7 ms·

Wayland made writing WMs needlessly hard, and the benefits of Wayland were frankly not real - most of the reasons given in 2011 were patched in to X11 later. Al

Wayland made writing WMs needlessly hard, and the benefits of Wayland were frankly not real - most of the reasons given in 2011 were patched in to X11 later. All the Wayland rewrite got us was a situation where Wayland is both bleeding-edge and obsolete simultaneously. Say what you like about X11, but by the time people unironically pushed for mass Wayland adoption, X11 was stable and boringly so. The future of WMs is, IMO, Arcan - https://arcan-fe.com/ https://arcan-fe.com/ - but that's an ambitious project and I don't blame the main developer for deliberately going out of his way to avoid advertising it before it's ready. In the meanwhile, Wayland and X11 both more-or-less work with the occasional major pain in the ass.

bigyabai 10mo ago
IMO, if you have to rewrite a display server implementation then you're already proving all the protocol advocates right.
- shevy-java 10mo ago
  Why? People complain that the YAML specification/protocol is too complex. This may be, but I found using YAML much, much easier and nicer than XML. So to me these two things are not necessarily interconnected. You can have a great implementation and a crappy protocol; but also a great protocol and a crappy implementation.
  - YouAreWRONGtoo 10mo ago
    [dead]
sho_hn 10mo ago
> "most of the reasons given in 2011 were patched in to X11 later" This definitely doesn't match my memory, and I was there :) Most of the good reasons remain unavailable in X11 to this day. There definitely were some attempts to advance X11 that post-date Wayland, most notably the proposals by Keith Packard, but they never got much traction.
- shevy-java 10mo ago
  > This definitely doesn't match my memory, and I was there :) Most of the good reasons remain unavailable in X11 to this day. You two here don't mention any of the reasons. It is hard to discuss this when there are no specifics, so what was needed, and what was not added?
  - yepguy 10mo ago
    The 3 justifications I remember for Wayland were security (isolating windows from each other), multi DPI, and eliminating tearing. All are now features of XLibre.
    - sho_hn 10mo ago
      This is all playing a bit fast and loose with the details. The "isolating windows from each other" stuff in Xlibre for example is the Xnamespace extension, which requires a static config file up front and lets X clients within the namespace interact as before. This may have some utility for specific scenarios (dunno, kiosks maybe?), but is nothing like Wayland's default security model. Similarly, enabling TearTree in the modesetting driver and having another backbuffer in the driver is a huge crutch vs. having a proper architecture where the compositor can own presentation timing. For one it makes adaptive sync/VRR a lot trickier. These things are overall not equivalent.
      - uecker 10mo ago
        It isn't clear why any of this would require a rewrite.
  - mathstuf 10mo ago
    Per-display DPI settings. No snooping on input without permission. Awareness of the lock screen (the compositor can know that the lock screen is active and provide alternate keybindings instead of having to configure the lock application as well). Locking is not blocked by context menus being open. I ran XMonad for 15 years, but recently switched to river and am loving it.
seanw444 10mo ago
First time I've heard of Arcan. Sounds intriguing.
PunchyHamster 10mo ago
I think the problem is that people wanting to build that and being in position to (being paid for by their employer), are fed up with X11. It learned no lessons from X11. It made most things harder to write and pushed more things that really every WM needs and doesn't care much to implement differently to WMs making them harder. For example, stuff like "WM need to manage raw inputs, so they can have more power over them" is cute on paper but in reality most of them don't want to because there is no benefit to reinventing that part. Sure, that part in X11 could be better, maybe it should have better interface for WMs to configure common options in common way without getting into input-driver-specific options, but that just required rework of the idea, not throwing it into the bin and replacing with near entirely worse framework that wastes everyone time.
- szundi 10mo ago
  [dead]
- mikkupikku 10mo ago
  > I think the problem is that people wanting to build that and being in position to (being paid for by their employer), are fed up with X11. I think one of the intrinsic problems with relying on developers being paid by their employers is they can easily become personally disinvested from the thing they're maintaining; they get paid well, the day-to-day grind gets stale, they get interests and hobbies other than computing but keep working on the thing because it's their job. Eventually they find that just buying a Mac is an easier lifestyle at home, and gradually maintaining X transforms from something they do out of passion for the project into something which is just a job. So they look for ways to make their job easier, hit on the classic "instead of maintaining old thing it'll be more fun to make our own", and because they are now untethered from the needs of real users they only need to make sure the new thing supports the bare minimum to keep their employer happy. They no longer care how real users feel, any use case that isn't required in the checklists approved by management get deliberately abandoned. So we end up with Wayland lacking common sense desktop features in demand by users for years because it's simply not convienent for the developers who are now dispassionate 9-5ers. I prefer to take my chances with enthusiasts keeping X working on shoestring budgets. Maybe a few more years of development of coding models will make ongoing maintenance easier going forward and I'll never have to switch. I'm willing to make that bet. If it turns out that in 5 years I am forced to switch, at least by then Wayland will be five years more mature, and maybe my cynicism will even be proven wrong by then and Wayland will be good by then (but I'm not holding my breath for that.) Anyway, I have nothing to lose by using X as long as humanly possible.
extropy 10mo ago
Thanks for linking Arcan, looks interesting. After a quick scan, Arcan seems to be pushing a microkernel approach, with some clients providing display server capabilities and others talking to them via shared memory. This will have the same problem as all other microkernels - nice for research, but the extra completely outweights the marginal benefits over a monolithic thing that generally has a smaller API surface to maintain.
denkmoon 10mo ago
Let me know when X11 handles fractional scaling across mixed dpi and refresh rate monitors, with HDR and VRR. To me, who has finally been able to drop Windows for gaming in the last 3 months, the benefits of wayland are very real.
- badsectoracula 10mo ago
  Technically Xorg can handle fractional scaling across mixed dpi and refresh rate monitors, but it requires support from toolkits, window managers and applications which means the developers of all of those (or at least toolkits and window managers) need to cooperate. At minimum, you need toolkit support for the most basic. AFAIK Qt6 does have this support and should be able to handle fractional scaling across mixed DPI monitors but not in an ideal way since for better experience you'd need the app/toolkit cooperating with the window manager instead of the toolkit trying to do everything on its own without knowledge of the rest of the desktop. I wrote about it in detail here[0] but the gist is that it is largely an issue of getting the developers of various projects to cooperate than some feature Xorg itself lacks (it doesn't). Wayland had it easier here because it started from scratch and developers had to worry about those things for supporting it. On a more positive note, because of Wayland (and Win32, if a toolkit support scaling there) the the hard part of the work on the toolkit side should already be there. For VRR the issue is how current desktop compositors render their output, though it should be technically possible to make a Xorg desktop compositor to use separate outputs for each monitor (may need to use Vulkan with custom barriers for vsync though, this is something i've only ). The alternative is to not use a desktop compositor at all, which is what i'm doing (since i also dislike the desktop lag introduced by desktop compositors). I have a 165Hz VRR monitor that i used it for a bit (even connected a separate 60Hz monitor for a bit) and worked fine, though eventually i disabled the VRR functionality since at 165Hz tearing is almost imperceptible (and it never bothered me even on 60Hz monitors anyway) while my monitor is one of those that have some annoying flickering with VRR enabled. In any case, the issue is with the setup and desktop compositor used, not with Xorg itself. Of course from a user's perspective all these most likely do not make much of a difference. For HDR there is no support for it Xorg though. Personally, the main use for HDR would be either some movie or playing a game, i.e. fullscreen apps, and switching to another virtual terminal running a Wayland compositor (or just Gamescope) just for those is perfectly fine - having to press ctrl+alt+f1/f2 instead of alt+tab is not a deal big enough to change the entire desktop setup i've been using for many years :-P. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45858043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45858043

bigyabai 10mo ago

IMO, if you have to rewrite a display server implementation then you're already proving all the protocol advocates right.

shevy-java 10mo ago
Why? People complain that the YAML specification/protocol is too complex. This may be, but I found using YAML much, much easier and nicer than XML. So to me these two things are not necessarily interconnected. You can have a great implementation and a crappy protocol; but also a great protocol and a crappy implementation.
- YouAreWRONGtoo 10mo ago
  [dead]

sho_hn 10mo ago

> "most of the reasons given in 2011 were patched in to X11 later" This definitely doesn't match my memory, and I was there :) Most of the good reasons remain unavailable in X11 to this day. There definitely were some attempts to advance X11 that post-date Wayland, most notably the proposals by Keith Packard, but they never got much traction.

shevy-java 10mo ago
> This definitely doesn't match my memory, and I was there :) Most of the good reasons remain unavailable in X11 to this day. You two here don't mention any of the reasons. It is hard to discuss this when there are no specifics, so what was needed, and what was not added?
- yepguy 10mo ago
  The 3 justifications I remember for Wayland were security (isolating windows from each other), multi DPI, and eliminating tearing. All are now features of XLibre.
  - sho_hn 10mo ago
    This is all playing a bit fast and loose with the details. The "isolating windows from each other" stuff in Xlibre for example is the Xnamespace extension, which requires a static config file up front and lets X clients within the namespace interact as before. This may have some utility for specific scenarios (dunno, kiosks maybe?), but is nothing like Wayland's default security model. Similarly, enabling TearTree in the modesetting driver and having another backbuffer in the driver is a huge crutch vs. having a proper architecture where the compositor can own presentation timing. For one it makes adaptive sync/VRR a lot trickier. These things are overall not equivalent.
    - uecker 10mo ago
      It isn't clear why any of this would require a rewrite.
- mathstuf 10mo ago
  Per-display DPI settings. No snooping on input without permission. Awareness of the lock screen (the compositor can know that the lock screen is active and provide alternate keybindings instead of having to configure the lock application as well). Locking is not blocked by context menus being open. I ran XMonad for 15 years, but recently switched to river and am loving it.

seanw444 10mo ago

First time I've heard of Arcan. Sounds intriguing.

PunchyHamster 10mo ago

I think the problem is that people wanting to build that and being in position to (being paid for by their employer), are fed up with X11. It learned no lessons from X11. It made most things harder to write and pushed more things that really every WM needs and doesn't care much to implement differently to WMs making them harder. For example, stuff like "WM need to manage raw inputs, so they can have more power over them" is cute on paper but in reality most of them don't want to because there is no benefit to reinventing that part. Sure, that part in X11 could be better, maybe it should have better interface for WMs to configure common options in common way without getting into input-driver-specific options, but that just required rework of the idea, not throwing it into the bin and replacing with near entirely worse framework that wastes everyone time.

szundi 10mo ago
[dead]
mikkupikku 10mo ago
> I think the problem is that people wanting to build that and being in position to (being paid for by their employer), are fed up with X11. I think one of the intrinsic problems with relying on developers being paid by their employers is they can easily become personally disinvested from the thing they're maintaining; they get paid well, the day-to-day grind gets stale, they get interests and hobbies other than computing but keep working on the thing because it's their job. Eventually they find that just buying a Mac is an easier lifestyle at home, and gradually maintaining X transforms from something they do out of passion for the project into something which is just a job. So they look for ways to make their job easier, hit on the classic "instead of maintaining old thing it'll be more fun to make our own", and because they are now untethered from the needs of real users they only need to make sure the new thing supports the bare minimum to keep their employer happy. They no longer care how real users feel, any use case that isn't required in the checklists approved by management get deliberately abandoned. So we end up with Wayland lacking common sense desktop features in demand by users for years because it's simply not convienent for the developers who are now dispassionate 9-5ers. I prefer to take my chances with enthusiasts keeping X working on shoestring budgets. Maybe a few more years of development of coding models will make ongoing maintenance easier going forward and I'll never have to switch. I'm willing to make that bet. If it turns out that in 5 years I am forced to switch, at least by then Wayland will be five years more mature, and maybe my cynicism will even be proven wrong by then and Wayland will be good by then (but I'm not holding my breath for that.) Anyway, I have nothing to lose by using X as long as humanly possible.

extropy 10mo ago

Thanks for linking Arcan, looks interesting. After a quick scan, Arcan seems to be pushing a microkernel approach, with some clients providing display server capabilities and others talking to them via shared memory. This will have the same problem as all other microkernels - nice for research, but the extra completely outweights the marginal benefits over a monolithic thing that generally has a smaller API surface to maintain.

denkmoon 10mo ago

Let me know when X11 handles fractional scaling across mixed dpi and refresh rate monitors, with HDR and VRR. To me, who has finally been able to drop Windows for gaming in the last 3 months, the benefits of wayland are very real.

badsectoracula 10mo ago
Technically Xorg can handle fractional scaling across mixed dpi and refresh rate monitors, but it requires support from toolkits, window managers and applications which means the developers of all of those (or at least toolkits and window managers) need to cooperate. At minimum, you need toolkit support for the most basic. AFAIK Qt6 does have this support and should be able to handle fractional scaling across mixed DPI monitors but not in an ideal way since for better experience you'd need the app/toolkit cooperating with the window manager instead of the toolkit trying to do everything on its own without knowledge of the rest of the desktop. I wrote about it in detail here[0] but the gist is that it is largely an issue of getting the developers of various projects to cooperate than some feature Xorg itself lacks (it doesn't). Wayland had it easier here because it started from scratch and developers had to worry about those things for supporting it. On a more positive note, because of Wayland (and Win32, if a toolkit support scaling there) the the hard part of the work on the toolkit side should already be there. For VRR the issue is how current desktop compositors render their output, though it should be technically possible to make a Xorg desktop compositor to use separate outputs for each monitor (may need to use Vulkan with custom barriers for vsync though, this is something i've only ). The alternative is to not use a desktop compositor at all, which is what i'm doing (since i also dislike the desktop lag introduced by desktop compositors). I have a 165Hz VRR monitor that i used it for a bit (even connected a separate 60Hz monitor for a bit) and worked fine, though eventually i disabled the VRR functionality since at 165Hz tearing is almost imperceptible (and it never bothered me even on 60Hz monitors anyway) while my monitor is one of those that have some annoying flickering with VRR enabled. In any case, the issue is with the setup and desktop compositor used, not with Xorg itself. Of course from a user's perspective all these most likely do not make much of a difference. For HDR there is no support for it Xorg though. Personally, the main use for HDR would be either some movie or playing a game, i.e. fullscreen apps, and switching to another virtual terminal running a Wayland compositor (or just Gamescope) just for those is perfectly fine - having to press ctrl+alt+f1/f2 instead of alt+tab is not a deal big enough to change the entire desktop setup i've been using for many years :-P. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45858043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45858043