> Even if you can get an X program to compile, there’s no guarantee it’ll
work with your server. If an application requires an X extension that your
server doesn’t provide, then it fails.
Thankfully Wayland fixed this by locking down the protocol and banning extensions.
Which is why Wayland was a failure from the start, and still hasn't displaced X-Windows after all these years.
The fact that it didn't occur to the Wayland designers to make it extensible with an embedded scripting language like PostScript in NeWS or Lisp in Emacs or Python in Blender or Lua in Redis or JavaScript in web browsers means that it was obsolete from the start.
And that's why billions of more people use web browsers every day than Wayland.
Some critics argue that The Unix-Haters Handbook indulges in historical revisionism and presents non-constructive unactionable complaints, without suggesting improvements or alternatives. However, I stand by the accuracy and validity of the insights and suggestions in the X-Windows chapter, as evidenced by the development of web browsers and the ascendancy of JavaScript.
>[...] The transition from the now 30+ year old X Window System to the newer Wayland-based stack has been happening for the past 15 or so years.
>We found this statement amusing for two reasons. Firstly, the X window system is much closer to 40 than 30 – we celebrated its 38th birthday in the middle of last year. X tore through its first ten major releases in just a few years. The first version was in 1984, and the 11th – which is why it's called X11 for short – was in 1987.
>Secondly, as we noted when a GNOME developer proposed that Gtk5 drop X11 support, Wayland itself is getting old now. Work on it started in 2008; if RHEL 10 does ship in 2025, Wayland will be 17. So at the time when the biggest enterprise Linux goes Wayland-only, that protocol will in the same general ballpark age-wise that X11 was when Kristian Høgsberg started work on its replacement. At that time, X11 had been around for 21 years.
>The Reg FOSS desk remains somewhat skeptical about Wayland, but the critical mass is getting there. KDE 6 will be Wayland-only. As it happens, personally, this vulture isn't a big fan of either GNOME or KDE, so it reassures us that two of the most popular Wayland holdouts are both adjusting their attitudes. Mint is experimenting with support in Cinnamon, and so is the Xfce team. [...]
>This would be an epic task, and without a commercial backer, it doesn't seem likely to happen. Perhaps it really is time to just let X die. If that seems drastic, we advise reading chapter 7 of The Unix Hater's Handbook.
>Perhaps the more independent-minded Unixes could do an end run around Wayland and switch to Arcan instead. Or even start over. Don Hopkins, the author of that chapter, suggested to us that a better plan would be to reimplement something akin to NeWS using JavaScript instead of PostScript. That sounds fun. ®
See the "Hold my bong" essay I wrote in response to somebody asking for my opinion of Wayland and ideas about using extension languages like JavaScript:
>Hi DonHopkins! Would you mind to share your opinion on Wayland with us?
Thanks for asking! Hold my bong. ;)
I've never had any reason to use Wayland or desire to learn much about it, so I can't tell you anything technical or from first hand experience.
But I think we have X-Windows to thank for the fact that most Unix programmers use Macs now.
And it's way too late for Wayland to change that fact. Especially with the release of the M1 Max. That ship has sailed.
It didn't matter how much better NeWS was than X-Windows -- it still lost despite all its merits.
And I don't see Wayland as being any more better than X-Windows, than NeWS was better, decades ago.
So simply "being better than X" is not sufficient to displace it, and Wayland isn't even that much better than X, and is even worse in some ways.
The fact that it didn't occur to the Wayland designers to make it extensible with an embedded scripting language like PostScript in NeWS or Lisp in Emacs or Python in Blender or Lua in Redis or JavaScript in web browsers means that it was obsolete from the start, and its designers should have considered the design and architecture of NeWS and Emacs and Blender and Redis and web browsers before designing Yet-Another-X-Windows-Clone. It's not like those ideas were secret, or patented, or hard to find, or wrong.
The world moved up the stack a layer to the web browser, and that's where all the excitement's happening these days, not in the window system layer.
Why have X-Windows or Wayland at all, when you could just run the web browser itself directly on the hardware, as efficiently and flexibly as possible, and implement all your user interface, window management and desktop stuff with modern open standard JavaScript / WebAssembly / JSON / XML / HTML / SVG / CSS / Canvas / WebGL / WebGPU / HTTPS / WebRTC?
I've written about this numerous times before, but I'll transclude and reorganize some of it with checked and updated archive urls to save you the pointing and clicking:
And here is this more recent thread about window management, ICCCM, Wayland, extension languages, and all the walls that Simon Schneegan hit in his wonderful work on FlyPie, OpenPie, Gnome-Pie, Coral Menus, and Trace Menus:
I'm frustrated that Wayland doesn't support all the good ideas (and avoid all the bad ideas) of X-Windows or NeWS, and doesn't even have a built-in extension language like emacs and web browsers do. (What were they even thinking, not making it extensible at runtime? That everybody would want to compile their own server to customize it in C? Or that they'd solved all possible problems perfectly and there would be no need for customization?)
[...]
Some years ago, Simon discussed some of the problems with Wayland that made it impossible to implement all the features of Gnome-Pie. I don't know how much Wayland has progressed to address those problems since then, but he's moved onto developing cross platform pie menus with Kando - An Open Source, Cross-Platform Pie Menu, to reach the much wider audience of Windows and Mac users as well as Linux.
It baffles me that the Wayland compositor wasn't designed from the ground up in the first place around a scripting language like JavaScript (or PostScript even ;). It's not like the idea was a secret or patented, and it seems to work well for emacs and web browsers. Then it would have been much easier to address all those problems and implement much more flexible powerful and efficient window managers, pie menus, tabbed windows, etc. And then maybe Wayland wouldn't be so limited, and would have already fully taken over from X11 decades ago.
>Wayland – in it’s current state – makes applications such as Gnome-Pie hardly possible. Due to security concerns, applications are much more isolated. There is a good summary on the cairo-dock forums.
>No client side window placement: Application cannot position their windows. How shall we open the Pie beneath the cursor? The only way I can think of is to open a transparent full screen window and draw Gnome-Pie at the pointer location. Sadly, this is not possible either: Only as soon as the user moves the pointer over the window, we can get the pointer location. I see no chance in getting this information more early. That means that we simply do not know were the mouse is when we open the full screen window. Hence, Pies can be opened at the center of the screen only.
>No global input grabbing: Another reason for the full screen window is, that input capturing is impossible. This is the only possibility to close Gnome-Pie when the user clicks outside the activation radius. The full screen window makes the whole thing much slower and may lead to unwanted side effects such as auto-hiding panels.
>No global key bindings: Applications cannot intercept keyboard or mouse events anymore. While this seems reasonable in the context of security concerns, it limits the usefulness of Gnome-Pie drastically. The only possibility is to open Pies with the terminal command gnome-pie --open <ID of your Pie>. Of course, this command can be bound to global hot keys of your desktop shell (as can be seen in the screen shot above), assigned to hot corners, etc. However, there is no way to support the turbo mode and delayed activation mode Gnome-Pie features on X11.
>No mouse pointer warping: It is impossible for an application to manipulate the position of the mouse pointer. Therefore it is impossible to warp the pointer to the center of the Pie.
>No client side window management: This is something for the desktop shell. There is possibility for a client application to get a list of opened windows. Therefore something like the window list slice group (Alt-Tab) is not possible. Maybe there will be an interface in future? Gnome-Pie uses wnck which is specific to X11.
>No sending of fake keyboard events: This is a very useful action type for pie slices. In addition, this is required for deferred pie activation.
>The conclusion Hopefully this can be improved in future, however a lot of security decisions have been made during the development of Wayland which make applications like Gnome-Pie basically impossible. If there are no large scale changes in Wayland, I see bad future for Gnome-Pie.
>If someone knows solutions for some of these problems please help making Gnome-Pie useful on Wayland!
>Why have X-Windows or Wayland at all, when you could just run the web browser itself directly on the hardware, as efficiently and flexibly as possible
That's been tried by ChromeOS, and ChromeOS is retreating from that design decision and adding Wayland (as part of a many-years-long rearchitecting called LaCros).
Rather, Wayland was still a hobby project during ChromeOS' development and X11 always has been ridiculous security-wise. Also the decision allowed them to tightly tie Chrome into the graphics stack (compressed textures, color-space handling, hw plane accelerated compositing etc.), this has become viable on Wayland only recently.
