8 ms·

Disclaimer: I don't have any skin in this game, I was fine with X11 and I am fine with Wayland, and I actually think it's nice to have both (and more, like Xlib

by palata 8mo ago

Disclaimer: I don't have any skin in this game, I was fine with X11 and I am fine with Wayland, and I actually think it's nice to have both (and more, like Xlibre I think?). I understand complaints about systemd, I don't understand the complaints about Wayland. This whole article sounds like a big rant and doesn't seem to bring much information. > I also don't care for the "security" argument when parts of the core reference implementation are written in a memory-unsafe language. Doesn't sound like a super informed way to look at security (not even mentioning that Wayland was started in 2008, and Rust was not a thing). One can also say that "as long as you run X11, there is no need to think about security because X11 just defeats it all". > In fact, you can find examples showing roughly a 40% slowdown when using Wayland over X11! I'm sure there are similar benchmarks claiming Wayland wins and vice versa (happy to link them as well if provided). "I am gonna make a bad argument and follow it by saying that you could make the same bad argument to say the opposite". Doesn't sound like a super informed way to look at performance. > Anecdotal experience is not enough to say this is a broad issue, but my point is that when an average user encounters graphical issues within 60 seconds of using it, maybe it's not ready to be made the default! So the whole article is built around ranting while saying "I don't have anything meaningful to say, I'll just share an anecdote and directly say it's not worth much because it's an anecdote"? > But the second actual users are forced to use it expect them to be frustrated! Who is forced to use it? Just use X11, as you said (many times) you do already.

BowBun 8mo ago
> Who is forced to use it? Just use X11, as you said (many times) you do already. This is my understanding of his actual concern - Linux corps are pushing Wayland as a replacement for X11 when it is full of issues. Anecdotally my experience was the same. I'm a dev so I'm fine in a terminal, but trying to switch to KDE actually sent me BACK to Windows. Basic windowing stuff just does not work, and like the OP says, tons of stutters and crashes for a simple 2-monitor setup. Even something as simple as alt-tabbing lagged for seconds on an overpowered machine. Just does not feel like polished software which is a huge reputational risk for Linux right now.
- ghighi7878 8mo ago
  Wayland is so much better than x11. Sure there might be bugs in wayland which are not in x11, but in geberal wayland is better.
- palata 8mo ago
  Anecdotally, my experience with Wayland has been a lot better than with X11. I have been on Wayland for years, I can't remember the last time I had an issue (running Sway).
  - packetlost 8mo ago
    I second this. I had issues years ago, but those have mostly been fixed.
  - bigyabai 8mo ago
    Additionally, the Steam Deck ships with Wayland by default. Hundreds of thousands of gamers are stress-testing it without any complaint that I'm aware of.
    - jauntywundrkind 8mo ago
      As someone who uses my steam deck as a workstation too, I really really wish this were fully true. The desktop is still X based, and that suuuccckkksss.
      - bigyabai 8mo ago
        The desktop sure, but the primary handheld mode uses Gamescope which is a Wayland-based session.
        ndiddy 8mo ago
        It's true that Gamescope is a Wayland compositor, but it does not support Wayland clients ("native Wayland programs" if you're unfamiliar with *nix terminology). In handheld mode, everything you see on your screen is an X11 client running under Xwayland. I have no interest in arguing over whether X11 or Wayland is better (I've used both and both work fine for me) but I would not use the Steam Deck to argue that Wayland is being stress tested by hundreds of thousands of gamers when none of their games are using Wayland.
sbinnee 8mo ago
Yeap, it sounds like a big rant with multiple exclamation marks. Having both is a way to go. Recently I purchased a new laptop and thought should I go full Wayland? No way. I started with X11 and then added Wayland. Things break on Linux. You need a stable display server where you can still open a browser, and that is X11. Most of the time, I stay on Wayland until it breaks.
zahlman 8mo ago
> Doesn't sound like a super informed way to look at security (not even mentioning that Wayland was started in 2008, and Rust was not a thing). One can also say that "as long as you run X11, there is no need to think about security because X11 just defeats it all". Yeah, we're talking about completely different threat models here.
dehrmann 8mo ago
> I actually think it's nice to have both Options that are equivalent enough for most end users just cause confusion. There are also too many distros, and the Gnome vs. KDE competition set desktop Linux back another 10 years. That's three dimensions of big, important choices with not much downside if you pick the happy path and a whole lot of downside if you don't.
- whynotmaybe 8mo ago
  I don't know what's the difference between x11, wayland, gnome, kde and all the others. The fact that people always debate over which one is best is one of the reason why I don't switch to Linux desktop. Theres always the sane debate of Macos VS Windows VS Linux. That's a good one for me because there are many pros and cons for each of them. But then, when you try to really look into Linux, it's an unstoppable flow of "systemd=bad", "snap is bad", “only the distro xyz is the real one because it respects principle abc". Even the emacs VS vim debate seems saner than this. I know the underlying spirit of Linux is the liberty to choose whatever you want, but this perpetual debate over which is the best only tricks me into believing that whichever distro I'd choose, it will be the wrong one. Even for my old media server, there are 3 differents Linux mint : Cinnamon, Xfce and MATE. What am I supposed to do? Spend a few hours to try each one and find the best for my 13 years old i5 with a Nvidia gt440 that's used 3 hours per month?
  - nilamo 8mo ago
    If you have a spare usb stick, the cost to trying them is only the download time. Each is capable of the same things, the differences are purely aesthetic. So try them out and see which you like best. Or install all three and switch each time you login.
    - dehrmann 8mo ago
      You actually don't know the true cost until you learn the quirks of the UI, how it handles proprietary drivers, upgrades, the packaging system, how up-to-date and complete its packages are, etc.
jrm4 8mo ago
"Who is forced to use it" is an extremely dated argument strategy that has absolutely no place whatsoever in modern computing. Linux is far too ubiquitous for such a notion to be taken seriously. It's not far from "who is forced to use Macs instead of Windows."
- palata 8mo ago
  To be fair, I am not the one bringing that point up. The author says "I am forced to use it", they bring it up. I may be on the "Wayland" side here, but I have the exact same reasoning when I am on the other side: I hate systemd, but I genuinely cannot say that "I am forced to use it". I have the freedom to choose a distro that supports alternatives, and that is what I do. For Wayland it seems even easier: it's just something you install on top (unlike the init system or the libc). I think it's fine to hate Wayland and to believe that it is the wrong direction, just like it is fine to hate systemd and believe it is the wrong direction. But I don't think I am forced to use any of those.
  - jrm4 8mo ago
    No, double down -- You personally are not forced to use it, but today this is a terrible argument that, perhaps subconsciously, reinforces the falsehood that "you don't have to use it" is an okay and reasonable response, when it's really merely a selfish one. Again, Linux is everywhere and the better thing to do is to consider how the bad rollout of Wayland affects everyone -- especially, e.g. that rising 2 or 3 percent who are going for it on the desktop. It is FAR more important to raise that marketshare -- or at least to consider the possibility of it -- than it is to preserve some notion of "well it works for me."
    - palata 8mo ago
      > It is FAR more important to raise that marketshare I don't see why. Most users of OSes couldn't care less about their OS. The vast majority of humans are happy with Windows, macOS, iOS or Android. To the point where those who aren't are a rounding error. I don't want to make Linux look like Windows, such that those people can finally use Linux and I can proudly look at a marketshare. If a Linux distro ever gets a "decent" marketshare, if won't be Linux: it will be a specific distro that managed to look like Windows or macOS. I most certainly won't be using that distro.
queenkjuul 8mo ago
I won't accept that "nobody was forced." Major mainstream desktops either already have or are very shortly dropping X11 entirely. Microsoft is correctly being called out for forcing people onto Windows 11, even though it's entirely possible for users to remain on 10 with workarounds. Gnome is forcing people onto Wayland, that you can stop using Gnome or choose to use an outdated OS doesn't really change that for me. I guess if you don't want to say they're being forced onto Wayland, they are definitely being forced to change their display setup: use Wayland, or don't use Gnome, starting with Ubuntu 26.04 next month.
- palata 8mo ago
  I am "forced" to use Windows or macOS for work. I do not have a choice, I am not allowed to install something else. Thus I "am forced". I am not forced to by Nike shoes, I can buy any other brand. Even if I have been buying Nike all my life and now they switch to a material I don't like, I am not forced to wear the new Nike shoes; I can switch to a different brand. I have the choice to switch. I believe that a project decides what they do. If Gnome decides to move to Wayland, someone could fork and start XGnome. That's how FOSS works, and I accept it for what it is. I feel like too many people believe that FOSS means "people around me should build my dream system just for me, and for free". If Gnome gets more traction than XGnome, it sounds like the Gnome users are generally fine with its choices. And those who are not can switch to an alternative. I don't use Gnome, I don't use systemd, I don't use ext4, I don't use NetworkManager. The beauty of Linux is that I can choose. And yes, most of the time I am in the minority.
Ferret7446 8mo ago
> Who is forced to use it? The people forcing Wayland are also the people who own and are trying to kill Xorg (stated explicitly) and also trying to cancel people who fork or implement their own X11. So yes, they are actively trying to prevent people from using X11
- messe 8mo ago
  > also trying to cancel people who fork Care to elaborate on that accusation? I have a suspicion you're referring to Xlibre.
kelvinjps10 8mo ago
for me it's just utilities that don't work workrave, activity watch, flameshot, polybar. (waybar is not as polished) automating stuff with xdotool. There is no way to get the current window focused. Even on windows there is a simple api to get that
darthoctopus 8mo ago
> Who is forced to use it? Just use X11, as you said (many times) you do already. I can no longer use GNOME on X11, and the decision to remove support was a deliberate one. Users are definitely being forced.
- simonask 8mo ago
  And who is forcing you to use GNOME?
- elsjaako 8mo ago
  You can use an old version of Gnome and accept older software, or you can organize some fellow GNOME enthusiasts to maintain it, possibly with paid developers. You can't legally get old versions of Windows or Photoshop, and you can't legally fix them if you find problems. GNOME gives you that freedom. This isn't just a theoretical possibility: both MATE and Cinnamon are GNOME forks. You can argue that maintaining and developing a desktop environment is an huge project and you can't expect someone to take that on - I completely agree, which is why I think we should be thankful of the developers instead of complaining about being "forced" to use new versions of their software. Having technical discussions about the merits is fine, but in the end in the free/open source software model the people that make the technical decisions are the ones that make the technology possible. And if so many of those people are moving to Wayland, maybe there is a reason for that.
  - subscribed 8mo ago
    Unless security patches are still developed and released for older versions, I'd strongly discourage it.
    - elsjaako 7mo ago
      Yes, and the developers of Gnome are strongly encouraging you to move to Wayland. You are free to ignore that suggestion. If you delete the first 13 words from my previous comment it may be a more suitable comment for you.
  - 8mo ago
gentleman11 8mo ago
I've used linux desktop environments using Wayland and others using x11. No real problems with either. Let's instead get excited by all the new linux users coming in thanks to SteamOS and Valve. If the trend continues, we might start seeing larger software companies releasing native linux versions of their software -- and then, the year of the linux desktop will start becoming an actual possibility! (I heard affinity suite is linux friendly now btw, and davinci resolve too -- not sure if proton is necessary or not, but either way, really cool)
- palata 8mo ago
  > we might start seeing larger software companies releasing native linux versions of their software I like the idea of course, but I don't believe it for one second. Unless software is open source, it never properly supports Linux. A company making a proprietary executable for Linux will generally just make an Ubuntu executable. My biggest fear with something like "the year of the Linux Desktop" is that it may end up making Linux be like Android: open source on the paper, but there is practically really just one way to do things, and that's the one controlled by Google. What I like with Linux is this big mess of alternatives that manage to somehow compete with each other. Sure, it's not as polished as Android or Windows or macOS. But it's free (as in freedom).
- antisol 8mo ago
  Davinci resolve has had native Linux support for like a decade now.
jgilias 8mo ago
This page linked in the bottom explains a lot: https://www.kicad.org/blog/2025/06/KiCad-and-Wayland-Support/ https://www.kicad.org/blog/2025/06/KiCad-and-Wayland-Support...
bvrmn 8mo ago
> Who is forced to use it? Just use X11, as you said (many times) you do already. Recent versions of gnome session are compiled only with wayland support in archlinux. To change DE or distribution or use custom package is quite a stretch to call it's not forced.
- palata 8mo ago
  But then it's not Wayland's fault: Gnome decided to move to it and stop supporting X. I don't like systemd and the fact that mainstream distros push for it, but as a result I use a distro that gives me the choice (Gentoo). Who am I to tell the distro maintainer what they should do for free?
  - NetMageSCW 8mo ago
    Just because it’s free doesn’t mean you shouldn’t call them out on their stupidity.
athrowaway3z 8mo ago
> > I also don't care for the "security" argument when parts of the core reference implementation are written in a memory-unsafe language. > Doesn't sound like a super informed way to look at security (not even mentioning that Wayland was started in 2008, and Rust was not a thing). One can also say that "as long as you run X11, there is no need to think about security because X11 just defeats it all". I think the argument is not that X11 defeats it all - but that for 99.9999% of users its security theater when deployed in the real world. Most commonly, as long as processes can read each other's memory/configuration/etc. I'm sure there is a use-case for untrusted sharing of Wayland enabled GPU rendering or something - though AFAIK none of the enterprise remote desktop use it, and they have the resources to implement it themselves anyway. I've been running Wayland for two years now. I still hit weird bugs with desktop sharing / obs tinkering; It's just not a critical use for me. So it's fair to question the design wisdom of adding the complexity and UX pain points if it seems to be worth so little. But maybe i'm overlooking some large group of people dependent on Wayland security boundaries?
- palata 8mo ago
  > Most commonly, as long as processes can read each other's memory/configuration/etc. And there is no point is working on the Desktop security as long as X11 defeats it all. > if it seems to be worth so little I, for one, value the security standpoint.
flohofwoe 8mo ago
The main problem of Wayland is fragmentation, technical problems could be solved by throwing work at it, but not as long as Wayland is "just a protocol". Designing it as a protocol (and with optional extensions on top!), instead of a traditional centralized implementation was a pretty stupid decision (and not just in hindsight). Instead of bundling forces to improve a single implementation like it was the case with X11, now everybody and their mother writes their own incomplete implementation of the Wayland protocol, and badly. I don't understand how anybody thinks that this mess is a good thing. At least for X11 on Linux there was a single implementation that contributors could focus on, now the bugs are spread over dozens of projects. If I'd like to sabotage the entire desktop-Linux idea, this is exactly how I would do it ;(
- palata 8mo ago
  I feel like it's a philosophical question. I like freedom and diversity. I don't want Linux to be like Windows or macOS with one window manager, one init system, etc. I like that people (and I) can experiment. Is it less efficient than paying for Windows and macOS? Probably. Is it less polished? Certainly. But that's exactly what I want. If I wanted Windows or macOS, I would use Windows or macOS.
  - NetMageSCW 8mo ago
    But that attitude means that “the year of the Linux desktop” will never actually arrive because the vast majority don’t want less polished, hard to choose, undocumented testing.
    - palata 8mo ago
      Sure. I don't want the year of the Linux desktop. Why would I care, really? I want Linux to be the Linux I like. I sometimes feel that people try to explain to Linux people how they should modify their distro in order to make it look more like Windows, such that they would get more newcomers who like Windows. I don't want that! People who like Windows should use Windows, and we should make Linux look like a system I left for Linux!
theodric 8mo ago
> Who is forced to use it? Anyone who wants to continue using a modern, actively-developed desktop environment. GNOME has dropped X11; KDE has announced the transition. I would consider being told "use Wayland, or find a different desktop environment" being forced, even though nobody has actually put a gun to my head. I have managed to make Wayland work for me, but only by patching away the hardcoded gestures. I also developed a means to start and stop XScreenSaver, although that is thankfully now obsolete thanks to some work by JWZ. Just yesterday I still had issues with an entire window of text gibbering up and down in VSCode at a certain scaling level (used to have that in Firefox, as well, but it was evidently fixed). To put a positive conspiratorial spin on the recent Wayland push: maybe they think that taking away the option to fall back to X11 will finally get enough eyes on Wayland to fix its remaining issues.
- jpetso 8mo ago
  > To put a positive conspiratorial spin on the recent Wayland push: maybe they think that taking away the option to fall back to X11 will finally get enough eyes on Wayland to fix its remaining issues. Yes, and I also think it's important to focus on that part in particular: X11 is not a feature, it's not a user story, it's an implementation detail of the desktop environment / window manager. There are certainly historical architectural choices that imply many aspects of what X11 can or can't do for the user, likewise with desktops' implementation of the Wayland protocol. The differences between these approaches is real, and substantial. But in the end, X11 is not a cause unto its own. It's a component in service of the user experience at large. People criticize the removal of X11 support either because their use cases have been affected in some inconvenient way, or because they're afraid of future consequences one way or another. It's important that desktop environments work on providing the features/UX/quality that users need and expect. It's also important that users tell their DE developers what their needs are, in terms of what problems they are trying to solve, not in terms of which components to use underneath. Choice of component stack is a developer issue and should remain this way. In the end, the DEs/WMs that solve their users' problems to a high degree of satisfaction are the ones who will retain and gain the most users. Approaches will differ across the Linux desktop space regarding what problems to solve specifically, which problems to prioritize, and how best to implement solutions for them. Dependencies like X11 shape the ultimate user experience one way or another, in terms of features, constraints, development effort, and continuity. And so do many other implementation choices that need to be made or revised along the way. Ideally most users will end up with DEs/WMs whose development philosophy is aligned with their personal priorities. Friendly bug reporters can help out with the awareness part at least :)
sgbeal 8mo ago
> I don't understand the complaints about Wayland. The last time a distro tried to sell me on it, it left me unable to drag/drop browser tabs to reorder them (a fundamental part of my daily workflow). Thankfully, Mint still has the option to use X11 so reverting was trivial. That won't always be the case because... > Who is forced to use it? Just use X11, as you said (many times) you do already. Which, like avoiding systemd, is becoming increasingly difficult as distributions prematurely switch. Like when some Linux distros made KDE4 the default (~20 years ago) before most graphics cards could actually handle KDE4's requirements. Switching distros after years, even decades, of use is not as trivial as distro-hoppers who swap out their distro every three weeks might like to think. Lots of know-how and muscle memory gets lost in the transition, both of which have to be rebuilt.
Suppafly 8mo ago
I think the argument is that Linux as a whole doesn't progress much because new projects constantly replace old projects without actually improving the underlying issues. X11 is old and has a bunch of issues, but those issues have largely been addresses, whereas Wayland is new and neat, but has a lot of issues that won't be addressed for years to come.

by palata 8mo ago

BowBun 8mo ago

> Who is forced to use it? Just use X11, as you said (many times) you do already. This is my understanding of his actual concern - Linux corps are pushing Wayland as a replacement for X11 when it is full of issues. Anecdotally my experience was the same. I'm a dev so I'm fine in a terminal, but trying to switch to KDE actually sent me BACK to Windows. Basic windowing stuff just does not work, and like the OP says, tons of stutters and crashes for a simple 2-monitor setup. Even something as simple as alt-tabbing lagged for seconds on an overpowered machine. Just does not feel like polished software which is a huge reputational risk for Linux right now.

ghighi7878 8mo ago
Wayland is so much better than x11. Sure there might be bugs in wayland which are not in x11, but in geberal wayland is better.
palata 8mo ago
Anecdotally, my experience with Wayland has been a lot better than with X11. I have been on Wayland for years, I can't remember the last time I had an issue (running Sway).
- packetlost 8mo ago
  I second this. I had issues years ago, but those have mostly been fixed.
- bigyabai 8mo ago
  Additionally, the Steam Deck ships with Wayland by default. Hundreds of thousands of gamers are stress-testing it without any complaint that I'm aware of.
  - jauntywundrkind 8mo ago
    As someone who uses my steam deck as a workstation too, I really really wish this were fully true. The desktop is still X based, and that suuuccckkksss.
    - bigyabai 8mo ago
      The desktop sure, but the primary handheld mode uses Gamescope which is a Wayland-based session.
      - ndiddy 8mo ago
        It's true that Gamescope is a Wayland compositor, but it does not support Wayland clients ("native Wayland programs" if you're unfamiliar with *nix terminology). In handheld mode, everything you see on your screen is an X11 client running under Xwayland. I have no interest in arguing over whether X11 or Wayland is better (I've used both and both work fine for me) but I would not use the Steam Deck to argue that Wayland is being stress tested by hundreds of thousands of gamers when none of their games are using Wayland.

sbinnee 8mo ago

Yeap, it sounds like a big rant with multiple exclamation marks. Having both is a way to go. Recently I purchased a new laptop and thought should I go full Wayland? No way. I started with X11 and then added Wayland. Things break on Linux. You need a stable display server where you can still open a browser, and that is X11. Most of the time, I stay on Wayland until it breaks.

zahlman 8mo ago

> Doesn't sound like a super informed way to look at security (not even mentioning that Wayland was started in 2008, and Rust was not a thing). One can also say that "as long as you run X11, there is no need to think about security because X11 just defeats it all". Yeah, we're talking about completely different threat models here.

dehrmann 8mo ago

> I actually think it's nice to have both Options that are equivalent enough for most end users just cause confusion. There are also too many distros, and the Gnome vs. KDE competition set desktop Linux back another 10 years. That's three dimensions of big, important choices with not much downside if you pick the happy path and a whole lot of downside if you don't.

whynotmaybe 8mo ago
I don't know what's the difference between x11, wayland, gnome, kde and all the others. The fact that people always debate over which one is best is one of the reason why I don't switch to Linux desktop. Theres always the sane debate of Macos VS Windows VS Linux. That's a good one for me because there are many pros and cons for each of them. But then, when you try to really look into Linux, it's an unstoppable flow of "systemd=bad", "snap is bad", “only the distro xyz is the real one because it respects principle abc". Even the emacs VS vim debate seems saner than this. I know the underlying spirit of Linux is the liberty to choose whatever you want, but this perpetual debate over which is the best only tricks me into believing that whichever distro I'd choose, it will be the wrong one. Even for my old media server, there are 3 differents Linux mint : Cinnamon, Xfce and MATE. What am I supposed to do? Spend a few hours to try each one and find the best for my 13 years old i5 with a Nvidia gt440 that's used 3 hours per month?
- nilamo 8mo ago
  If you have a spare usb stick, the cost to trying them is only the download time. Each is capable of the same things, the differences are purely aesthetic. So try them out and see which you like best. Or install all three and switch each time you login.
  - dehrmann 8mo ago
    You actually don't know the true cost until you learn the quirks of the UI, how it handles proprietary drivers, upgrades, the packaging system, how up-to-date and complete its packages are, etc.

jrm4 8mo ago

"Who is forced to use it" is an extremely dated argument strategy that has absolutely no place whatsoever in modern computing. Linux is far too ubiquitous for such a notion to be taken seriously. It's not far from "who is forced to use Macs instead of Windows."

palata 8mo ago
To be fair, I am not the one bringing that point up. The author says "I am forced to use it", they bring it up. I may be on the "Wayland" side here, but I have the exact same reasoning when I am on the other side: I hate systemd, but I genuinely cannot say that "I am forced to use it". I have the freedom to choose a distro that supports alternatives, and that is what I do. For Wayland it seems even easier: it's just something you install on top (unlike the init system or the libc). I think it's fine to hate Wayland and to believe that it is the wrong direction, just like it is fine to hate systemd and believe it is the wrong direction. But I don't think I am forced to use any of those.
- jrm4 8mo ago
  No, double down -- You personally are not forced to use it, but today this is a terrible argument that, perhaps subconsciously, reinforces the falsehood that "you don't have to use it" is an okay and reasonable response, when it's really merely a selfish one. Again, Linux is everywhere and the better thing to do is to consider how the bad rollout of Wayland affects everyone -- especially, e.g. that rising 2 or 3 percent who are going for it on the desktop. It is FAR more important to raise that marketshare -- or at least to consider the possibility of it -- than it is to preserve some notion of "well it works for me."
  - palata 8mo ago
    > It is FAR more important to raise that marketshare I don't see why. Most users of OSes couldn't care less about their OS. The vast majority of humans are happy with Windows, macOS, iOS or Android. To the point where those who aren't are a rounding error. I don't want to make Linux look like Windows, such that those people can finally use Linux and I can proudly look at a marketshare. If a Linux distro ever gets a "decent" marketshare, if won't be Linux: it will be a specific distro that managed to look like Windows or macOS. I most certainly won't be using that distro.

queenkjuul 8mo ago

I won't accept that "nobody was forced." Major mainstream desktops either already have or are very shortly dropping X11 entirely. Microsoft is correctly being called out for forcing people onto Windows 11, even though it's entirely possible for users to remain on 10 with workarounds. Gnome is forcing people onto Wayland, that you can stop using Gnome or choose to use an outdated OS doesn't really change that for me. I guess if you don't want to say they're being forced onto Wayland, they are definitely being forced to change their display setup: use Wayland, or don't use Gnome, starting with Ubuntu 26.04 next month.

palata 8mo ago
I am "forced" to use Windows or macOS for work. I do not have a choice, I am not allowed to install something else. Thus I "am forced". I am not forced to by Nike shoes, I can buy any other brand. Even if I have been buying Nike all my life and now they switch to a material I don't like, I am not forced to wear the new Nike shoes; I can switch to a different brand. I have the choice to switch. I believe that a project decides what they do. If Gnome decides to move to Wayland, someone could fork and start XGnome. That's how FOSS works, and I accept it for what it is. I feel like too many people believe that FOSS means "people around me should build my dream system just for me, and for free". If Gnome gets more traction than XGnome, it sounds like the Gnome users are generally fine with its choices. And those who are not can switch to an alternative. I don't use Gnome, I don't use systemd, I don't use ext4, I don't use NetworkManager. The beauty of Linux is that I can choose. And yes, most of the time I am in the minority.

Ferret7446 8mo ago

> Who is forced to use it? The people forcing Wayland are also the people who own and are trying to kill Xorg (stated explicitly) and also trying to cancel people who fork or implement their own X11. So yes, they are actively trying to prevent people from using X11

messe 8mo ago
> also trying to cancel people who fork Care to elaborate on that accusation? I have a suspicion you're referring to Xlibre.

kelvinjps10 8mo ago

for me it's just utilities that don't work workrave, activity watch, flameshot, polybar. (waybar is not as polished) automating stuff with xdotool. There is no way to get the current window focused. Even on windows there is a simple api to get that

darthoctopus 8mo ago

> Who is forced to use it? Just use X11, as you said (many times) you do already. I can no longer use GNOME on X11, and the decision to remove support was a deliberate one. Users are definitely being forced.

simonask 8mo ago
And who is forcing you to use GNOME?
elsjaako 8mo ago
You can use an old version of Gnome and accept older software, or you can organize some fellow GNOME enthusiasts to maintain it, possibly with paid developers. You can't legally get old versions of Windows or Photoshop, and you can't legally fix them if you find problems. GNOME gives you that freedom. This isn't just a theoretical possibility: both MATE and Cinnamon are GNOME forks. You can argue that maintaining and developing a desktop environment is an huge project and you can't expect someone to take that on - I completely agree, which is why I think we should be thankful of the developers instead of complaining about being "forced" to use new versions of their software. Having technical discussions about the merits is fine, but in the end in the free/open source software model the people that make the technical decisions are the ones that make the technology possible. And if so many of those people are moving to Wayland, maybe there is a reason for that.
- subscribed 8mo ago
  Unless security patches are still developed and released for older versions, I'd strongly discourage it.
  - elsjaako 7mo ago
    Yes, and the developers of Gnome are strongly encouraging you to move to Wayland. You are free to ignore that suggestion. If you delete the first 13 words from my previous comment it may be a more suitable comment for you.
- 8mo ago

gentleman11 8mo ago

I've used linux desktop environments using Wayland and others using x11. No real problems with either. Let's instead get excited by all the new linux users coming in thanks to SteamOS and Valve. If the trend continues, we might start seeing larger software companies releasing native linux versions of their software -- and then, the year of the linux desktop will start becoming an actual possibility! (I heard affinity suite is linux friendly now btw, and davinci resolve too -- not sure if proton is necessary or not, but either way, really cool)

palata 8mo ago
> we might start seeing larger software companies releasing native linux versions of their software I like the idea of course, but I don't believe it for one second. Unless software is open source, it never properly supports Linux. A company making a proprietary executable for Linux will generally just make an Ubuntu executable. My biggest fear with something like "the year of the Linux Desktop" is that it may end up making Linux be like Android: open source on the paper, but there is practically really just one way to do things, and that's the one controlled by Google. What I like with Linux is this big mess of alternatives that manage to somehow compete with each other. Sure, it's not as polished as Android or Windows or macOS. But it's free (as in freedom).
antisol 8mo ago
Davinci resolve has had native Linux support for like a decade now.

jgilias 8mo ago

This page linked in the bottom explains a lot: https://www.kicad.org/blog/2025/06/KiCad-and-Wayland-Support/ https://www.kicad.org/blog/2025/06/KiCad-and-Wayland-Support...

bvrmn 8mo ago

> Who is forced to use it? Just use X11, as you said (many times) you do already. Recent versions of gnome session are compiled only with wayland support in archlinux. To change DE or distribution or use custom package is quite a stretch to call it's not forced.

palata 8mo ago
But then it's not Wayland's fault: Gnome decided to move to it and stop supporting X. I don't like systemd and the fact that mainstream distros push for it, but as a result I use a distro that gives me the choice (Gentoo). Who am I to tell the distro maintainer what they should do for free?
- NetMageSCW 8mo ago
  Just because it’s free doesn’t mean you shouldn’t call them out on their stupidity.

athrowaway3z 8mo ago

> > I also don't care for the "security" argument when parts of the core reference implementation are written in a memory-unsafe language. > Doesn't sound like a super informed way to look at security (not even mentioning that Wayland was started in 2008, and Rust was not a thing). One can also say that "as long as you run X11, there is no need to think about security because X11 just defeats it all". I think the argument is not that X11 defeats it all - but that for 99.9999% of users its security theater when deployed in the real world. Most commonly, as long as processes can read each other's memory/configuration/etc. I'm sure there is a use-case for untrusted sharing of Wayland enabled GPU rendering or something - though AFAIK none of the enterprise remote desktop use it, and they have the resources to implement it themselves anyway. I've been running Wayland for two years now. I still hit weird bugs with desktop sharing / obs tinkering; It's just not a critical use for me. So it's fair to question the design wisdom of adding the complexity and UX pain points if it seems to be worth so little. But maybe i'm overlooking some large group of people dependent on Wayland security boundaries?

palata 8mo ago
> Most commonly, as long as processes can read each other's memory/configuration/etc. And there is no point is working on the Desktop security as long as X11 defeats it all. > if it seems to be worth so little I, for one, value the security standpoint.

flohofwoe 8mo ago

The main problem of Wayland is fragmentation, technical problems could be solved by throwing work at it, but not as long as Wayland is "just a protocol". Designing it as a protocol (and with optional extensions on top!), instead of a traditional centralized implementation was a pretty stupid decision (and not just in hindsight). Instead of bundling forces to improve a single implementation like it was the case with X11, now everybody and their mother writes their own incomplete implementation of the Wayland protocol, and badly. I don't understand how anybody thinks that this mess is a good thing. At least for X11 on Linux there was a single implementation that contributors could focus on, now the bugs are spread over dozens of projects. If I'd like to sabotage the entire desktop-Linux idea, this is exactly how I would do it ;(

palata 8mo ago
I feel like it's a philosophical question. I like freedom and diversity. I don't want Linux to be like Windows or macOS with one window manager, one init system, etc. I like that people (and I) can experiment. Is it less efficient than paying for Windows and macOS? Probably. Is it less polished? Certainly. But that's exactly what I want. If I wanted Windows or macOS, I would use Windows or macOS.
- NetMageSCW 8mo ago
  But that attitude means that “the year of the Linux desktop” will never actually arrive because the vast majority don’t want less polished, hard to choose, undocumented testing.
  - palata 8mo ago
    Sure. I don't want the year of the Linux desktop. Why would I care, really? I want Linux to be the Linux I like. I sometimes feel that people try to explain to Linux people how they should modify their distro in order to make it look more like Windows, such that they would get more newcomers who like Windows. I don't want that! People who like Windows should use Windows, and we should make Linux look like a system I left for Linux!

theodric 8mo ago

> Who is forced to use it? Anyone who wants to continue using a modern, actively-developed desktop environment. GNOME has dropped X11; KDE has announced the transition. I would consider being told "use Wayland, or find a different desktop environment" being forced, even though nobody has actually put a gun to my head. I have managed to make Wayland work for me, but only by patching away the hardcoded gestures. I also developed a means to start and stop XScreenSaver, although that is thankfully now obsolete thanks to some work by JWZ. Just yesterday I still had issues with an entire window of text gibbering up and down in VSCode at a certain scaling level (used to have that in Firefox, as well, but it was evidently fixed). To put a positive conspiratorial spin on the recent Wayland push: maybe they think that taking away the option to fall back to X11 will finally get enough eyes on Wayland to fix its remaining issues.

jpetso 8mo ago
> To put a positive conspiratorial spin on the recent Wayland push: maybe they think that taking away the option to fall back to X11 will finally get enough eyes on Wayland to fix its remaining issues. Yes, and I also think it's important to focus on that part in particular: X11 is not a feature, it's not a user story, it's an implementation detail of the desktop environment / window manager. There are certainly historical architectural choices that imply many aspects of what X11 can or can't do for the user, likewise with desktops' implementation of the Wayland protocol. The differences between these approaches is real, and substantial. But in the end, X11 is not a cause unto its own. It's a component in service of the user experience at large. People criticize the removal of X11 support either because their use cases have been affected in some inconvenient way, or because they're afraid of future consequences one way or another. It's important that desktop environments work on providing the features/UX/quality that users need and expect. It's also important that users tell their DE developers what their needs are, in terms of what problems they are trying to solve, not in terms of which components to use underneath. Choice of component stack is a developer issue and should remain this way. In the end, the DEs/WMs that solve their users' problems to a high degree of satisfaction are the ones who will retain and gain the most users. Approaches will differ across the Linux desktop space regarding what problems to solve specifically, which problems to prioritize, and how best to implement solutions for them. Dependencies like X11 shape the ultimate user experience one way or another, in terms of features, constraints, development effort, and continuity. And so do many other implementation choices that need to be made or revised along the way. Ideally most users will end up with DEs/WMs whose development philosophy is aligned with their personal priorities. Friendly bug reporters can help out with the awareness part at least :)

sgbeal 8mo ago

> I don't understand the complaints about Wayland. The last time a distro tried to sell me on it, it left me unable to drag/drop browser tabs to reorder them (a fundamental part of my daily workflow). Thankfully, Mint still has the option to use X11 so reverting was trivial. That won't always be the case because... > Who is forced to use it? Just use X11, as you said (many times) you do already. Which, like avoiding systemd, is becoming increasingly difficult as distributions prematurely switch. Like when some Linux distros made KDE4 the default (~20 years ago) before most graphics cards could actually handle KDE4's requirements. Switching distros after years, even decades, of use is not as trivial as distro-hoppers who swap out their distro every three weeks might like to think. Lots of know-how and muscle memory gets lost in the transition, both of which have to be rebuilt.

Suppafly 8mo ago

I think the argument is that Linux as a whole doesn't progress much because new projects constantly replace old projects without actually improving the underlying issues. X11 is old and has a bunch of issues, but those issues have largely been addresses, whereas Wayland is new and neat, but has a lot of issues that won't be addressed for years to come.