I stumbled upon this post regarding an earlier rant about wayland, but now it seems fine, according to the author.
After using Linux for nearly 5 years, using both depending on distros defaults, I have to admit that I never got the core/main/game changing differences between wayland and x11.
To be said, that I also dont do fancy linux things other than basic sysadmin stuff and from time to time repair the mess my curiosity left behind.
Could somebody explain the differences between those two and afterwards maybe also say some words about what this has to do with the difference between window managers and desktop environments?
I am also happy about links to good blog posts or stuff, that target this very questions (as long as the questions make sence of course). Thanks beforehand :)
One thing to note with X11’s design, having a server and client, there was nothing requiring both to be on the same machine. You could run an X11 client on your local machine, ssh into a remote machine and use its X11 server.
Lets say you are home and can ssh into a work server. You could run Firefox on the work machine, using it’s network and have the visual parts show up on your home computer.
This was very much a Unix, shared resource style design. Servers and thin clients. Put all your horse power in the big machine and connect using your crappy low power system to it.
I realize not using this model was intentional with Wayland, but I wish it had something similar.
I’ve never tried it, but there’s Waypipe.
Keep in mind that in practice this didn’t work that well, it wasn’t very efficient at displaying modern interfaces over the network. Showing a simple text editor over LAN worked fine, but using Firefox from another place was quite spotty.
Before Wayland, there was X Window System, created in 1984. X Window System was designed in a time where you had one good computer connected to multiple displays used by different people. X went through many versions but version 11 (X11) stayed around for a long time.
But the architecture just isn’t good. It wasn’t designed for modern needs. MacOS used to use X, but replaced it to fit modern needs. Windows didn’t use X, but they too updated Windows to fit modern needs. But Linux and other OSs stuck with X for a lot longer, hacking it to make it work. Honestly, it’s amazing how well it does work.
But isn’t not great. It wasn’t designed with security in mind, it doesn’t do multi-monitor well. Behind the scenes, it considers everything to be one giant display; issues arise when it comes to mixed-dpi displays and when monitor refresh rates don’t match. It’s also just a bloated, old code base that people don’t want to work on. Fixing X would not only be difficult, but would break compatibility.
So people got working on a modern replacement for X aiming to avoid its issues. Wayland is leaner, more opinionated, and designed for how modern hardware operates. Wayland itself is just a protocol (like X11), and there’s many different implementations of that protocol: Mutter, Kwin, wlroots, smithay, Mir, Weston, etc. Meanwhile X11 pretty much only had one relevant implementation, Xorg. Wayland’s diversity has its pros and cons. Pros include (1) you can create your implementation in any programming language you want rather than being stuck to just one, (2) an implementation can fill just the needs on the person making it rather than trying to generalize it for everyone. But cons include the fact that this fragmentation leads to scenarios where one implementation supports something that others don’t and implementation-specific bugs.
Wayland’s opinionated design is also draws criticisms. It gives a lot of control to the compositors rather than windows, which is how Xorg, MacOS, and Windows work. Nvidia’s wayland adoption was also slow and terrible. It took many years to get it into the only decent shape it’s in now.
Excellant write up, thank you.
I’m not exactly sure what ‘opinionated’ means in terms of software, could you (or anyone who sees this) define it?
One opinion that Wayland has is that the client is responsible for decorating its window. It draws its own title bar, shadow around the window, and the cursor.
Though not everybody was happy with this. A few protocols were created that lets clients tell the compositor to draw decorations around the window and the cursor.
But still, every app needs to support those client side decorations and cursors because not all compositors support those protocols. Gnome notably doesn’t, they like client side decorations.
Thanks for the interesting write up! Why does Nvidia have to “adopt” Wayland? Is it not just fundamentally drawing some textures into some rectangles?
Unfortunately not. There’s been a number of things on Nvdia’s side that slowed down Wayland adoption.
They didn’t always support Xwayland hardware acceleration.
Nvidia pushed for a technology called EGLStreams while everyone else agreed on GBM. So the desktop stack had to support both. Nvidia eventually relented and started supporting GBM.
Nvidia didn’t support VRR or night light for a while.
Nvidia didn’t support necessary stuff for Gamescope to function properly.
And overall Nvidia on Wayland was just buggy. I remember that many games failed to launch or had weird performance issues. But those issues just went away when I got an AMD card.
But things are in a much better state today. Though I did recently test a 20 series card on Fedora 41 and it was a terrible experience on the proprietary drivers. But when speaking with orhers, they didn’t share my issues.
Why does Nvidia need to support night light? Can’t someone from Wayland just write a simple shader in any shader language that does colour adjustments and apply it to the desktop?
The Nvidia driver didn’t support some protocol that AMD/Intel did that was used by desktops for the night light.
Yes, they could have made the night light work. But why would they when Nvidia said the feature was coming soon? Well it turned out that soon was taking a very long time and eventually KDE actually did create a special night light implementation just for Nvidia. The problem was that it was a hack that had extra overhead. And in the end the hack didn’t get shipped because Nvidia finally starting supporting the protocol.
Humorously, X11 is like driving a 1990 Honda Accord. It was built ages ago, but with enough care, it still runs just fine.
The good news? Over time, you’ve bolted on all sorts of modern conveniences: GPS, Bluetooth, maybe even a backup camera—but at the end of the day, it’s all just stuff you crammed in. Underneath, it’s still the same old car. It’s reliable, it gets great gas mileage despite the half a million miles on the odometer, and it’ll start even when it’s buried under a foot of snow. Sure, it takes some effort to pass emissions, but at least every mechanic knows how to fix it, and parts are cheap.
Now for the bad news. Anyone with a flathead screwdriver can take it for a joyride whenever they feel like it. You keep finding it parked in weird places, but hey, at least they always bring it back. The airbags? They might work, but there’s only one way to find out. And let’s be honest—most modern cars have surpassed it in every possible way.
The best part? It’s been paid off for decades. No one is just going to hand you a brand-new car because that would take a ton of money and effort. No matter how much you tinker with it, it’s still a 1990 Honda Accord. You can throw on some new tires, upgrade the suspension, and maybe swap out the brakes, but at the end of the day, it’s never going to have that brand new car feel.
For your second question, a window manager is the specific system that controls the placement of windows on an X11 desktop.
On a X11 based system, X11 is the windowing system (interacting with the video card) and a window manager is a system sitting on top of that laying out the windows and interacting with the user and other programmes. It is a separate programme on top of the X11 system, and communicates with X11, and X11 is the programme that communicates with the graphics card.
On Wayland, instead of 2 separate systems there can be 1 combined windowing systen that is both the window manager but also directly communicates with the hardware in a standardised way using the Wayland protocols. This is called a Wayland compositor.
Meanwhile a desktop environment is the whole desktop - that includes a window manager or compositor but also lots of other tools and software that together make a full desktop experience.
An example is KDE - KDE is a full desktop environment. It uses its own x11 window manger called kwin (and also able to be a wayland compositor), but it also uses a whole range of other tools alongside that to give you panels, widgets, desktop icons, a clock, menus, settings etc collectively forming Plasma desktop. And then on top of Plasma there is a whole range of bespoke programmes that form the full deskop experience - like Dolphin (file manager), Kate (text editor) and so on. All that software is designed to work seamlessly with the KDE family of tools and systems. The window manager, the desktop tools and the other programmes together form the whole desktop environment. But other desktop environments software will also work - for example Gnome based software can also run with KDE without issue and vice versa.
Gnome has its own window manager/compositor, and it’s own widgets and tools to make a desktop, and it’s own bespoke software to make a whole desktop environment.
And there are many others.
So in summary:
-
Window Manager - the specific system that controls the placment and look of the individual windows talking to X11 which then talks to the hardware
-
Wayland Compositor - the system that controls the placement and look of windows, using wayland protocols to speak to the hardware
-
Desktop Environment - the whole desktop including the Window manager but also lots of other programmes and tools that form the basic desktop (such as a panel, menus, desktop icons) and the whole environment (other software like a file manager, text editor, calculator etc). KDE and Gnome are examples of popular desktop environments
-
You can’t use xscreensaver on wayland.