GNOME 50 completes the migration to Wayland, dropping X11 backend code

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

GNOME 50, versioning, and project direction

  • Several were surprised by “GNOME 50,” then noted GNOME’s jump from 3.38 to 40 to avoid a “GNOME 4” and perceptions of maturity via version bumps.
  • Some see the rapid versioning as evidence of weaker concern for backward compatibility and semantic versioning; others compare it to the Linux kernel’s pragmatic version changes.

X11’s status and XWayland’s role

  • Consensus that Xorg/X11 is effectively in maintenance mode, with little enthusiasm among core maintainers, while GNOME and KDE default to Wayland.
  • Many stress that X11 is “not going anywhere” because XWayland will continue to ship for compatibility and is expected to remain indefinitely.
  • A minority still use “pure Xorg” (often with custom WMs), value its long-term stability, and see maintenance mode as a virtue.

Reported advantages of Wayland

  • Users on GNOME, KDE, Sway, Niri, etc. report smoother graphics, no tearing, better multi‑monitor and HiDPI handling, HDR/VRR support, and fewer crashes than with X11.
  • Some note Firefox/Chrome performance improvements on Wayland versus X11 and praise reduced complexity and better security boundaries.

Criticisms and regressions with Wayland

  • Strong complaints about:
    • Lack of reliable remote GUI sessions comparable to X11 + ssh -X or Windows-style RDP (headless + resume), though others claim GNOME’s RDP-based remote login now works.
    • Inability for apps to position/restore their own windows by design, breaking workflows (e.g., spatial file managers, custom WMs/tools).
    • Fractional scaling issues, especially for XWayland apps; performance problems (e.g., transparency flicker, pointer lag) on some hardware.
    • Incomplete accessibility feature parity and clipboard/mouse‑warping limitations.

Freedom, architecture, and philosophy debates

  • Some argue Wayland plus proprietary drivers reduces “user freedom” and centralizes power in compositor “black boxes,” likening it to systemd debates.
  • Others counter that Xorg itself was the real monolithic point of failure; Wayland is a simpler protocol with multiple independent compositors and is not inherently less free.
  • There’s disagreement over whether Wayland is “architecturally broken” or simply minimal-core-with-extensions that took years to mature.

Alternatives and user migration

  • Users unhappy with GNOME/Wayland mention moving to KDE, MATE, Cinnamon, or Xfce (working on Wayland support) while some celebrate KDE’s recent polish.
  • Several note that “normal users” on mainstream distros likely won’t notice the switch, while power users with niche workflows or remote/X11-heavy setups feel most impacted.