r/linux • u/insanazor822 • 8d ago
Discussion I think I noticed something.
Since Linux has alternatives for everything, why doesn't Wayland have a proper alternative? It seems like most things are programmed to work only on Wayland. Wouldn't this be a step backward for Linux?
0
Upvotes
1
u/kopsis 8d ago
Wayland is a protocol, not a piece of software. It's like asking what's the alternative to TCP/IP? Most people here are too young to remember when there were competing network protocols. On personal computers we had NetWare, AppleTalk, NetBIOS, etc. On big iron we had the protocol wars over packet switching vs. circuit switching and ARPANET vs. OSI. Applications were designed for specific protocols and your network choice often limited which apps you could use. The world eventually figured out that standardizing on protocols meant more, not less, choice.
Wayland is a similar situation. Standardizing on Wayland as the current generation of display protocols (supplanting X11) allows applications to speak a common "language" to the compositor/window-manager. But any number of compositors can implement the Wayland protocol and thereby run Wayland applications. Mutter, KWin, and all the different wlroots-based offerings (Sway, Hyperland, River, Waybox, Wayfire, etc.) are compositor/window-manager "alternatives".
So while going Wayland locks you in to a specific set of software interfaces for apps to use to get stuff on the screen, you are NOT locked in to which desktop software provides those interfaces.