X11 Users May Always Find Wayland Insufficient
In the world of Linux, a significant shift has been underway as developers move away from X11 and towards Wayland. However, this transition has not been without its issues, as many users have encountered various problems when making the switch.
One of the main concerns is application compatibility. Many applications have yet to be ported to Wayland, causing them to fail or behave incorrectly, such as drag and drop not working. Additionally, some older GPUs, like the GeForce GT610 and GT710, lack proper Wayland support, leading to reduced performance or incompatibility.
Wayland also currently lacks several features that users expect from X11. For instance, global hotkeys, certain graphics tablet functionalities, overscanning monitor support, multiple mouse cursors, multi-monitor fullscreen, input latency improvements for gaming, and some accessibility features are all missing or have regressed in comparison to X11.
Input methods for foreign languages and onscreen keyboards are reportedly worse under Wayland versus X11. Furthermore, popular automation tools like have no direct Wayland equivalent, and some common utilities do not function or have limited replacements.
Issues such as inability to restore previously saved window positions, broken protocols (e.g., _NET_WM_STATE_SKIP_TASKBAR), and Xwayland limitations like broken window resizing also plague Wayland. Additionally, Wayland may use more system resources than X11 on some setups.
The transition to Wayland requires users to adapt to new tools and workflows, which can reduce productivity until the learning curve is overcome. Despite these challenges, Wayland has been widely adopted and is used by major desktop environments like GNOME and KDE Plasma, with growing ecosystem support.
Regarding Wayland vs Mir, although direct detailed comparison data is limited, Wayland is more philosophically incompatible with X11, breaking many existing behaviors and requiring application porting. Mir, on the other hand, targets somewhat different use cases and has less widespread desktop adoption but may offer smoother legacy compatibility in some contexts while lacking Wayland's broader ecosystem and momentum.
In summary, Wayland is the leading modern replacement for X11, but its transition is incomplete and problematic for many users, especially those relying on legacy applications, certain hardware, or specialized input and automation features. Mir, by contrast, targets somewhat different use cases and has less widespread desktop adoption, but may offer smoother legacy compatibility in some contexts while lacking Wayland's broader ecosystem and momentum.
The choice between Wayland and Mir depends on the specific environment, goals, and application compatibility requirements. For most traditional desktop Linux users, Wayland is the main path forward despite its current limitations and user pain points.
It's important to note that the issue of Wayland developers not following standards set by Windows and MacOS desktops has been a point of contention for years. Some argue that just because X11 is terrible right now, it doesn't automatically make Wayland the better option. Regardless, the future of Linux desktop environments is an evolving landscape, and users and developers alike will continue to adapt and improve these systems.
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/840314/ [2] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=wayland-gnome-3-38&num=1 [3] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=wayland-mir-comparison&num=1 [4] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=wayland-gnome-3-38-mir&num=1
- Despite the transition towards Wayland in the Linux world, the compatibility of some hardware, such as certain older GPUs, remains an issue due to the absence of proper Wayland support, affecting performance and usability.
- Data-and-cloud-computing operations might encounter difficulties in the transition to Wayland, as some popular automation tools lack direct Wayland equivalents, and certain common utilities may not function or have limited replacements.
