For a user: In Wayland programs are supposed to draw their own title bar. Java aplications and old applications must use a backwards compatibility layer that can cause flicker and bad font rendering. The terminology is different (compositor = window manager). Some niche new programs may only run on Wayland. Wayland hasn’t been adopted by BSD (AFAIK).
For a programners: Wayland has more modern, tidy code, but not all toolkits support it natively and few are easy. If you code exclusively for Wayland, a lot of users won’t use your program at the moment.
In Wayland programs are supposed to draw their own title bar
That’s incorrect. GNOME does it like this, Plasma doesn’t. KDE came up with a standard so a program can communicate this to the DE, GNOME slept on it. That’s why e.g. mpv doesn’t run well on GNOME.
Java aplications and old applications must use a backwards compatibility layer that can cause flicker and bad font rendering.
There have been efforts to provide better support for Java applications on the Wayland display server. For instance, the OpenJDK project has been making progress on implementing native “pure” Wayland toolkit integration not dependent upon XOrg/X11 or XWayland.
but not all toolkits support it natively and few are easy.
There have been significant developments in providing native support for Wayland in various toolkits. For example : Clutter, GLFW 3, SDL, GTK 3.20+, QT5+, EFL, & OpenJDK. Just to name a few.
While it is true that not all toolkits have full native support, ongoing work is/has largely shifted towards much better Wayland support.
Both are display servers which is software that allows programs to write to the screen. X is older and was created back in 1984 at MIT and Wayland is a much newer protocol that is designed to work better on newer (post 90’s) hardware.
The biggest difference is that Wayland basicly allows your desktop direct access to the screen and X has a server that runs and allows your desktop to connect to it. X was originally designed to run remotely as back in the day there was one big commuter that many people connected to.
If this is all very confusing you probably should just stick to your distros defaults. Most of the time you don’t need to care.
Wayland is a communication protocol that specifies the communication between a display server and its clients, designed to be a replacement for the X11 window system protocol and architecture.
I might be a little nitpicky here, but I feel it’s an important distinction to make as there is no single common Wayland server like Xorg is for X11.
A display server using the Wayland protocol is called a Wayland compositor, as it additionally performs the task of a compositing window manager.
Xorg on the other hand is basically one fat display server designed like a house of cards that everyone uses.
Wayland is a new implementation on how your system draws windows and components in your computer (I’m not sure if it’s responsible for the content) and it tries a different way to do it compared with xorg.
Xorg is the old implementation, and it has been patched to support most of the new features, and Wayland is trying to get the same features xorg has and some extras.
As a Linux user I have noted that sharing screen is more private in Wayland, also I think multi monitor refresh rate was a problem in xorg. One common issue with Wayland is the GPU compatibility, as far as I know Wayland runs better in AMD GPU I think is because of Mesa integration.
xorg is a old implementation of x11, which is basically abandon-ware right now. No one is adding feature to it, testing it, or fixing security vulnerabilities. It also lack some common-sense security feature: for example every program cam get every input (keyboard and cursor location) without root, so a key logger is trivial to implement in xorg.
Wayland is newer, with more features (reasonable multi-monitor support, one-to-one gestures, etc). But many application framework and hardware have poor support for it, because it is new. Notably, electron and nvidia are typically the worst offender, like everything on linux; but both has come a long way.
I have wayland on my laptop, since one-to-one gesture is a must for me, and I present quite often using that laptop. My desktop is on xorg, since I have a nvidia GPU and use quite a lot of electron app.
AMD GPU + KDE Plasma with Wayland finally gets me close enough to the smoothness of Windows, especially the per-display settings for fractional scaling and high refresh rate were sorely lacking on Linux. It’s not perfect yet (and neither is Windows’ implementation) but it improved the Linux desktop experience a ton!
Desktop Linux is in its never-ending process of replacing old displaying system with new one. The process is long and not really transparent, because the two displaying systems were designed in completely different times for different hardware and with different security concerns in mind, therefore the X11 clients (all the software that was ever made or ported to Linux) are very much incompatible with Wayland. For backwards compatibility there’s Xwayland, which provides full blown Xorg server running on top of Wayland compositor with all the things X11 app requires. Until now, Firefox, even though had its Wayland backend as WIP feature (possible to activate with environment variable MOZ_ENABLE_WAYLAND=1) it defaulted to Xwayland on Wayland sessions. It now uses native Wayland backend by default providing better efficiency, DPI scaling, touchpad gestures etc
Thanks. Not full wayland protocol support and have a bugs, but something is greater than nothing. UPD: The utilization of the Internet channel has also increased
Which model do you have? There’s a known issue affecting the sleep/hibernate for the chipset on the new AMD model on the, I believe AMD has already submitted patches to fix it in the next kernel release though.
Wayland is a Display Server Protocol, meaning it is a specification of how a program wanting to display something like a window communicates with another program, the display server, which handles drawing to the screen.
It matters because it vastly simplifies and modernizes display server infrastructure.
X is huge, with many parts from the 80s and 90s that were simply not needed today, creating a fully compliant X Server with all extensions was pretty much impossible, which is the reason pretty much only X.org existed as a full implementation.
Some benefits for users are no screen tearing, VRR and support for more complicated setups like having multiple monitors all with a different refresh rate, which was a pain in the ass on X but is no problem on wayland.
X is going to die, especially with the fact that frredesktop and the two big DEs, GNOME and KDE are working on it. Some distros come with wayland by default already.
I asked chatGPT what Wayland is since the article contains no explanation
In this context, “Wayland” refers to a protocol and a display server protocol used in Linux operating systems. It’s an alternative to the more established X Window System (X11). The article highlights that Firefox version 121.0 has integrated support for Wayland by default, indicating that the browser can now utilize Wayland’s capabilities directly on modern Linux desktops without relying on XWayland compatibility layer, thereby enhancing performance and compatibility with the native display server protocol.
Explained by someone that doesn’t know the technical side super well.
1: It’s a new protocol for displaying. The main difference from X11, as I understand it, is a simplification of the stack. Eliminating the need for a display server, or merging the display server and compositor.
2: Some things impossible (or difficult) with X11 are much better supported in Wayland. Their not necessarily available, as the Wayland protocol is quite generic and needs additional protocols for further negotiation. Examples are fractional scaling & multiple displays with differing refresh rates.
Security is also improved. X11 did not make some security considerations (as it is quite old, maybe justifiably so). In X11 it’s possible for any application to “look” at the entire display. In Wayland they receive a specific section that they can draw into and use. (This has the side-effect of complicating stuff like redshifting the screen at night, but in my experience that has fully caught up).
3: If you’re interested, are in desktop application development (but I have no experience in that regard) or have a specific need for Wayland.
4: I think X won’t die for a long long time if “ever”. I’m not super familiar with desktop app development, but I don’t think it requires more work to keep supporting X.
On the other hand, most of the complaints about Wayland I’ve heard were ultimately about support. At some point, when you’re a normal user, the distro maintainer should be able to decide to move to Wayland without you noticing, apart from the blurriness being gone with fractional scaling.
I’m not super familiar with desktop app development, but I don’t think it requires more work to keep supporting X.
It doesn’t depend that much on desktop application developers, but on GUI toolkit developers. It does need more work for GTK and Qt devs to support both. But the outcome will likely depend not that much on ammount of work as on “political” decisions. RedHat are now somewhat actively forcing Wayland in their distros. They also have their impact on GNOME, so it’s not impossible that due RedHat’s decision GNOME and then GTK (that is now developed mostly by GNOME developers, despite being GIMP Toolkit initially) will ditch X “just because”.
End user Application developers usually don’t deal much with Wayland or X — they just use toolkits (GTK or Qt for the majority), and toolkits do all the under the hoof work for them.
If it works for you then use it, however if you want the latest packages you’ll have to NOT use the LTS releases in which case be prepared to do a FULL REINSTALL every time a new version comes out.
Or use the LTS but use Snaps for those applications that you want to have the latest versions of. Snaps are getting better and I think eventually you won’t notice the difference between them and native apps, except for the space they just up. But that goes for Flatpak too.
Personally I use Linux Mint Debian Edition because I’m not happy with the way Canonical is going. In most cases the “old” apps are fine for me, but if I felt need the newest version I’ll use a Flatpak.
Another rolling option is OpenSuse Tumbleweed however, being a Mac which uses proprietary WiFi drivers, your WiFi will break with kernel updates, which can be irritating, unless you have ethernet.
linux
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.