Linux distros have been slowly adopting Wayland, a new display server standard that aims to address the problems of X11. As more distros make Wayland the default option, X11 is starting to fade out. The new Linux display tech is much better than the old one, offers robust security, and values battery efficiency. However, some users still want to keep X11 as the default option for as long as possible.

Despite the shiny new tech, X11 seems to be a more reliable option due to its compatibility with a variety of apps. It doesn’t break as often and has good GPU driver support, making it a no-nonsense option for many. Let’s discuss the intent behind sticking to X11.

It poses fewer problems

Less frequent troubleshooting

The idea behind using X11 as the default display server is that it's old and reliable. Wayland is more efficient, but that advantage takes a back seat in real-world use cases. Despite offering an efficient profile, Wayland cannot match the reliability of X11.

I remember one instance where I was building a Raspberry Pi downloading device project. RealVNC served as a remote entry point, and it just didn’t sit right with Wayland. I don’t consider myself an advanced Linux user, and it took me some time to realize that there was a problem with RealVNC and Wayland.

The tool didn’t work with Wayland, and due to its rigid security, the file transfers didn’t happen at all. I switched to X11 via the raspi-config menu to access all the RealVNC features and complete the project. That problem doesn’t exist anymore, but it's just one of the core problems of Wayland.

Windows 10’s demise is pushing more users to Linux, and I don’t expect them to be adept with the Wayland way. They’re accustomed to things working out of the box on a different OS, where all apps work perfectly. As more distros make Wayland the default display server, apps can break or not work at all.

Let’s take the example of a screenshot app, which is present in almost every distro. But if you want to use something else, there’s a chance that it doesn’t support Wayland like the native tool. Even as a slightly experienced Linux user, you don’t want to engage in troubleshooting sessions for problems related to a core GUI component.

You can imagine the frustration of using screen-sharing software that doesn't let you partially share the screen. All such issues have the same solution: switch to X11. No one wants to deal with the headache of apps not having the full privileges of the OS elements they need. So, X11 aligns with the use case of most general-purpose Linux users.

GPU behavior is wonky

Don’t need such overhead

You expect a graphical user interface to work seamlessly across all machines and desktops. NVIDIA GPU users have had many hiccups in the past, but Wayland is slowly addressing some of them. Since there is no standalone compositor on Wayland compared to X11, the experience and problems vary with multi-monitor setups and desktop environments.

As implementations are different, you might not have a problem with one compositor but might encounter multiple problems with another one. X11 doesn’t have this unpredictability and is more stable than Wayland. You can expect X11 to work well with multi-monitor setups and custom GPU drivers, and not have to spend a day figuring out the problem. Users who have experience with X11 and then switched to Wayland understand that this instability is not good.

They don’t want to switch desktop environments or go distro-hopping to deal with Wayland issues. If something works out of the box, no one would want to switch to an “in-progress” solution full of uncertainties, like scaling and refresh rate conflicts.

Apps have more control

It’s just the way X11 works

Modern display servers like Wayland prioritize security over everything else. It doesn’t permit one app to check or view what the other is doing, and is strict about allowing any kind of access. This isolated approach is good from a security standpoint, but apps that were working before Wayland became a thing now face problems.

They cannot access global inputs, manage windows, or control other aspects, making it difficult to work with Wayland. So, apps work partially, and some features won’t work at all. X11 trusts every app and allows unfettered access, while Wayland doesn’t make the same mistake.

As a result, new users sometimes find themselves in predicaments and app conflicts that shouldn’t exist. Rolling back to X11 seems viable in such cases because Wayland doesn’t offer a solution to do so.

X11 is reliable

X11 matured to a point where everything works in its favor. It’s still popular and widely used, making it a favorite among developers and end users. However, its proposed replacement needs more time to refine its edges, and some distros ship with Wayland to move ahead with the new standard.

For some users, X11 is a more reliable display server that works without too much effort. Niche use cases like gaming or running old apps are possible on X11, and there are fewer GPU and driver shenanigans. Wayland might run some of them with a few tweaks, but there are very few people who want to run down that rabbit hole.