanic 11mo ago
> > The overwhelming majority of people who worked on Xorg are now developing Wayland. > I've never seen this documented. What do you mean you can look at the history of wayland on Wikipedia (it was started by Kristian Høgsberg) the person who wrote the DRI2 implementation for xorg. Other major xorg contributors like Hutterer have also been major wayland contributors. I think the misconception is that people thought there are lots of xorg developers. That's just false, around the time when wayland was started there were maybe 10. And now there are even less. > > It is a 400K LOC behemoth of a project and it has a ridiculous amount of technical debt. > So we have people who want to create features but do not want to pay for technical debt. So.. they create more technical debt? Is there some indication that the wisdom of the crowd is particularly valuable here? But that's not what they did? > > I would have to imagine that if the Xorg developers thought they could fix Xorg, they would do that instead of making a new thing. > It seems like all the paid developers are working on Wayland while many of the volunteers are working hard to continue Xorg despite all the sponsored efforts to artificially shutter the project. Who? Looking at xorgs git there is essentially 1 developer making changes that are not related to xwayland? > The article authors main complaint seems to be that distributions forced users to choose between one or the other when, at this point in history, there are zero good reasons to have done that. > Open source used to be about choice. Now it's about paid interests bullying you out of that choice. And Hacker News readily defends this in the name of modernity for it's own sake. It's truly a bizarre outcome to me. You mean the choice not to work on xorg? You're welcome to use X, but you can't bully others into keeping it going for you. The reoccurring theme in these comments is that the people complaining have little knowledge of X internals, have usually not done any work programming a WM, a compositor or X or wayland libraries. Listening to the people who have done that (e.g. Rasterman, deVault...) are widely positive about wayland over xorg. It's also an indication that most recent interesting desktop experiments/projects (niri, sway, hyprland...) have been happening under wayland. And AFAIK none were corporate sponsored.

eqvinox 11mo ago

It's unfortunately possible for multiple things to be true here. Xorg is an unmaintainable piece of tech debt. And Wayland made several poor design decisions that are now sending it down an eerily similar path, just with different, fresh tech debt.

vrighter 11mo ago
And that tech debt possibly duplicated across multiple different projects now, too.

flohofwoe 11mo ago

> Because developing Xorg is a massive pain in the butt. That's really no reason to build an entirely new system, and then half-ass it the way Wayland did. The Wayland gang should have started with a new, modernized, cleaned up window system API running as a layer on top of X11 and then start replacing the cruft piece by piece while keeping both the original X11 API and the new API working all the time, basically build the whole project from the user perspective (both 'regular' Linux users and programmers who need to build Linux apps). I guess though the main problem is that feature parity with X11 wasn't even a design goal, they intentionally threw out the baby with the bathwater, and also intentionally fragmented the Linux desktop even more. It almost smells like sabotage (at least self-sabotage). Also, it's been 17 years since Wayland was released, that's as if X11 would have barely started to become usable by around 2005.

veeti 11mo ago
> It almost smells like sabotage (at least self-sabotage). See also: Ubuntu Unity, Gnome 3, KDE 4... all widely panned by their most loyal users. 2010s were the lost decade of Linux.
- johnny22 11mo ago
  there were many of us who really liked gnome 3 though. Not that it was issue free, but the workflow was very appealing.
  - veeti 10mo ago
    Sure, I quite enjoy it myself now. But I'd be lying if I said it wasn't borderline unusable for years.
stinkbeetle 11mo ago
It's not sabotage or self-sabotage, implying some intention behind it. It's just classic second system syndrome: hyper-fixating on real or perceived flaws that were never able to be solved or done right in the previous system, which can be to the detriment of other considerations.

hulitu 11mo ago

> The overwhelming majority of people who worked on Xorg are now developing Wayland. Why? CADT.