It doesn’t need to be. The goal is not to recreate and be compatible with X11, otherwise it would defeat the idea to create something new. Wayland is here, because it needs to do things differently. It’s the same as Linux operating systems will never be ready for every Microsoft user. And that’s okay.

These “Wayland will never come” articles completely ignore the fact that Wayland is here and has already won.

There are lots of issues with Wayland. They will be fixed, but if this was simply a list of things still needing to be improved, it would be useful.

But most Linux desktop users use Wayland already. It will be 90% in 2-3 years. With the exception of Mint, the big Linux distros already install to Linux by default. So almost every new Linux user starts on Wayland. Few will ever try X11. And if they did, the list of broken and impaired experiences on X11 will bring most back to Wayland.

It really does not matter if every x11 user switches to Wayland. The ecosystem does not need them.

But very few of even the hard core adherents will use an X server 5 years from now. Most normal users will not even use Xwayland. And the simple reason is applications.

Everyday there are more and more apps that are Wayland only. Before 2030, that list will include all GNOME and most GTK apps. Are people really going to give up all these applications because of some obscure advantage they perceive in X11?

Most the the faults the article cites are exaggerated or historical. But it is not worth arguing over the details. Wayland is the future. But it is already the present. It is sad really that the people writing these articles do not realize that they are already in the minority and have already been left behind.

This is a “Linux will never be ready for all UNIX users” article written in 1998. It is both true and irrelevant.

Here is an argument that some of the grumpy old men clinging to Xorg may understand.

It is 2003 and all the cool kids are moving to this new web browser called Firefox. But every time you try your favourite websites in it, you find stuff that breaks. So back to trusty old Internet Explorer 6 you go. Call me when it works you say.

Wayland is like HTML. Wayland compositors are web browsers. And yes, all these “modern” web standards are all implemented a little differently or maybe not at all in some browsers. And, annoyingly, a lot of real world websites still work better in Internet Explorer 6 than in any of these supposedly “modern” browsers.

But, as with the web, it will not be long until all websites (Linux desktop applications) will be written to use the modern standards and will work well, and pretty much the same, in all browsers (Wayland compositors).

And, while there will still be websites (Linux desktop apps) that work better in IE6 (Xorg), most people will consider those sites broken and will probably not use them. Alternatively, you can run your browser (compositor) in compatibility mode (Xwayland) for those sites.

You can keep using Internet Explorer if you want. Many people held on for a long time. Just know what your advocacy sounds like to people that have moved on to Firefox and Chrome. Pointing at your corporate website that looks wrong in Firefox will not impress them. And understand that you will not be able to hang on forever. Well, unless you want to be stuck in a tiny corner of the web that still works on your browser. Most websites will stop working on Internet Explorer at some point.

I started linux with wayland and i have no clue why it’s such a controversy lmao.

With all the surface false analogies and general lack of solid knowledge in the comments here, I truly hope that at least half of them are LLM generated.