Some interesting Linux industry news for you here, as the long road towards Wayland by default everywhere is taking another big step with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) removing the Xorg server and other X servers (except Xwayland) from RHEL 10 and the following releases.
From their announcement by developer Carlos Soriano Sanchez posted November 27th:
We want to recognize the significant effort all these organizations and individuals have made, especially the rest of the upstream community, without whom this project would never be so mature. This effort gave us the confidence to first make Wayland default for most use cases in RHEL 8, followed up with the deprecating of Xorg server in RHEL 9, with the intention of its removal in a future release. Earlier this year (2023), as part of our RHEL 10 planning, we made a study to understand Wayland’s status, not only from an infrastructure perspective, but also from an ecosystem perspective. The result of this evaluation is that, while there are still some gaps and applications that need some level of adaptation, we believe the Wayland infrastructure and ecosystem are in good shape, and that we’re on a good path for the identified blockers to be resolved by the time RHEL 10 is out, planned to be released on the first half of 2025.
With this, we’ve decided to remove Xorg server and other X servers (except Xwayland) from RHEL 10 and the following releases. Xwayland should be able to handle most X11 clients that won’t immediately be ported to Wayland, and if needed, our customers will be able to stay on RHEL 9 for its full life cycle while resolving the specifics needed for transitioning to a Wayland ecosystem. It’s important to note that “Xorg Server” and “X11” are not synonymous, X11 is a protocol that will continue to be supported through Xwayland, while the Xorg Server is one of the implementations of the X11 protocol.
Red Hat and their engineers have their fingers in many pies across the Linux space, so this is a pretty big move, and one they say will enable them to "tackle problems such as HDR, increased security, setups with mixed low and high density displays or very high density displays, better GPU/Display hot-plugging, better gestures and scrolling, and so on" — which of course will end up benefiting everyone because that's how open source works.
Have you fully switched over to Wayland yet?
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
I'd agree about Gnome not being the best option. I haven't followed Gnome progress in a while, but someone told me it doesn't even have minimizing windows concept now. Stuff like CSD and such also never made a lot of sense to me.
Last edited by Shmerl on 7 December 2023 at 3:46 am UTC
Last edited by Shmerl on 7 December 2023 at 3:46 am UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: ShmerlI'd agree about Gnome not being the best option. I haven't followed Gnome progress in a while, but someone told me it doesn't even have minimizing windows concept now. Stuff like CSD and such also never made a lot of sense to me.
Yea Wayland on GNOME lacks alot and is crazy they are talking about getting rid of the Xorg session LMAO.. And good luck gaming on GNOME wayland as its input lag is terrible since Vsync can not be turned off in GNOME wayland like we can turn it off on Plasma .. Yea CSDs are stupid as heck lol.
0 Likes
Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: tohurIn my mind, the only thing Xorg needed fixing on was a better / more supported way to not run as root. Outside of that, they did all the work to make it modular during the development from XFree86. The problem is that people don't like maintaining old stuff, and want to play with new toys. That's all Wayland is. It'll be a new toy, until it isn't, then someone else will declare that it's crap and no one should be using it and then we'll be in the exact same boat as before...Quoting: reaperx7I love how Red Hat loves to push (force) people to buggy and incomplete software touting it as "stable" when the truth is far from reality.
Wayland is nice, but the fact that every compositor does everything inconsistent with each other, and often conflicts with how Xorg/XWayland does things, with pretty much everything the original developers intend, pretty much leave me saying "this isn't a good idea".
Honestly, nothing was wrong with Xorg, in my opinion. It works as intended like Windows GDI+. Yes there were some security flaws, but really, what was wrong with Xorg? I honestly see Wayland as a solution in search of a problem, not the other way around. If there was consistency with the compositors this wouldn't be a problem, but Plasma has their own problems, Gnome wants to be the rebellious child, Enlightenment is their own thing, Weston is sitting in the corner rocking back and forth thinking its a tea pot, and God knows what else the rest are doing running around the house aimlessly, but nothing is consistent while Xorg is sitting at the table, well behaved and saying "Oh so I'm not that important anymore? Have fun with the miscreants!" as it sits it's tea and reads the newspaper.
If you think Xorg is well "behaved" and not an issue you do not live in reality.. xorg is a utter mess and needs to go. frankly since swapping to Plasma wayland my PC performs much better
There are definitely things that Wayland does okay, but nothing they do that is special over X11, and end up still needing compatibility layer to X11...
Performance wise, I notice very little difference between Xorg / Wayland. Like somethings feel a little smoother, other things feel slower. I definitely notice things just not working right in Wayland though. Weirdly, I had an issue where the Synology Drive app didn't want to work in Xorg, but would in Wayland... after a reboot, it was fine though.
I think that isn't true. The reason we need something new is simple: Xorg was released in 2004. Pretty much everything is different now and with software, once it starts doing things that weren't concievable when it was designed, things start falling apart. "Modularity" isn't a checkbox, it is a relative thing. What a module was supposed to be was also thought up in 2004, so that is also inadequate. In 204, screens were 480p, screensharing did not exist, security was not really a designconsideration, VR was still science fiction and Linux desktop Linux was still very obscure. Stating that creating something new was just because people wanted something new is not really fair IMO.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: ShmerlThere is an explicit setting for keeping those clipboards separate or not. I usually keep them separate same as X11 does:
Nice!
It would probably need three more decades to get used to it, but then, having one clipboard and not two depending on which keys you used does sound reasonable!
Is the option Wayland only?
0 Likes
Quoting: ShmerlPoint of Debian is a moot thing. A lot of people use Sid or testing for desktop purposes. You wouldn't want to use Debian stable for that purpose at all.
But... I do & I'm happy with it. :)
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: AdutchmanQuoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: tohurIn my mind, the only thing Xorg needed fixing on was a better / more supported way to not run as root. Outside of that, they did all the work to make it modular during the development from XFree86. The problem is that people don't like maintaining old stuff, and want to play with new toys. That's all Wayland is. It'll be a new toy, until it isn't, then someone else will declare that it's crap and no one should be using it and then we'll be in the exact same boat as before...Quoting: reaperx7I love how Red Hat loves to push (force) people to buggy and incomplete software touting it as "stable" when the truth is far from reality.
Wayland is nice, but the fact that every compositor does everything inconsistent with each other, and often conflicts with how Xorg/XWayland does things, with pretty much everything the original developers intend, pretty much leave me saying "this isn't a good idea".
Honestly, nothing was wrong with Xorg, in my opinion. It works as intended like Windows GDI+. Yes there were some security flaws, but really, what was wrong with Xorg? I honestly see Wayland as a solution in search of a problem, not the other way around. If there was consistency with the compositors this wouldn't be a problem, but Plasma has their own problems, Gnome wants to be the rebellious child, Enlightenment is their own thing, Weston is sitting in the corner rocking back and forth thinking its a tea pot, and God knows what else the rest are doing running around the house aimlessly, but nothing is consistent while Xorg is sitting at the table, well behaved and saying "Oh so I'm not that important anymore? Have fun with the miscreants!" as it sits it's tea and reads the newspaper.
If you think Xorg is well "behaved" and not an issue you do not live in reality.. xorg is a utter mess and needs to go. frankly since swapping to Plasma wayland my PC performs much better
There are definitely things that Wayland does okay, but nothing they do that is special over X11, and end up still needing compatibility layer to X11...
Performance wise, I notice very little difference between Xorg / Wayland. Like somethings feel a little smoother, other things feel slower. I definitely notice things just not working right in Wayland though. Weirdly, I had an issue where the Synology Drive app didn't want to work in Xorg, but would in Wayland... after a reboot, it was fine though.
I think that isn't true. The reason we need something new is simple: Xorg was released in 2004. Pretty much everything is different now and with software, once it starts doing things that weren't concievable when it was designed, things start falling apart. "Modularity" isn't a checkbox, it is a relative thing. What a module was supposed to be was also thought up in 2004, so that is also inadequate. In 204, screens were 480p, screensharing did not exist, security was not really a designconsideration, VR was still science fiction and Linux desktop Linux was still very obscure. Stating that creating something new was just because people wanted something new is not really fair IMO.
LMAO you missed that date by like 20 years bruh.. X11.. aka Xorg was released in the 80s..
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: EikeIs the option Wayland only?
It probably is Wayland only, but I haven't tested it.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: tohurLMAO you missed that date by like 20 years bruh.. X11.. aka Xorg was released in the 80s..I believe he's referring to when X.org as such was formed, as in this Wikipedia quote:
QuoteThe modern X.Org Foundation came into being in 2004 when the body that oversaw X standards and published the official reference implementation joined forces with former XFree86 developers.You are too quick to assume people are clueless.
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 7 December 2023 at 4:03 pm UTC
3 Likes, Who?
slaapliedje Dec 7, 2023
Quoting: tohurI didn't say wayland was broken, I said there are still issues with it vs Xorg. Big difference. There are very specific use cases where it doesn't work as it's intended.Quoting: ShmerlPoint of Debian is a moot thing. A lot of people use Sid or testing for desktop purposes. You wouldn't want to use Debian stable for that purpose at all.
But, it's not an newbie friendly distro to use.
And those people understand the risks.. this guy seems to not care or ignore those risk when sitting here complaining about things (wayland) being broken. and let alone the fact hes using GNOME which is about the worst wayland implementation there is
Quoting: ShmerlI'd agree about Gnome not being the best option. I haven't followed Gnome progress in a while, but someone told me it doesn't even have minimizing windows concept now. Stuff like CSD and such also never made a lot of sense to me.You can minimize windows just fine in Gnome.
I also have an extension that gives me wobbly windows, so it definitely feels just as smooth as KDE does. This also could be why I see no performance difference between Xorg and Wayland.
Quoting: tohurWhy would you turn off Vsync, also, pretty sure Gnome got to Wayland support long before KDE. Which means they're wanting to drop Xorg support sooner. Also, Gnome is pretty much developed by Redhat at this point... so them wanting to drop Xorg support for RHEL 10 and Gnome wanting to do the same makes a whole lot of sense... if you think Wayland is ready (which I don't think it is).Quoting: ShmerlI'd agree about Gnome not being the best option. I haven't followed Gnome progress in a while, but someone told me it doesn't even have minimizing windows concept now. Stuff like CSD and such also never made a lot of sense to me.
Yea Wayland on GNOME lacks alot and is crazy they are talking about getting rid of the Xorg session LMAO.. And good luck gaming on GNOME wayland as its input lag is terrible since Vsync can not be turned off in GNOME wayland like we can turn it off on Plasma .. Yea CSDs are stupid as heck lol.
Quoting: AdutchmanThe one big actual legit reason for Wayland existing is because Xorg ran as root. Beyond that, everything else could have been fixed, at least to a degree where it'd be fine for most things. There were a lot of stuff just dumped out of X11's protocol for Wayland (which is why everyone is coming up with their own stuff!)Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: tohurIn my mind, the only thing Xorg needed fixing on was a better / more supported way to not run as root. Outside of that, they did all the work to make it modular during the development from XFree86. The problem is that people don't like maintaining old stuff, and want to play with new toys. That's all Wayland is. It'll be a new toy, until it isn't, then someone else will declare that it's crap and no one should be using it and then we'll be in the exact same boat as before...Quoting: reaperx7I love how Red Hat loves to push (force) people to buggy and incomplete software touting it as "stable" when the truth is far from reality.
Wayland is nice, but the fact that every compositor does everything inconsistent with each other, and often conflicts with how Xorg/XWayland does things, with pretty much everything the original developers intend, pretty much leave me saying "this isn't a good idea".
Honestly, nothing was wrong with Xorg, in my opinion. It works as intended like Windows GDI+. Yes there were some security flaws, but really, what was wrong with Xorg? I honestly see Wayland as a solution in search of a problem, not the other way around. If there was consistency with the compositors this wouldn't be a problem, but Plasma has their own problems, Gnome wants to be the rebellious child, Enlightenment is their own thing, Weston is sitting in the corner rocking back and forth thinking its a tea pot, and God knows what else the rest are doing running around the house aimlessly, but nothing is consistent while Xorg is sitting at the table, well behaved and saying "Oh so I'm not that important anymore? Have fun with the miscreants!" as it sits it's tea and reads the newspaper.
If you think Xorg is well "behaved" and not an issue you do not live in reality.. xorg is a utter mess and needs to go. frankly since swapping to Plasma wayland my PC performs much better
There are definitely things that Wayland does okay, but nothing they do that is special over X11, and end up still needing compatibility layer to X11...
Performance wise, I notice very little difference between Xorg / Wayland. Like somethings feel a little smoother, other things feel slower. I definitely notice things just not working right in Wayland though. Weirdly, I had an issue where the Synology Drive app didn't want to work in Xorg, but would in Wayland... after a reboot, it was fine though.
I think that isn't true. The reason we need something new is simple: Xorg was released in 2004. Pretty much everything is different now and with software, once it starts doing things that weren't concievable when it was designed, things start falling apart. "Modularity" isn't a checkbox, it is a relative thing. What a module was supposed to be was also thought up in 2004, so that is also inadequate. In 204, screens were 480p, screensharing did not exist, security was not really a designconsideration, VR was still science fiction and Linux desktop Linux was still very obscure. Stating that creating something new was just because people wanted something new is not really fair IMO.
[quote=tohur]
Quoting: AdutchmanQuoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: tohurIn my mind, the only thing Xorg needed fixing on was a better / more supported way to not run as root. Outside of that, they did all the work to make it modular during the development from XFree86. The problem is that people don't like maintaining old stuff, and want to play with new toys. That's all Wayland is. It'll be a new toy, until it isn't, then someone else will declare that it's crap and no one should be using it and then we'll be in the exact same boat as before...Quoting: reaperx7I love how Red Hat loves to push (force) people to buggy and incomplete software touting it as "stable" when the truth is far from reality.
Wayland is nice, but the fact that every compositor does everything inconsistent with each other, and often conflicts with how Xorg/XWayland does things, with pretty much everything the original developers intend, pretty much leave me saying "this isn't a good idea".
Honestly, nothing was wrong with Xorg, in my opinion. It works as intended like Windows GDI+. Yes there were some security flaws, but really, what was wrong with Xorg? I honestly see Wayland as a solution in search of a problem, not the other way around. If there was consistency with the compositors this wouldn't be a problem, but Plasma has their own problems, Gnome wants to be the rebellious child, Enlightenment is their own thing, Weston is sitting in the corner rocking back and forth thinking its a tea pot, and God knows what else the rest are doing running around the house aimlessly, but nothing is consistent while Xorg is sitting at the table, well behaved and saying "Oh so I'm not that important anymore? Have fun with the miscreants!" as it sits it's tea and reads the newspaper.
If you think Xorg is well "behaved" and not an issue you do not live in reality.. xorg is a utter mess and needs to go. frankly since swapping to Plasma wayland my PC performs much better
There are definitely things that Wayland does okay, but nothing they do that is special over X11, and end up still needing compatibility layer to X11...
Performance wise, I notice very little difference between Xorg / Wayland. Like somethings feel a little smoother, other things feel slower. I definitely notice things just not working right in Wayland though. Weirdly, I had an issue where the Synology Drive app didn't want to work in Xorg, but would in Wayland... after a reboot, it was fine though.
I think that isn't true. The reason we need something new is simple: Xorg was released in 2004. Pretty much everything is different now and with software, once it starts doing things that weren't concievable when it was designed, things start falling apart. "Modularity" isn't a checkbox, it is a relative thing. What a module was supposed to be was also thought up in 2004, so that is also inadequate. In 204, screens were 480p, screensharing did not exist, security was not really a designconsideration, VR was still science fiction and Linux desktop Linux was still very obscure. Stating that creating something new was just because people wanted something new is not really fair IMO.
Quoting: tohurQuoting: AdutchmanQuoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: tohurIn my mind, the only thing Xorg needed fixing on was a better / more supported way to not run as root. Outside of that, they did all the work to make it modular during the development from XFree86. The problem is that people don't like maintaining old stuff, and want to play with new toys. That's all Wayland is. It'll be a new toy, until it isn't, then someone else will declare that it's crap and no one should be using it and then we'll be in the exact same boat as before...Quoting: reaperx7I love how Red Hat loves to push (force) people to buggy and incomplete software touting it as "stable" when the truth is far from reality.
Wayland is nice, but the fact that every compositor does everything inconsistent with each other, and often conflicts with how Xorg/XWayland does things, with pretty much everything the original developers intend, pretty much leave me saying "this isn't a good idea".
Honestly, nothing was wrong with Xorg, in my opinion. It works as intended like Windows GDI+. Yes there were some security flaws, but really, what was wrong with Xorg? I honestly see Wayland as a solution in search of a problem, not the other way around. If there was consistency with the compositors this wouldn't be a problem, but Plasma has their own problems, Gnome wants to be the rebellious child, Enlightenment is their own thing, Weston is sitting in the corner rocking back and forth thinking its a tea pot, and God knows what else the rest are doing running around the house aimlessly, but nothing is consistent while Xorg is sitting at the table, well behaved and saying "Oh so I'm not that important anymore? Have fun with the miscreants!" as it sits it's tea and reads the newspaper.
If you think Xorg is well "behaved" and not an issue you do not live in reality.. xorg is a utter mess and needs to go. frankly since swapping to Plasma wayland my PC performs much better
There are definitely things that Wayland does okay, but nothing they do that is special over X11, and end up still needing compatibility layer to X11...
Performance wise, I notice very little difference between Xorg / Wayland. Like somethings feel a little smoother, other things feel slower. I definitely notice things just not working right in Wayland though. Weirdly, I had an issue where the Synology Drive app didn't want to work in Xorg, but would in Wayland... after a reboot, it was fine though.
I think that isn't true. The reason we need something new is simple: Xorg was released in 2004. Pretty much everything is different now and with software, once it starts doing things that weren't concievable when it was designed, things start falling apart. "Modularity" isn't a checkbox, it is a relative thing. What a module was supposed to be was also thought up in 2004, so that is also inadequate. In 204, screens were 480p, screensharing did not exist, security was not really a designconsideration, VR was still science fiction and Linux desktop Linux was still very obscure. Stating that creating something new was just because people wanted something new is not really fair IMO.
LMAO you missed that date by like 20 years bruh.. X11.. aka Xorg was released in the 80s..
You're 100% incorrect. X11R5 and X11R6 were created in the 80s, and there were many X Windowing systems that were created to use those standards. XFree86 was the free/open source one. That was thought to be a stagnant block of code, so they modularized it, and created Xorg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.Org_Server (I see Purple Library Guy beat me to this).
(Apologies if the quotes are messed up... they turn into giant blocks of text)
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: tohurIn my mind, the only thing Xorg needed fixing on was a better / more supported way to not run as root. Outside of that, they did all the work to make it modular during the development from XFree86. The problem is that people don't like maintaining old stuff, and want to play with new toys. That's all Wayland is. It'll be a new toy, until it isn't, then someone else will declare that it's crap and no one should be using it and then we'll be in the exact same boat as before...Quoting: reaperx7I love how Red Hat loves to push (force) people to buggy and incomplete software touting it as "stable" when the truth is far from reality.
Wayland is nice, but the fact that every compositor does everything inconsistent with each other, and often conflicts with how Xorg/XWayland does things, with pretty much everything the original developers intend, pretty much leave me saying "this isn't a good idea".
Honestly, nothing was wrong with Xorg, in my opinion. It works as intended like Windows GDI+. Yes there were some security flaws, but really, what was wrong with Xorg? I honestly see Wayland as a solution in search of a problem, not the other way around. If there was consistency with the compositors this wouldn't be a problem, but Plasma has their own problems, Gnome wants to be the rebellious child, Enlightenment is their own thing, Weston is sitting in the corner rocking back and forth thinking its a tea pot, and God knows what else the rest are doing running around the house aimlessly, but nothing is consistent while Xorg is sitting at the table, well behaved and saying "Oh so I'm not that important anymore? Have fun with the miscreants!" as it sits it's tea and reads the newspaper.
If you think Xorg is well "behaved" and not an issue you do not live in reality.. xorg is a utter mess and needs to go. frankly since swapping to Plasma wayland my PC performs much better
There are definitely things that Wayland does okay, but nothing they do that is special over X11, and end up still needing compatibility layer to X11...
Performance wise, I notice very little difference between Xorg / Wayland. Like somethings feel a little smoother, other things feel slower. I definitely notice things just not working right in Wayland though. Weirdly, I had an issue where the Synology Drive app didn't want to work in Xorg, but would in Wayland... after a reboot, it was fine though.
I think that isn't true. The reason we need something new is simple: Xorg was released in 2004. Pretty much everything is different now and with software, once it starts doing things that weren't concievable when it was designed, things start falling apart. "Modularity" isn't a checkbox, it is a relative thing. What a module was supposed to be was also thought up in 2004, so that is also inadequate. In 204, screens were 480p, screensharing did not exist, security was not really a designconsideration, VR was still science fiction and Linux desktop Linux was still very obscure. Stating that creating something new was just because people wanted something new is not really fair IMO.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me