Why is preferable to ? I honestly haven't seen a good argument yet. I haven't looked for a good argument either, but usually articles about Wayland just go on explaining how it will accomplish goals, but no one I've read has explained why they want it.

@poetgrant X is a messy hodgepodge. Wayland can dump a bunch of legacy stuff and take over (thus unifying) some functions, e.g. compositing. It's less client-server oriented, which might be a better reflection of how X is used these days.

If you look at [1], I think it's clear that Xorg with a compositing WM means sending things back and forth without need, which makes things less efficient and increases code complexity.

Now, you could just get rid of Xorg, and have each WM implement a full X11 server.
The thing is, the X11 spec requires the server to do shitloads of things that nobody uses (eg. server-side fonts), and the protocol is a mess with hacks which grew over years.


Though I guess I could give a better explanation if you said which goals Wayland supposedly tries to accomplish.

@poetgrant Doesn't it do monitor-specific DPI settings? I find that highly desiderable but stumbled about something different when I tried So I went back to X.

@poetgrant short answer: because it isn't
wayland is linux-specific, and has a lot of security features which just make desktop use hard
sure, x11 is just hacks over hacks over hacks, but it works well

wayland might have some use in things like phones, but x11 works well enough for just about everything
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is a Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.