Given who founded Xlibre (Metux) has some...interesting history (he was banned from the X.org project due to poor code quality and practices [1]) I would say no

Metux himself also has some "fascinating" takes as archived from other projects such as the LKML [1] and Devuan [2] mailing lists

[1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/work_items/179...

[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/6/10/957

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20190404153507/https://lists.dyn...

HDR, VRR, Mixed refresh rate/DPI displays, Zero-copy video acceleration, support for tiled GPUs

Yeh... we should totally keep to X11.... especially when toolkits start to drop support.

i like the idea of wayland but i agree about the loss of flexibility. they seem very concerned about security and make screen sharing very complex now if you stray from the accepted path. systemd complicates this further with logind seat management etc. as a result our companies dev servers where we run a bunch of simultaneous VNCs and independent mate desktop sessions can really only work with X11 for now. There is a way to do it with nested cgroups running n number of systemd instances etc but its a pain and then we would have to use gnomes built in rdp thing which we dont want to use… anyway i actually vibe coded a way to get it working with wayland in containers with a dummy kernel video driver, my own fake logind etc. etc. etc. it was a harrowing experience but fun.

> and of course nothing would run on BSDes

A number of wayland compositors are available in at least freebsd and openbsd (haven't checked on netbsd and dragonflybsd). Wayland is only a protocol. Whoever wants to support it can.

> which destroys variety and flexibility

That's probably the worst argument that you could make against Wayland: there has only ever been a single X11 server in common use on the Linux desktop (first XFree86, now X.Org), but there are tons of independent Wayland "server" implementations (Weston, Mutter, KWin, wlroots, etc.) [0]. Lots of these are written in completely different languages and implement different extensions from each other, so there's way more variety and flexibility with Wayland than with X11.

The more common criticism that I've heard is that Wayland's variety and flexibility is actually bad, because it makes it harder to add extensions (since you need to implement it in multiple different projects, and not just the single X.Org codebase), and it means that applications potentially have to test against multiple implementations. (I don't necessarily agree with this criticism myself, but it's still a valid complaint.)

> and of course nothing would run on BSDes

FreeBSD [1] and OpenBSD [2] both have Wayland support.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_display_servers#Waylan...

[1]: https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/wayland/

[2]: https://xenocara.org/Wayland_on_OpenBSD.html#running-wayland

I kind of wonder that too, I'm fine using wayland but it seemed like a huge user hassle for not many benefits (namely independent screen scaling which xlibre now supports). It's a shame xlibre didn't come around sooner, after years of pain wayland support has gotten a lot better, to the point I can more or less use either without issue.