X.org on NetBSD – The State of Things

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Wayland vs X11: Future and Adoption

  • Several commenters believe Wayland is the most credible X11 replacement to date, backed by major vendors and already default on many Linux distros.
  • Others note that despite this, displacement is very slow; Wayland is already old enough that its own “legacy” replacement could appear within a decade.
  • Some predict Wayland will eventually replace X11 (analogous to IPv6 vs IPv4); others predict Wayland will die before X11.
  • Many expect XWayland to remain for a long time as a compatibility layer for “legacy” apps and toolkits.

X.org Maintenance and Health

  • Claims that X.org is “unmaintained and falling apart” are challenged: people point to recent releases, bugfixes, and even new features.
  • The X.Org Foundation also oversees Wayland, so “X.org” as a foundation and “xorg-server” as software are distinct.
  • BSDs (NetBSD/OpenBSD) are actively maintaining and extending X11, sometimes more aggressively than upstream.

Wayland’s Design, Fragmentation, and Missing Pieces

  • Criticisms:
    • Core protocol lacks standardized solutions for some areas (e.g., synchronization, fractional scaling, seat management), leading to many non‑standard extensions and poor interoperability between toolkits/compositors.
    • Security and isolation benefits come at the cost of flexibility and established workflows (screen sharing, remote desktop, scripting hooks).
    • Fragmentation across multiple compositors, many in C, raises doubts that this is a net security win versus one mature codebase.
  • Defenses:
    • Wayland improves security and reduces technical debt of a 33‑year‑old X server.
    • Tear‑free rendering and modern multi‑monitor, scaling, and isolation are easier to do “right” with Wayland plus XWayland as a fallback.

Remote Graphics and Network Transparency

  • Some strongly value X11’s built‑in ability to run graphical apps remotely (labs, VMs, mixed BSD/Linux/Windows setups).
  • Others argue modern workloads already do client‑side rendering, making X11’s remote protocol mostly “bitmap over network” and inefficient compared to video‑style streaming (RDP, VNC, Parsec, etc.).
  • There is concern that future systems will not replicate X11‑style network transparency, though tools like waypipe are mentioned as partial Wayland equivalents, sometimes even faster than X11 forwarding.

Wayland on the BSDs

  • Thread notes that current Wayland compositors are heavily Linux‑centric (logind, specific kernel APIs).
  • On BSDs, Wayland is described as “one person tinkering” in many cases; some worry BSD desktops are “dead in the water” without a strong Wayland story.
  • Others counter that NetBSD and FreeBSD already have working or emerging Wayland setups, and that X11 remains actively supported and sufficient for many use cases.

NetBSD Popularity in Japan

  • Explanations include early/strong support for PC‑98 hardware and the presence of long‑standing Japanese‑language mailing lists and IRC channels.
  • For Japanese enthusiasts wanting “real UNIX” on local hardware, NetBSD and FreeBSD were particularly accessible.