First of all, X is not a security nightmare. There were 0 cases of someone getting hacked because of X exploit. It’s a FUD.
Now Wayland is a fad (haha). It’s not that much better than X and when it was drafted 10 years ago everyone just ignored it. Over the decade it became clear that X is stuck and at some point it will become obsolete so people started looking at alternatives and Wayland started getting some traction. Over time different tools started getting Wayland support, some people started getting exited about it and a kind of new meme developed where using Wayland meant that you’re ahead of everyone else (just like using Arch BTW). In the end it’s just a nice PR stunt. Ask people what specifically is so great about Wayland and they will mention some obscure features most people don’t need and features that it will have ‘soon’. In the long term the move will hopefully be a good thing but as of now if you don’t specifically need the few features it has you can keep ignoring it.
It is not a 'fad". Major distros have defaulted to Wayland (Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat, Debian, Manjaro etc).
X11 is old and designed for use cases in the 1980s. A lot of features have gradually moved out of X11 into the kernel or into other compositor systems. But the core X11 system is still limited by legacy design decisions and needing work arounds (which are complex to build and maintain).
Wayland is built to be the modern system that is built for current usage and needs. A lot of the benefits are not immediately obvious to the end user - a desktop is a desktop. But desktop interface projects like KDE who build user interfaces are hitting X11s limitations all the time, and a lot of effort goes in to working around X11s limits compared to working with Wayland. Effort spent working to work around X11 is time and work that could have been spent elsewhere on other fixes or new features and innovations.
The push to Wayland is deliberate and necessary, but was not always inevitable. Now that it’s being adopted so widely as the default by big distros and projects it is likely inevitable. It has essentially reached critical mass.
I think a lot of people asking “what’s the point” are not the ones working to build systems and distros at the back end. It’s easy for us as end users to take for granted all the work behind the scenes that make our desktops “just work”. But if you’re a volunteer building a compositor fit for 2024, I can see why it’d be frustrating working around the limitations of a system built for 1984.
X11 has served us incredibly well and is a hugely important project. But Wayland is the way forward.
When Wayland can do and run everything X11 can, without problems, plus everything it promisses it can do, then I’ll make the switch. Till that time comes, I’m sorry, but it’s just not for me 🤷.
Sorry, I used the term “fad” to make a pun on X flaws being a ‘FUD’ (haha). It’s not a fad in the sense that it will soon disappear. What I meant is that the excitement around it is not funded in actual benefits and it just recently became fashionable to support it.
While I don’t think X11 is great, I do not think wayland compositor is made to be easier to develop with. Wlroots had to be made to make things easier for compositor devs.
There are some really major deficiencies in Xorg that aren’t present in Wayland. The main one that made me switch was proper support for variable refresh rate, and the ability to mix and match any fixed or variable refresh rate displays you want.
It’s a super common use case to have a primary monitor with high refresh rate and VRR, plus one or two cheaper monitors that don’t. Xorg doesn’t really support that at all without some really hokey tricks that severely impede usability.
Proper sync support is another one. Yes, you can set tearfree in X but the implementation is crap. You’ll still get tearing in a lot of programs and at least in my experience, it introduces a pretty significant and perceptible input lag, far more than needed to eliminate tearing.
It’s a super common use case to have a primary monitor with high refresh rate and VRR, plus one or two cheaper monitors that don’t. Xorg doesn’t really support that at all without some really hokey tricks that severely impede usability.
I wish Wayland shills would stop spreading this lie. It literally just works. In fact, I’m doing it now on my laptop with a 144Hz 1080p monitor, and an external 60Hz 1440p monitor connected with Thunderbolt, with a dual-GPU setup (iGPU + nVidia, which Wayland doesn’t properly support, yet this is nVidia’s fault somehow even though Wayland compositors run entirely in user space, without interacting with the driver directly).
That’s why it doesn’t make sense arguing about it with Wayland fans. They always find this one obscure feature that X is missing and then claim it’s absolutely essential for everyone to have it. Most people have just one monitor, two equal/similar monitors, a handheld device with one screen or (and that’s the vast majority) simply don’t give a fuck that one of their monitors is working on a lower refresh rate. I’m glad Wayland finally found some traction with gamers obsessed with those things and is being adopted but the constant BS about everyone needing it is getting boring.
Mixed VRR is not an obscure feature for one. Most of my friends with gaming rigs have a primary monitor with VRR and use their old fixed rate monitors as secondary displays. Does it make a massive difference to run fixed refresh rate? No but it is noticeable and nice to have. Windows can do it and I paid for the hardware. Without parity on this kind of stuff, Linux is a hard sell to the people who do care about it.
Does it matter to Joe Schmoe? Probably not, but Joe Schmoe probably doesn’t care about Linux to begin with. You have to go for the tech enthusiasts first before you can get it to the masses.
1.6% of gamers use Linux. 25% of developers use Linux. Typical tech enthusiast is not gamer. Just because in your bubble people use VRR doesn’t mean it’s important to majority of users. Most Linux users don’t care.
1.6% of gamers is still millions of people. Entire industries exist on the back of much smaller customer bases than that. Might as well say we should stop caring about desktop linux completely since the server market dwarfs it.
I’m not saying we should just ignore it. I’m saying that it took the time it took (a decade) for Wayland to become a thing because most people don’t need it. Some people do and it’s not getting traction but most people can still safely ignore it.
With VRR? Xorg definitely did not support this as of a year or so ago without running a separate xorg screen for each monitor which prevents you from doing stuff like moving windows between your displays.
Mixed refresh rates worked okay-ish but VRR definitely did not work well in multi monitor setups.
First of all, X is not a security nightmare. There were 0 cases of someone getting hacked because of X exploit. It’s a FUD.
Now Wayland is a fad (haha). It’s not that much better than X and when it was drafted 10 years ago everyone just ignored it. Over the decade it became clear that X is stuck and at some point it will become obsolete so people started looking at alternatives and Wayland started getting some traction. Over time different tools started getting Wayland support, some people started getting exited about it and a kind of new meme developed where using Wayland meant that you’re ahead of everyone else (just like using Arch BTW). In the end it’s just a nice PR stunt. Ask people what specifically is so great about Wayland and they will mention some obscure features most people don’t need and features that it will have ‘soon’. In the long term the move will hopefully be a good thing but as of now if you don’t specifically need the few features it has you can keep ignoring it.
Well explained 👍.
It is not a 'fad". Major distros have defaulted to Wayland (Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat, Debian, Manjaro etc).
X11 is old and designed for use cases in the 1980s. A lot of features have gradually moved out of X11 into the kernel or into other compositor systems. But the core X11 system is still limited by legacy design decisions and needing work arounds (which are complex to build and maintain).
Wayland is built to be the modern system that is built for current usage and needs. A lot of the benefits are not immediately obvious to the end user - a desktop is a desktop. But desktop interface projects like KDE who build user interfaces are hitting X11s limitations all the time, and a lot of effort goes in to working around X11s limits compared to working with Wayland. Effort spent working to work around X11 is time and work that could have been spent elsewhere on other fixes or new features and innovations.
The push to Wayland is deliberate and necessary, but was not always inevitable. Now that it’s being adopted so widely as the default by big distros and projects it is likely inevitable. It has essentially reached critical mass.
I think a lot of people asking “what’s the point” are not the ones working to build systems and distros at the back end. It’s easy for us as end users to take for granted all the work behind the scenes that make our desktops “just work”. But if you’re a volunteer building a compositor fit for 2024, I can see why it’d be frustrating working around the limitations of a system built for 1984.
X11 has served us incredibly well and is a hugely important project. But Wayland is the way forward.
When Wayland can do and run everything X11 can, without problems, plus everything it promisses it can do, then I’ll make the switch. Till that time comes, I’m sorry, but it’s just not for me 🤷.
Sorry, I used the term “fad” to make a pun on X flaws being a ‘FUD’ (haha). It’s not a fad in the sense that it will soon disappear. What I meant is that the excitement around it is not funded in actual benefits and it just recently became fashionable to support it.
While I don’t think X11 is great, I do not think wayland compositor is made to be easier to develop with. Wlroots had to be made to make things easier for compositor devs.
There are some really major deficiencies in Xorg that aren’t present in Wayland. The main one that made me switch was proper support for variable refresh rate, and the ability to mix and match any fixed or variable refresh rate displays you want.
It’s a super common use case to have a primary monitor with high refresh rate and VRR, plus one or two cheaper monitors that don’t. Xorg doesn’t really support that at all without some really hokey tricks that severely impede usability.
Proper sync support is another one. Yes, you can set tearfree in X but the implementation is crap. You’ll still get tearing in a lot of programs and at least in my experience, it introduces a pretty significant and perceptible input lag, far more than needed to eliminate tearing.
I wish Wayland shills would stop spreading this lie. It literally just works. In fact, I’m doing it now on my laptop with a 144Hz 1080p monitor, and an external 60Hz 1440p monitor connected with Thunderbolt, with a dual-GPU setup (iGPU + nVidia, which Wayland doesn’t properly support, yet this is nVidia’s fault somehow even though Wayland compositors run entirely in user space, without interacting with the driver directly).
That’s why it doesn’t make sense arguing about it with Wayland fans. They always find this one obscure feature that X is missing and then claim it’s absolutely essential for everyone to have it. Most people have just one monitor, two equal/similar monitors, a handheld device with one screen or (and that’s the vast majority) simply don’t give a fuck that one of their monitors is working on a lower refresh rate. I’m glad Wayland finally found some traction with gamers obsessed with those things and is being adopted but the constant BS about everyone needing it is getting boring.
Mixed VRR is not an obscure feature for one. Most of my friends with gaming rigs have a primary monitor with VRR and use their old fixed rate monitors as secondary displays. Does it make a massive difference to run fixed refresh rate? No but it is noticeable and nice to have. Windows can do it and I paid for the hardware. Without parity on this kind of stuff, Linux is a hard sell to the people who do care about it.
Does it matter to Joe Schmoe? Probably not, but Joe Schmoe probably doesn’t care about Linux to begin with. You have to go for the tech enthusiasts first before you can get it to the masses.
1.6% of gamers use Linux. 25% of developers use Linux. Typical tech enthusiast is not gamer. Just because in your bubble people use VRR doesn’t mean it’s important to majority of users. Most Linux users don’t care.
1.6% of gamers is still millions of people. Entire industries exist on the back of much smaller customer bases than that. Might as well say we should stop caring about desktop linux completely since the server market dwarfs it.
I’m not saying we should just ignore it. I’m saying that it took the time it took (a decade) for Wayland to become a thing because most people don’t need it. Some people do and it’s not getting traction but most people can still safely ignore it.
I believe we’re specifically talking VRR, which for me in Kubuntu did not work properly without switching to Wayland.
With VRR? Xorg definitely did not support this as of a year or so ago without running a separate xorg screen for each monitor which prevents you from doing stuff like moving windows between your displays.
Mixed refresh rates worked okay-ish but VRR definitely did not work well in multi monitor setups.