Xorg-server 26.1.0 rc1

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A new release candidate of xorg-server 26.1.0 has revived interest in the long‑standing X11 display system, highlighting long-awaited features like Intel TearFree support and the incorporation of patches that had previously only shipped in the XLibre fork. Commenters contrast Xorg’s stability, mature tooling, and powerful automation capabilities with Wayland’s security model and lower-latency architecture, arguing over whether breaking legacy workflows is justified. Many see Xorg as effectively deprecated but still essential for legacy apps and certain workflows, while expecting major desktop environments and toolkits to continue their gradual shift toward Wayland-only futures.

New Xorg 26.1.0 rc1 Features & Activity

  • Thread notes excitement about the Intel modesetting driver gaining TearFree support in an official Xorg release.
  • Several posters are surprised by how substantial the changelog is for a project often framed as “maintenance only.”
  • Others still describe it as effectively deprecated, with most new desktop work happening on Wayland.

Relationship with XLibre and Contribution Flow

  • Some features and fixes in this release were previously available in the XLibre fork; at least one change was explicitly backported from there.
  • One view: XLibre emerged partly because useful patches sat unreleased in Xorg for years.
  • Another view: maintainers are rightly cautious about merging complex, potentially low‑quality drive‑by patches into critical C code.

Wayland vs Xorg: Functionality & User Experience

  • Pro‑Xorg users say Xorg “just works” and complain Wayland breaks or complicates:
    • Screensharing, screenshots, and screen recording.
    • Input automation tools (xdotool, xmacro, java.awt.Robot).
    • Mouse gestures (e.g., Easystroke) and window management scripts.
    • Remote X (ssh -X), certain DAWs, plugins, and tools like OBS or Flameshot.
  • Some report Xwayland adds noticeable latency compared to native Xorg or Wayland.
  • Others say they’ve used Wayland for a while with few problems, and that protocols and portals are steadily improving.

Wayland vs Xorg: Architecture & Security

  • One side: Xorg’s broad capabilities (global input, inspection of other clients, automation) are essential desktop features; breaking them for security nobody asked for is user‑hostile.
  • Other side: X11’s security is described as “objectively terrible,” and isolating clients (as Wayland does) is necessary, especially in modern, less‑trusted app ecosystems.
  • Debate over whether stronger GUI security is meaningful without broader OS‑level reforms, and whether containers vs VMs provide adequate isolation.

Corporate Influence & Ecosystem Direction

  • Some attribute Wayland’s rise to corporate backing (Intel, Red Hat, etc.) and a desire to “androidify” desktop Linux with app‑store models and tighter sandboxing.
  • Others counter that corporations already fund most core Linux graphics work and that developers naturally chose to focus on Wayland.
  • Major desktops (GNOME, KDE) are phasing out X11 support; future GTK versions are expected to drop X11 backends, making Xorg increasingly legacy.

Other Notes

  • XQuartz continues to ship Xorg-based releases for macOS; its quartz-wm is under an FSF/OSI‑approved Apple license.
  • XFree86’s demise is briefly recapped: licensing disputes led to Xorg as a fork that kept most of the code (hence persistent xf86 prefixes).
  • Alternative display stacks like Arcan and Plan9-style “rio”-like, filesystem-based UIs are mentioned as promising but not yet practical successors.