The cost of maintaining Xorg
The cost of maintaining Xorg
One thing I saw in comments about the removal of xorg server is that some might not see how much work is/was to maintain xorg server. I understand is hard to see from outside, but maintaining xorg server with the standards we have in RHEL is not a small beast. Let me share some:
Permanently Deleted
It's not only software vendors but Wayland itself lacks some crucial features. For me it's auto-type and screen magnification - both are showstoppers for me.
Autotype is already solved - ydotool, wtype and dotool exists (and possibly others as well).
Screen magnification is already present in KDE (
Meta++,Meta+-to zoom in/out). There's also a magnifier tool (KMag). There may be similar functionalities in other DEs.My issue is the lack of an overall GUI automation tool, ie, like AutoHotkey. X11 had PyAutoGUI, but there's no such AIO equivalent for Wayland yet, and the PyAutoGUI devs don't seem to be interested in Wayland support - it's neither on their road map, nor have they even answered any Wayland questions on their Github page, which is disappointing. But this isn't Wayland's fault, when other tools have shown that automating the GUI is possible, we just need someone to put together a complete package like PyAutoGUI / AHK.
auto type
ydotool?
10 years was enough time to make your software work on Wayland.
By that logic, one could answer that 15 years was enough time to make Wayland work better than it does... but that would be petty and disingenous.
Desktop stacks are very complex. X.org took 30 years to beat that complexity into a usable shape. Wayland pushed most complexity up the stack and still took 15 years to finally put together a protocol of beta quality.
It will take the rest of the stack however long it will take to build on that protocol. Most of the Linux community are volunteers, and Wayland was and still is work in progress. Nobody in their right mind rushes to write software on top of an unstable protocol.
If Wayland is truly ready I think we will see meaningful stack adoption within the next 5 years. But I don't think trying to force developers into it will achieve anything.
As for forcing users that's completely unreasonable. If you're using XFCE on Nvidia you'll have to wait for XFCE to get Wayland support and for Wayland to get Nvidia support. Very few people are willing to change their whole desktop stack or able to buy a new graphics card for the sake of... of what? Bringing about the Year of the Linux Desktop?
If it breaks my setup why the fuck should I be forced to use it? This entire argument is ridiculous based on that statement alone.
You know what's super ironic? I went through this exact thing with X, 25 years ago, when you had to put together a Linux desktop with spit and duct tape.
Wayland promises to be much nicer than X but the way it asks you to put together a working desktop stack yourself is straight out of the '90s.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
This is a terrible recommendation and I hope as few people follow it as possible.
People like you are why Linux has a reputation for always being broken; as soon as we get something that works and is stable, we gotta move to the next broken thing.
The same thing will be said about Wayland in 20 years, if it ever reaches feature-parity with X.
The sense of entitlement in some of the replies on that post are absolutely awful
As for me personally, I want to love Wayland. It has great performance on ALL my devices, (except one with a nvidia GPU) and is super smooth compared to X11!
However... the secure aspect of Wayland makes it very difficult, if not impossible to easily get a remote desktop going. Wayvnc doesn't support the most popular desktop environments depending on how Wayland was compiled, and the built-in desktop sharing on distros that have switched over to Wayland often require very specific Linux-only VNC and RDP clients, otherwise you run into odd errors.
I really hope the desktop sharing situation improves because it's a pretty big showstopper for me. On X11 you just install & run x11vnc from a remote SSH session and you have immediate session access with VNC from Linux, Android, and Windows. If you want lockscreen access too then you run as root and provide the greeter's Xauth credentials. But Wayland's not so simple sadly AFAICT...
Waypipe is something I've found out about recently though, so need to check that out and see how well it works at the moment. If anyone has any helpful info or pointers please share, I'm completely new to Wayland and would appreciate it!
For me its especially services like RustDesk or even RealVNC that are essential, because I have no DynDNS
I know this is not useful for most use cases, but if you login to the desktop on the 'remote Wayland', locally first then RD will work as expected. So if you can change the behaviour of the remote desktop to stay unlocked (IE its in a secure place where others cannot just access the device), then and RD will work with Wayland.
I use NoMachine (since I manage all sorts of devices, and its nice that there is a client and server for everything including phones/arm) and it works for me because many of the machines are actually VM's and I can keep the desktops unlocked and logged in. NoMachines solution for Wayland - is to disable it and use X11 !!
But I wish many of the RD developers would just embrace Wayland and add/rewrite code to support it (If it is in their scope, I don't know) It might not be, since I am aware of Waypipe and Pipewire, but I'd assume that RD devs would still need to include support for that.
I use freerdp for Linux and rd connect on Android, Windows to connect to my Ubuntu laptop as a second monitor on gnome Wayland and it works great
The more it’s on its way out, the harder it will be to find people that even want to maintain it.
I honestly don't get these posts, there's a couple of things that is super weird.
-
Why does every discussion about Wayland include trashing xorg?
-
Isn't the solution pretty obvious, stop mainting xorg if you don't like to maintain xorg, who is forcing you to maintain xorg?
I really don't care if I'm using xorg or wayland, I just want something that works, and I have tried wayland and that isn't the case as of the moment. And I don't care about the why, because I can't be like yeah I use Wayland that's why I can't be on this video conference.
Just stop mainting it if you don't want to maintain it, problem solved, move on.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Seems like a redhat problem, so why is he complaining. It wasn't the developer who signed an agreement to maintain xorg, so I don't get the argument. Either you do it for the money you get paid, and if you don't feel like it's enough, then don't do it. The developer can just quit and do something else, ask for another project. The only one who is making him work on xorg is redhat.
But why even mention m it in the same context as Wayland, make Wayland work for the end user and 90% of people would not care if thier Linux machine was using Wayland or xorg.
Yes I've had multiple issues with video conferencing on Wayland, but my experience is 1 - 2 years old. I just use what works, I don't have any technical problems with xorg and that is why I use it.
Just let xorg die.
Why does every discussion about Wayland include trashing xorg?
I don't know, really, but it's something I feel I've seen before.I thought about it and it's just fanboyism.Some people get legitimately angry when they see someone using something they don't like, and I think Wayland fanboys fit in this category to a tee.
I see the exact same kind of backlash whenever someone brings up Nvidia or Manjaro. The fanboys come out and all take it as an opportunity to recommend what they like because they believe their tastes are superior to everyone else's.
-
Fedora is going to through out x11 entirely in 2024. Hard move, which should be done. Or otherwise stay with old shit?
I guess Wayland isn't as feature-rich as X because people from RHEL don't want to put in the work to maintain it.
Not surprising, really. It just follows the modern trend of removing features so incompetent programmers have an easier job.
You are the boss! 💪
I don't get the issue with "maintaining Xorg". Like, I get that it has a "cost", I just don't understand why that cost would be an issue since it's basically fixed, marginal cost (and has been since like 2015): the software is already mature, so it's unlikely to see relevant changes, or even minor changes (if that's what we want to mean with "dead"). That means, it can be affixed to a specific toolkit and environment to build (if this isn't being done already - which any mature project like RedHat should be!) basically guaranteeing it'll build forever. You can just set a virtual button or a yearly crontab to do it. Fixed, marginal cost.
Contrasted to that, what Wayland is doing is kinda a representation of the worst ways of capitalism: centralize the profits, socialize the costs and the externalities (redesign, recode, rebuild), and blame society (the Linux communities) for it, all for a variable cost that is unbounded in time and space because you never know what's gonna cost a small project like a text editor to reimplement the entire desktop stack "just" for Wayland.
I don’t get the issue with “maintaining Xorg”.
I think he explains it pretty well, he even gives some examples and mentions there are many others. For a company to support such a large component for its commercial customers has a lot of work and verification we wouldn't consider as end users. His comment also explains why you can't just maintain a status quo with it and make an automatic build and forget...
The issue with maintaining X is solely RH not wanting to pay developers to maintain it.
Wayland only exists because RH wanted to remove features of X so they can offload implementation and maintenance of those features to other parties.
It's all about money. Don't fool yourselves into thinking it's not.
As a third party, my understanding is that both the implementation and the protocol are really hard, if not next to impossible to iterate on. Modern hardware doesn't work like how it did when X did, and X assumes a lot of things that made sense in the 90s that don't now. Despite that, we cram a square peg into the round hole and it mostly works - and as the peg becomes a worse shape we just cram it harder. At this point no one wants to keep working on X.
And I know your point is that it works and we don't need too, but we do need too. New hardware needs to support X - at least the asahi guys found bugs in the X implementation that only exists on their hardware and no one who wants to fix them. Wayland and X are vastly different, because X doesn't make sense in the modern day. It breaks things, and a lot of old assumptions aren't true. That sucks, especially for app devs that rely on those assumptions. But keeping around X isn't the solution - iterating on Wayland is. Adding protocols to different parts of the stack with proper permission models, moving different pieces of X to different parts of the stack, etc. are a long term viable strategy. Even if it is painful.
But keeping around X isn’t the solution - iterating on Wayland is. Adding protocols to different parts of the stack with proper permission models, moving different pieces of X to different parts of the stack, etc. are a long term viable strategy. Even if it is painful.
The problem is, that's always used as an excuse to force people to be gratis beta testers. I've been around for the wrecks that were (and still are) Pulseaudio and Systemd. Wayland is even worse: it doesn't even fully start a session in my machine. If as devs you want to "iterate", sure, go ahead; but leave it in the dev branch; as a user, don't try to sell me Wayland again until it's actually over.
Sadly, message does not list a dollar amount. Replies are great though. Lots of pointing out the listed items are small compared to corporation size.
Also I see "Red Hat" thrown around a lot. There's no Red Hat anymore, it's IBM, and IBM's target user is a RHEL customer.
I'm willing to bet most people commenting on Mastodon (and here for that matter) have very little in common with a RHEL customer. IBM, like Valve with the Deck, have very specific use cases in mind and can afford to support a Wayland-based desktop for those particular circumstances.
But does IBM care about the desktop needs of the average Linux user? I doubt it.
Great point. IBM has a long history of squeezing every penny from their customers. At one corner job, IBM had to come onsite a few times a year to perform system updates. We were not allowed by IBM to upgrade the OS ourselves.
Yeah, I never take people seriously when they say something is 'too expensive' but willfully obscure what that price actually is.
I'm less of a useful idiot because of it.