Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?

47 points by surrTurr ↗ HN
One would think that over the last decades, with a countless number of smart people, there would be a Linux distro on the level of macOS. I am talking about a distro, that you don't have to configure anything for. A distro that handles things like external devices screen recording without weird glitches. A distro that is _worry free_ and that _just works_. Why do you think that is the case? Or am I simply ignorant of the current state of Linux distros?

156 comments

[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 214 ms ] thread
Ubuntu entered the chat
I have so many issues with standby, power control and dedicated graphics on 20.04 on my ThinkPad... it's not yet comparable. getting there, but not yet.
It definitely depends on the hardware. It works pretty well if not too new and if old, it is mostly perfect. I get a lot of older laptops from friends in my town and first thing I do is installing Ubuntu to see if how well it works. Usually, it is perfect or almost perfect but these are 3+ year laptops usually without discrete GPU’s.
Mac owns the hardware. If you run a hackintosh, you will discover just as many oddities as any Linux distribution does on variant hardware to the spec of a PC or laptop.

Try a Linux in system76 or some purpose built hardware, or the vendor installed Linux on a system.

BTW osx on my m1pro has its oddities with non apple external Thunderbird, displayport, Ethernet..

I use Fedora with Gnome 42 and it "just works" for me.
macOS only runs on compatible hardware.

If you buy compatible Linux hardware then Linux "just works" too. It won't work with just random stuff you found in a basement the same way hackintoshes don't "just work" either.

Also, after the trash fire that's M1 Mac external monitor support I'd strongly dispute the "just works" tag for macOS too.

Everything external display I’ve plugged my M1 Mac into has worked well. Monitors of various dimensions and a TV. It’s just-worked for me. What’s the trash for you’re referring to?
Not sure about him, but I notice 2 issues with external monitors:

* Only 2 hardware-rendered displays maximum. I use 3, so the 3rd one has to be software-rendered.

* There's a delay when switching my KVM to the Mac and it emitting a video signal, that's longer than the delay when switching to Linux and activating the same monitors.

> Everything external display I’ve plugged my M1 Mac into has worked well.

Ever tried 1440p? It looks like crap. There's a reason BetterDummy is a thing.

I have a 1440p monitor as my main screen. What am I missing out on?
I have a sample of thousands of machines in my company and there's been a massive regression in external monitor compatibility with switch to Apple GPUs. There are many external monitors that outright don't work via USB-C on M1.

macOS 12.3.1 tried to address some things but it's nowhere near as compatible as Intel Macs.

But I believe you when you say that it works on the exact monitor models you own (it works with my home monitors too). But that's kinda beside the point in these debates.

I noticed that on specific laptops, over the years Ubuntu and other large distributions work better Out-of-the-box, especially if it's a popular device with laptops.

For instance my couple years old Thinkpad yoga had some wifi issues in the beginning, but it got better later. There were also some very specific configuration issues, but the defaults got better over the years.

Also, people were making github repos with a one-click "fix a lot of stuff" scripts. So I guess if you have a specific device, it can get better. Like framework laptops, popular thinkpads, those dell laptops etc

The closest you will get is probably openSUSE, which has "YaST", a graphical tool to configure almost everything you will ever need, eliminating 99% of the reason to open a terminal.

https://yast.opensuse.org

They also have "PackMan", probably the largest single repository of third party software available to any distro, which eliminates the need to add third party repos for all but the most obscure software.

But, Apple still has one advantage. They make the hardware, and the software. You're always going to have a very variable experience when the two are made separately.

MacOS is owned by private comapny and hence run like a centralized dictatorship. Whereas Linux is FOSS, so largely decentralized without anyone coordinating the efforts in order to provide a nice, unified experience (Ubuntu is trying to do that, but they don't have nearly enough money).
Apple is a publicly owned company with shareholders.
I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't (my wording was poor).
You can buy Linux PCs that "just work", see e.g. System76, Dell, etc.
"Works"

Linux in Dell does not always work with all their own docking stations. The effort half-assed at best.

Apple stuff also doesn't always work, see multiple external monitor fiasco.
Give Linux Mint Cinnamon a try. I'm a macOS lover, but at work I've used Mint exclusively since 2016 and I think it's pretty darned alright - it's definitely not macOS, but it really is alright.
My personal experience is that it's been like this for years already. I'm mostly using laptops (Dell XPS at the moment) with some Ubuntu-derived distro with KDE Plasma on top, bluetooth peripherals, external monitor, and external USB-connected drives, and it all just... works.

Other people are reporting less good experiences, of course, so anecdotes aren't worth too much.

I think the real answer is that macOS runs on very specific hardware, and as such it is much easier for Apple to make sure every part works together. Buying a laptop designed for Linux (or even better: a specific distro) would probably be similar to a general macOS experience.

And even then they struggle. macOS has plenty of bugs. It’s nowhere near as stable or reliable as say IOS.
They're pushing too many new features every year and the switch to ARM must have been a huge rewrite on top of that..

Really don't envy the pressure those devs must be under.

90% of new MacOS are in their bundled applications and not in the OS itself.

Arm and x86 is probably a huge pain though.

It used to be.. 10.4-10.6 were amazing. No question better than any Linux desktop at the time.
Therefore it's not a problem of technology, but how to manage broader industry partnership, creating standards. Microsoft did it in its earlier days when there is a limited number of OS competitor. That window of opportunity has passed. Nobody can repeat MS Windows just like nobody can recreate ebay or facebook.

Contrary to the popular illusion, Apple is a hardware company, they've never positioned or good at making general purpose OS. Apple dominated by making hardware and "firmware" that exploits their hardware. A completely different lane of making.

I have never seen a macOS installation that "just works", and troubleshooting was insane. Even as recently as a few days ago I was trying to make it use the correct sample rate for USB sound card and failed. In my personal experience, GNU/Linux is much closer to be worry free and when things break (as they always do no matter the OS) it's usually much easier to figure out what's wrong and fix it there.
> Why do you think that is the case?

Good Question. Short answer is here: [0]

The most obvious failure of the Linux Desktop is the sheer alternatives of alternatives madness of not having a simple standard way of creating a sane desktop environment. This is why you have system components not working in an integrated fashion like what you see on macOS.

There are multiple system projects fighting, competing amongst themselves and reinventing the wheel to replace each other in one part of the desktop stack to prove they are the smartest out there rather than have a standard set of components to stick to that does its job well and integrates with other parts of the stack. Not create yet another competing alternative for the sake of it.

This is where the bugs get created and good luck figuring out where the bug is and 'defining' Linux Desktop support. Is it in systemd? Wayland? GNOME? dbus? or maybe it is happening in pulseaudio or was it ALSA? See what I mean? Which distros are affected? Hundreds? or is it 'that' user who has a customized install and tweaked a system component or kernel setting somewhere and it only affects them?

macOS does not have this level of unpredictability in the default install, unlike the hundreds of thousands of Linux distros one has to look at and trace the issue and maintain. That is why macOS, 'just works' on the software level.

The hardware level is a different story where to spoil it; on Macs it still just works. Hence the reason why this ex-Linux user moved to macOS [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30821580

I feel that this kind of stuff is always a matter of what OS you are used to. When I need to use MacOS there are numerous things that I find hopelessly broken, because I am used to them working differently on Linux. And I'm sure the same will happen to Mac people trying to use Linux.
Apple owns the hardware and MS managed to get HW vendors to adjust everything to Windows.

IMHO, owning the Hardware or agreeing on one existing HW among devs is a good approach. These come to mind:

Dell XPS notebooks, which specifically support Ubuntu or

https://system76.com/ They build or assemble hardware specifically for their Linux distribution Pop! OS

No personal experience with neither, but a colleague uses XPS with OpenSuse and talks about a seamstress experience.

To people commenting how "well if you install Linux the right way on the right hardware like this here purpose-built laptop, it also 'just works'", what the OP is trying to underline isn't just the technical aspect of the OS booting flawlessly and recognizing its periphery, but also the whole experience that comes after. One special part of this, which is easily overseen, is the fact that Apple has poured hundreds of thousands of man-hours and millions upon millions of dollars into HIG (human interface guidelines) studies, which is something no other vendor has bothered themselves with.
Highjacking your comment to add a functional answer to ops question: because the reward incentives in open source environments are simply not aligned with the required workload. Prove me wrong, go coordinate a deep ux-strategy in git issues, let's see how far you get until you grasp the absurdity of the idea.
You can actually do it (and some projects have managed to do so) but it requires having really good fundraising and admin staff and organizational support. Most people in open source with a couple of random projects on github aren't good at that.

And if you were a capable and well-connected individual who can consistently solve the funding problems, a lot of companies would be lining up to hire you and I doubt you'd be wasting your time with a bunch of volunteers moonlighting on hobby projects.

> One special part of this, which is easily overseen, is the fact that Apple has:

- vertically integrated and sells a very narrow selection of hardware

That's 90% of the "just works". The UX/UI part is the other 90% (yes the math is right)

And to be fair, MacOS is full of weird UX quirks, and sometimes it does not work. But they have the best trackpads, very good usability (and it's not just Cargo Culting) that goes beyond the surface

The limited hardware helps with ACPI/UEFI and most of the general issues around Power/sleeping etc.

>"- vertically integrated and sells a very narrow selection of hardware"

Or maybe this really is just the 10%, as we will both agree that this part is also true for every single Windows PC laptop OEM - Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, Acer etc.

That's....not even remotely true.

First of all, they are by definition not vertically integrated, because the same company doesn't create the hardware and the OS.

Second of all, have you actually compared the selection of hardware between Apple and any of these brands? I'll admit it's been a little while since I tried to give someone recommendations on a Windows machine, but the selection is just dizzying, and not in a helpful "here are all the different possible variables you could configure, and here are the possible values for them" way. They have (or, as I said, had) multiple different named lines within each product category, and several models within each line, and then each model has different possible configurations.

And unless you're the kind of person who has already studied the components enough to be able to build your own computer, you're not going to be able to easily tell, "Which of these actually has the most of the things I am looking for?"

Meanwhile, Apple's product lines aren't quite as simple as they once were, but they're still very straightforward. It's generally quite clear what the tradeoffs are when you're comparing between any give pair of devices in their lineup.

>First of all, they are by definition not vertically integrated, because the same company doesn't create the hardware and the OS.

What matters is that they put the combined product through mostly the same testing. While the PC OEMs have only some to say about Windows' direction, they have the same experience picking components and integrating for Windows as Apple has for macOS.

That's still missing the point.

Apple isn't just "picking components and integrating". They make the whole thing from scratch to work together.

> What matters is that they put the combined product through mostly the same testing.

No. Not even close.

You'd be surprised at the level of testing most OEMs do. It is not zero but at the same time it is not at the same level as Apple.

Apple controls the SMC and Firmware/UEFI. Dell, HP, etc buys the one that comes with the board.

Apple "hand picks" most of the components. Few PCs are custom designs, most are OEM designs.

Please stop making this sound like OEM PC laptops are "in the wind" and almost to the point of just getting lucky with the final platform. It's an absurd discrediting of the decades of experience and work going into them.
But that’s a true assessment despite all that’s on paper there’s a lot left to chance in actual use. Will the trackpad use Windows Precision or won’t it?

Will the screen be decent or won’t it? Will the battery life suck or won’t it? There’s numerous quality of life question any Windows will have to ask before even getting to the actual specs of CPU, RAM & GPU.

OP writes:

> I am talking about a distro, that you don't have to configure anything for. A distro that handles things like external devices screen recording without weird glitches.

I don't read this as a plea for better HIG? This is HN, so I'm assuming most of us live in the terminal anyway. I'll never understand why people prefer MacOS for development. From my experience, it is clearly worse in pretty much every respect (package management, container support, configurability, just to mention a few things).

Mostly because we have no viable option.

Most work places want to have one device for all staff. So the IOS team and the Android team and Marketing and API and JS team, all need one common system.

Windows is out for the Rails/Elixir team, and IOS team need Macs. Marketing and Sales teams could live in Windows or Mac's

The only Venn diagram match is Mac. Low powered or high powered, Mac is the answer.

Honestly... Package Management is really good for IOS/Rails/Android dev. I personally never use containers at work, and I don't change the configuration on my Mac. Out of the box, it works.

The ios being exclusive to MacOS is an Apple made problem though. So you're paying double in hardware cost because of some decision by Apple that no other platform may compile for ios.
Which is rewarding them for their choice to put you into the situation in the first place. So in a way they're right to do it.
> The ios being exclusive to MacOS is an Apple made problem though. So you're paying double in hardware cost ...

You're right, it is. However knowing that doesn't change it.

I don't believe that you're paying double the hardware cost though. To get a halfway decent non-Apple laptop you need to be paying close to the same price anyway. The current Macs (especially Apple Silicon ones) really are much better quality than virtually (perhaps literally) anything you can get for half their price.

I don't know about double for the hardware.

A new Lenovo cost about 3k, and a new Mac costs about that too.

The Lenovo comes with windows (so rails and elixir dev's can't use it)

Mac didn't decide not to support rails, or lock rails devs out of other OS's.

> This is HN, so I'm assuming most of us live in the terminal anyway. I'll never understand why people prefer MacOS for development.

I've been a developer for over 3 decades, doing multiple languages/ecosystems across the full stack. I code in the evenings too. I'm pretty much a stereotypical geek.

I also do general, consumer, non-techie stuff too.

- If I only did development then yes, Linux is the obvious choice.

- If I only did consumer stuff then Windows is the obvious choice.

- However MacOS has the best combination for both sides of that equation and second place on both aspects is better for me than the combination of first and last place that both Linux and Windows offer.

(I do still maintain a separate laptop with Windows 10 and Linux Mint though).

> HIG (human interface guidelines) studies, which is something no other vendor has bothered themselves with.

Many platforms (including KDE and Gnome) have UI design guidelines. https://usabilitygeek.com/usability-user-experience-user-int... lists some.

Writing a guideline is not quite the same as investing several million in the development and testing of proven-effective design. Back in the day Apple did the right thing and rigorously tested its design hypotheses: there was a specific, fact-based reason behind each important gui design choice beyond “it looks good.”

I say back in the day, because IMO Apple no longer makes purposeful UI design choices. For instance, the iOS browser window-closer in the shrunken-windows view of open tabs, has its close button on the right. Every other close button is on the left. Apple has lost the f’ing plot.

Sun did tons of research on Gnome usability.

Microsoft did tons of research on MS Office, for example to design the ribbon.

I also am not sure having that iOS button on the top right is bad. It’s inconsistent, yes, but when that screen opens, your finger is at the top right of the screen. Putting them in the top right corner moves them closest to your finger. I don’t know whether it is, but Fitt’s law predicts that’s the better choice.

I predict that my left thumb is closest to the top left window, which was the one I was viewing and thus most likely to want to close; and that the two-finger action of tapping the top-right show-mini-windows/topish-left close-window buttons - like it used to be — is a better Fitt. I’m confident that this latest UI change was someone’s busywork. Gotta look like your doing something.

Thx for correction re: Gnome & ribbon.

The Sun research is pretty outdated, that was probably around 20 years ago that happened. I don't think any of it is relevant anymore.

There are still ongoing user studies happening in GNOME and KDE. It's probably not anywhere near as rigorous as at Apple, and I doubt you can easily assign a dollar value to it, but it does happen.

> HIG (human interface guidelines) studies, which is something no other vendor has bothered themselves with.

Let's not forget that Apple's HIG brought us 'column view' in the Finder, where icons actually slide away from your mouse, when you click on them... Or Preview where, if you select 100 PDFs and double click on them, will now open them as 100 separate documents, rather than as 'pages' within a single document, as used to be the case... or Quicktime [and Preview?] where you sometimes move a document with a conventional open/save dialogue but sometimes have to do it through a popup, accessed by clicking the name in the window titlebar.

Yes, OSX is a hundred times more consistent than any Linux distro --which often feel like the UI was designed by several separate teams who never met or compared notes-- but it's not without its own piss-poor design decisions.

Apple has also gone to lengths to make it difficult to run an alternative OS on their hardware. Like the Facetime camera on the 2015+ MacBook. (Fair dues to the person who got that working).

One of my personal laptops is a 2015 MacBook Pro, and the camera driver is the only thing I had to manually screw around with. Everything else worked perfectly in every distro I threw at it.

What was the issue with the webcam? I presume it's not a standard USB video device? Are you sure it's really only about making it harder to run other OSes on the hardware, and not because there was some actual feature gain from whatever the customization is? I know they have put effort into locking things down a lot with the newer models with the T2 chip, and while I don't agree with it it's obvious that there are real, actual security reasons for why they've done this, and not just being cheeky and petty-minded.

"Everything else [but the webcam] worked perfectly in every distro I threw at it" really doesn't rhyme with "gone to lengths to make it difficult to run an alternative OS on their hardware" in my ears. Surely they could've done plenty more than just booby trap the webcam.

I didn't say Apple has gone to extreme lengths. That would cost them a ton for little benefit. They got a 3rd party (Broadcom) to build the webcam and keep the spec a secret. Neither Broadcom nor Apple provide anything that would make it usable in another OS. I know they don't "have to", but I believe that buying a machine makes it mine, and I should be allowed to use it however I want. How many other manufacturers keep basic info a secret, and provide zero support in any alternative OS?
Fedora and Ubuntu are quite turnkey ready, for what I recall.
MacOS doesn't "just work" if you install it on non-Apple hardware. Most of the time it won't even boot. Nuff said.
Hackintoshes are definitely flakier but mostly due to breaking changes in OpenCore or your boot method, which you want to keep patched so you don’t have issues with macOS updates. If your environment and threat level allow it, you could simply not update once you get a stable config, and just image the entire boot drive. As long as your UEFI config doesn’t get corrupted, you’re fine. I’m sure that could be saved as well through rEFInd or similar tools.

Once you’ve assembled this house of cards, it’s fairly stable, I assure you. Just don’t look at it sideways. :P

Wow, lots of disappointing answers.

Easy: Apple hires TEAMS of designers, UX-experts/engineers [...].

The reward incentives in open source environments are not aligned with the required workload. People who seriously compare any modern linux desktop environment to the UX that macOS delivers must be lost in tunnel-vision/confirmation bias, it's not even close.

Also, like some said, as Apple provides their own hardware, they don't have to deliver general solutions.

I think this 100%. The problem with Linux is that it’s not controlled by a single company, there are many components developed by different contributors which have different interests. There is no single gui framework, no design guidelines so even the out-of-the-box software you get with any mainstream distribution doesn’t look cohesive. It simply lacks the polish of macOS.

Hardware wise I think if you use modern (i.e not older than 5 years) and also not just released hardware you are mostly ok. I haven’t had any driver problems, but that’s not to dismiss other peoples’ experience.

Linux is not for consumers, it needs nothing from them.

Android and chrome os (hell, even Darwin if you squint) all demonstrate that taking things away is the path to consumer happiness.

I am a professional user, I don't want a lobotomised system. An airplane cockpit is not like a car dash.

Although you're right about the incentive structure, I have a hard time seeing such a clear difference in UX quality in practice.

I've used OSX for a year after over 20 years of Linux. I really tried to like it, but to me or didn't feel any more polished than modern Linux distros. Just... different. Different flaws, different glitches, different inconsistencies, different trade-offs. shrug

As many are already saying, it pretty much depends on hardware. If you carefully select it, you won't have much issues at all with a distribution like Ubuntu, which actually lists "certified" hardware here:

https://ubuntu.com/certified

I recently installed Ubuntu on a certified Dell Precision and was impressed how smooth that went, even with stuff like full disc encryption, secure boot, docking station support, NVidia Optimus, etc. It's not perfect, but neither is Windows. With a bit of fiddling you'll even get features that are unavailable on Windows (like proper S3 sleep instead of "modern standby", which is driving me absolutely bonkers). Even notoriously problematic stuff like fractional scaling on external monitors really worked well. Installing the NVidia drivers instead of Noveau is trivial, even Dell firmware updates for the docking station can be directly installed from the Ubuntu software center.

So while there surely is a lot to criticize about Ubuntu from a poweruser's perspective (like the snap stuff), I must say that I was pleasantly surprised how much better the experience has become over the years.

It's the same with MacOS. It runs best on carefully selected hardware (i.e., you will have difficulty running MacOS on a Dell)
Entire processor classes ignored, gpus, & now all of Intel will lack support. Not the same really. Even vm acceleration sucks for no real reason.
Ubuntu has just worked for me for a long time, though I always have to do some tweaks to get it exactly how I like it (Mac keyboard layout, Quake-style terminal, etc.) I've recently installed Cinnamon (Mint's desktop) on it and I really like it better than any other Linux desktop I've tried so far. The only thing I ever really have issues with is Bluetooth stuff and sometimes sleep/hibernation issues.

I think Neal Stephenson's analogy still mostly holds true: Windows is a suburban minivan, MacOS is a Lambo with the hood welded shut, Linux is a tank that can also fly but the instrument panel is correspondingly tricky.

On the other hand... ChromeOS and Android are, by and large, slightly tweaked Linux, and they "just work" for millions of people, so I guess it comes down to what you're willing to put up with as a trade for simplicity.

Ubuntu on Lenovo laptops have been just that many years. I've used 3 different X1 carbon laptops with ubuntu for many years now. Worry free, no tinkering. Just works.
I love X1 carbon, I'm addicted to it :)
First of all, building an OS that works for everyone is tremendously hard. Doing so with a community of volunteers without central governance doubly so. Linux needs to support a wide range of hardware out of the box. And hardware is becoming increasingly complex, modern graphics card drivers e.g. rival the Linux kernel in terms of the total number of lines of code. So I'm actually impressed Linux works that well. Apple, on the other hand, builds a proprietary OS that just needs to run on select hardware, and they have full authority over all decisions down to the hardware level.

Regarding "just works" I'm also not sure MacOS is a good example. I'm using both Kubuntu (5 year old Lenovo T460p) and MacOS (brandnew M1 Macbook Pro) every day and I experience more crashes / freezes on the latter. And despite the vast speed advantage of the M1 (one M1 core is almost as fast as my entire Lenovo CPU) KDE often feels much more snappy and responsive. So yeah, modern Linux is pretty damn impressive in my humble opinion.

It really depends on what exactly you're looking for in the "it just works" experience, but since you mention "screen recording" and "external devices" I'll assume that you're specifically asking about the modern gamer-streamer (w/ mic, hardware-based sound control, multiple inputs, ViV, etc...) setup and not a basic-browser-and-mail setup.

Linux, as in "in the desktop environment", has a HUGE (a can't highlight and stress enough the word HUGE) technical debt. It runs on a graphical server that was designed way before GPUs were even a thing (let alone multi-GPU, variable refresh rate monitors, HDPi, HDR, etc...). And because of all the design limitations, X just can't compete with either Windows nor MacOS (in that specific environment setup that you're asking for). It just can't. Period.

Mir and Wayland were born precisely to fix this entire mess. Mir never really took off (because of community backlash?), while Wayland is... well... it has been "in progress" for +10 years and it's still not "there". It will get there, eventually, at which point it might be able to offer the "it just works" experience. Or it might not. We'll have to wait and see.

The audio system was already fixed. A few times... We jumped from Jack, OSS and Alsa to PulseAudio and now to PipeWire and things look promising, but PipeWire is also in the progress, so we're not entirely there yet either.

Bottom line is: There can't be a distro that "just works", because we're missing the pieces to assemble such a distro.

> Linux, as in "in the desktop environment", has a HUGE (a can't highlight and stress enough the word HUGE) technical debt.

Well that is what makes defining official Linux Desktop support something of folklore. You can predictably support and target Windows and macOS users all the time with your app working on those systems for it being all taken care for you.

But as for Linux, you will always need to exclude and draw the line somewhere with which distros you want to support. You can't support them all. There will always be that minority of fans of your product, screaming about support for an exotic Linux distro. The developers will just slap UNSUPPORTED and not worth the work.

It is because they can foresee a mountain of issues, maintenance debt, hours of issue tracing and costly CIs to maintain just for the claim of which distros are 'officially' supported.

That's an area where the community has consistently failed. There's clearly desire among companies to rally behind just one distro (in most cases this is Ubuntu, like it or not) and so if the community was thinking ahead, they would be using that as the standard and aiming for compatibility with it. Instead you get a countless number of distros taking pride in how they're not Ubuntu and they carelessly break Ubuntu software for no reason. In some ways Ubuntu is also part of the problem here by taking actions to make it more difficult for the community to engage.
I base my work on Ubuntu Budgie, but I make efforts to support a few popular others for kinto.sh.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/sorunme/files/

Wow, do people actually still use sourceforge? I found it to be really clunky and missing features compared to github or gitlab or something.
You don't upload entire 2-5gb iso or vm images to github or gitlab imo. The sorun.me project itself is in fact hosted on github - not sourceforge. Will admit I had no reason to be on sourceforge at all until I was like "Hey.. I need a place to host these images." and I realized that sourceforge is still a thing and perfect for hosting such large images for free.

Of course I could host it myself - but I guess I should just provide links on my actual sorun.me page.

You can’t really claim that Wayland has been in the works for x and x years, when such a hugely critical piece of the ecosystem needs network effect to strive. And I believe wayland has just recently got the critical mass to become the next X, but not getting it sooner is not due to its lack of technical merit.
The issue is that Wayland isn't a replacement for X. It's become it's own thing entirely, with it's own goals and conflicts with the xorg ideology. On top of that, it doesn't have feature parity with the window server on Windows and certainly doesn't approach the capability of Quartz (and likely never will, judging by it's core values). This puts it in an awkward spot: certain developers are begging users to switch to Wayland despite the fact that it only works with two and a half DEs, while other developers are pledging to never transition their software in the first place. Wayland's own development is constantly taking forwards and backwards steps in ways that are scaring users (like myself) away from using it. This is the part where I'd usually give credit to the developers for not turning it into a GNOME-first utility, but even that's untrue as the only "complete" implementation is Mutter.

At this point I've conceded that I will use x11 until I die. I will write software for x11 until I stop writing software. Yes, it is miserable, but it's never failed me and there has never been any "politics" ruining it. There's no wlroots to fuck around with to get certain basic features working. There's no xWayland to scream at when my software doesn't "just work". The whole thing is so disappointingly ironic that I can't help but ignore it's development.

You will be miserable and waiting forever because what you want is impossible for all practical purposes. Feature parity is a red herring when some newer features just can't be done properly on X. The "xorg ideology" is to basically not have security on anything and to consider GPUs to be an afterthought, as stated by a parent comment. From a user perspective, this situation is untenable and yet will never actually improve because doing so would break the protocol and all the clients. I've spoken to some of the other DE developers and pretty much all of them have said to me the only reason they don't want to move away from X is because they lack the manpower to do it.

Also, the reason there's no "politics" anymore is because most of the developers have moved on to Wayland. There were quite a few flame wars on the X mailing lists back in the day. You can probably blame some of that for the existence of Wayland, which should actually have less politics because multiple groups are no longer fighting for what to put in the one centralized X server. The one area where there was activity, and arguments were popping up again was... you guessed it, Xwayland, but they solved that by bring it into its own release cycle away from the rest.

The “security” of wayland is a bit of an illusion imo. I’ve already seen a user pick it apart awhile ago.

Regardless I don’t what they’re trying to do, but they do need to add in a proper method for granting higher privileges to apps to have more access to Wayland in the same way macOS grants access to Remote Desktop apps.

No, you haven't. I'm fairly certain I know a blog article you're referring to and that article is a load of nonsense. I can debunk any claims you might remember. The security isn't an illusion, it was designed to fix very real and known problems that exist in X11 and likely won't ever get patched out from X11.

At least in GNOME and KDE, there is a proper method for granting higher privileges, that method is the xdg portal API. I don't know where people are getting this idea that the method doesn't exist, it has existed for quite some time now.

> I can debunk any claims you might remember.

Listen, I don't care who you are or what your agenda is, but a line like this just confirms my suspicions that you're trolling. Quit it, please. Your constant bickering with anyone who disagrees with you is undermining the site's values of gratifying intellectual curiosity. It kills fruitful conversations, makes it harder to take your arguments in good faith, and colors your stance as simply contrarianism. I'm going to continue ignoring your comments if this is the basis of your conversation on this site.

My agenda is to explain how this stuff works to stimulate intellectual curiosity. That's literally all there is to it. I've seen a number of wrong claims posted about this in the past, if you can remember any of the claims I'll address them directly and we can have a fruitful conversation about it. If you feel that examining past claims under a critical light is "trolling" and "kills fruitful conversations" then I don't know why you're even bothering to discuss this, please just let me address the claims made by the other commenter. Feel free to ignore me.
Proper security is layered. Wayland is like a steel-framed door, while X is like having a hole for the door. Of course not even the steel door worth anything if you don’t have windows in place, but you can’t even begin to secure your place without a door.

X simply can’t separate different applications inputs and display outputs, unless you go full on nested X servers, while wayland solves this aspect splendidly.

Of course it is only a single step into the correct direction, you still need sandboxing and the like, but just sandboxing wouldn’t have been enough for X.

To add to this, there was a pretty large consensus among X developers probably 10-15 years ago that X was not a viable future direction and it needed to be abandoned. The alternative to Wayland (or Mir, or whatever) is not going back to X, the alternative is do nothing and bitrot sets in and you just don't have a functioning desktop anymore after a while.

I wouldn't even say the network effect matters that much, a huge part of the work has been disentangling the drivers from X. It's not very visible work to userspace developers but it's probably even more important than any work on the window system. The DRM/KMS/GEM subsystem is now widely adopted for kernel drivers, that work took a long time but doing it correctly means userspace is now freed up to implement any windowing system they want without having to deal with the driver mess caused by X.