Security

When you use X11, you allow any program running on your computer to access anything on your screen and clipboard, collect your keystrokes and type. It's trivial to implement a keylogger, for example. Do not buy into the whole "no viruses on Linux" thing, it's not true and likely to become even less and less true, as desktop Linux is becoming popular.

Wayland at least tries to put some barriers in place against this.

I don't think for tue average user it really matters much. If you've got multiple screens of different sizes or refresh rates, Wayland is the way to go. If you've got multiple identical screens that you want to treat as a single big screen, X11 is perfect for that.

I recently switched and I'm happy with how it runs. Even on Nvidia.

X11 is dead don't bother with it. The same people who wrote X11 are working on Wayland because X11 became to here maintain.

X11 has many features and some it will never have. Wayland has less features and it has compatibility issues for the ones it has. But if you need 4K or touchscreen then Wayland is the way to go. Default choice should probably be Wayland unless it doesn't support that one thing you care about.

If you use a feature complete Wayland compositor and compare it to equivalents (RIP velox), then Wayland basically offers more consistent pen and multitouch support and stuff, while being faster.

There's no 2D acceleration in Wayland and that's by design, it's made for new GPUs that don't have 2D anyway anymore. Programs either draw pixels or start up 3D.

XLibre is trying the opposite and is actually merging various 2D drivers for old and niche hardware, like ct65550 as found in the Toshiba Libretto 50ct among others. Most of these originate from distribution forks (NetBSD in this case). T2 Linux also maintains a patch to bring back lots of more ancient 2D drivers that were removed in 2012.

Every time I setup my desktop up for Wayland I always go back to X11, I find Wayland sluggish compared to X11 and don’t have the time nor energy to troubleshoot applications that had no issues working on X11.

X11 is still server-first and needs workarounds to run locally (like startx, sx), while Wayland can just be run. Unlike X, it isolates every processes access to other windows, but with slow adoption of protocols for things like screen-sharing, video conferences, accessibility tools. The tooling is not yet there imo.

That's the main difference nowadays. Some people have issues with tearing or wrong-monitor with either of them.

Honestly, Wayland vs. X (and Flatpak) fit this perfectly:

X11 is stable and maintained but not getting new features. It will generally work well for most people but over time it will and is drifting to obsolesence.

Wayland has some flaws but is not basically stable and feature rich enough for most people to use. It is not a complete drop in for X11 and won't necessairly ever will be but for the vast majorory of desktop users it is.

The problem with Wayland is that there are still issues for people with graphics drivers. Nvidia in particular has had serious issues with it although they are improving.

I personally still use X11 with my KDE set up because i still have problems woth Wayland. Thwyre not as bad as they were but its still not quite stable above for me.

Some things still don't work on Wayland.
(Like screen sharing with Anydesk, as an example I ran into yesterday)
But at this point, I just replace the thing that still requires X11 with an alternative, or find a different solution.
X11 is dead tech. Wayland has its own issues, but it's better than X11 in almost every way now, actively maintained, and it's the current standard.

As some general advice: If you don't know the specifics, just go with your Linux distribution's defaults. They probably have this figured out for you. Wayland is the more modern approach. We had a long transitioning period and some things didn't work for a while or were missing. I'd say it's ready by now. And if your distro maintainers also think it's time to supersede the old X server, it probably is.

I mean the ELI5 for the uninitiated is that X11 is older, and Wayland was made as the successor to X11. It aims to address issues that a lot of people had with X11. X11 is not in active development whereas Wayland is, and for support for modern tech, it'll be added to Wayland but not X11. These days I'd advise to go with Wayland unless you either have hardware that doesn't place nicely with it or you have a specific use-case for X11, i.e. Wayland unless you have a reason not to. Although most "beginner" distros choose for you without prompting you to pick, in which case go with the default (it's probably Wayland anyway).

If you mean to explain the debate, basically some people have particular things they want to do, or they want to do something a certain way, and it's not supported by Wayland, usually by design due to things like security concerns or philosophical differences with X11. X11 will continue to work for a long time but it's not getting new features, so if these issues are a concern with you, you could stick to X11 for the foreseeable future.

The average user is not supposed to notice a difference (apart from maybe QoL differences like performance, screen tearing, etc)—that's the goal of both projects. It should just display your desktop.

one thing i noticed in trying both is x11 using more cpu in the same scenario (playing a youtube video, same resolution) and even the DP adapter i am using getting warmer when on x11 compared to wayland. in this scenario the difference wasn't much despite being roughly double (~2.5W compared to ~4.5W in x11). idk how that scales in other scenarios.

Wayland is more secure than x11 by design and more concise in scope. Notably it supports contemporary display technologies like display independent scaling, VRR, colour space (HDR) and several others.

Wayland is made by the x11 people.

By real user, do you mean a nontechnical user? If that's the case, the display server isn't a choice to be made by such user, but by the distro maintainers. Most people won't notice the difference, because it's mostly stuff that happens under the hood.

Honestly, on a running system with average hardware, the average user won't notice any difference. Depending on your de/wm of choice on x11, you may have to swap to something similar but different, but there it. Depending on what you used, something will require different solutions, like screenshots, but 90+% of stuff, there is no difference.

Is it even a debate at this point? x11 is on it's way out and wayland transition is pretty much complete within the gnu/linux ecosystem. Vast majority of distros and desktop environments ship with wayland as the default and keep developing with wayland in mind, with holdouts like debian and mint that still use x11, I think. X11 is basically dinosaur software for legacy. Vast majority of end users will just take what is the default and that is Wayland and they don't even notice.

On most distros Wayland is trouble free and x11 is a thing of the past. X11 made some things simpler like screen share with somebody , but Linux is growing large enough that Wayland (that is secure) is the best choice. You don't want your x11 screen duplicated on a malware attackers screen etc.

One thing that's annoying in Wayland is new window placement where app can't control it at all*. Wayland would place it on a screen it wants. This gets hugely annoying when you have more than one monitor and/or virtual desktops and you'd want to restore billion of browser windows, for example.

• A solution is being worked on, luckily

• for most people, use whatever your distro ships with and installs for you
• choosing desktop environments still starts heated discussions – high end, it’s a choice between Gnome and KDE – mid-tier has Xfce, LXQt, Mate, Cinnamon, and more – limited hardware go for IceWM, JWM, FLWM, or similar – want to get your hands dirty? go for a tiling window manager
• X11 is (effectively) abandonware at this point – it’s still getting security patches, but the devs left and started Wayland 17-ish years ago
• XLibre is more political than technical – and I’ll leave it at that

I'm a bit surprised you didn't find much searching the web, because this is one of the most hot topics in Linux and everyone has an opinion and discussions are endless.

I use Wayland for years by now and it improved vastly during that time. One of the advantages over X11 I appreciate is the better handling of multiple monitors, with different resolution, refreshrate and VRR in effect. This was simply not possible in X11 in this form. I like its more secure by design, in relation to keyboard input. X11 can read all keyboard input by any application at any time. Wayland works different here, but for the time being I enabled X11 compatibility for this in KDE, until a all applications support Wayland fully.

Think twice before abandoning X11. Wayland breaks everything! is more of an anti Wayland posting, but its good to have a view from all angles. So I post it here.

Have in mind that Wayland improved in recent years drastically. Searching the web is either full of Ai nonsense or old content about the old state of Wayland. Also it depends which desktop environment you are using, because some are better at Wayland than others; notably KDE is on the front regarding Wayland. So even if some Wayland features are already developed, does not mean that all desktop environments supports them already.

On my 2014 PC I'm using Fedora 44 with KDE, which defaults to Wayland: not problems whatsoever, but some applications say "Wayland support is experimental, beware".

I switched to X11 after a suggestion to debug some issues with a game. The issues was not fixed, all the other applications I've tried are still working flawlessly. PLUS the KDE night light feature is working (was not in Wayland). So I stayed with X11.

On my wife MacBook (2015) I installed Kinoite, defaults to Wayland. Everything works, but Rustdesk renders VERY small. I have not tried X11 on that, and will not try it.

Try both with all your applications and setups and choose the smoother experience. Make security a secondary priority: if it was the first you have less attack surface sticking to terminal only.

It depends heavily on your hardware and workflow.

Wayland can be a great experience and I personally enjoy how smooth it feels, but I acknowledge that many people run into some problems.

I personally haven't really seen much difference between the two except Wayland eating more CPU and being rather tedious for hybrid (Ryzen/Nvidia) setups (still haven't resolved it crashing when I change TTY). I'd personally say stick to whatever default your desktop environment runs on..XWayland helps with the whole compatibility concerns at least.

Just my experience though, yours could be different depending on your machine and general setup

Wayland is (part of) the modern solution to the problem that was previously tackled by X11. As such, it comes with improved security (read: keyloggers no longer have a field day) and features (read: HDR, VRR and no screen tearing) that one might expect in 2026. Furthermore, it breaks up the monolith of X11 and thus adheres better to the Unix Philosophy^[That is; Do one thing and do it well.] (if that happens to be something you care about). Finally, Wayland has basically come (as part of the plan) to replace X11. So, it will continue to improve as a platform while X11 will remain stagnant.

In the current landscape in which Wayland has (finally) fulfilled (most of) its promises, X11's lifeline are the edge cases in which (for a myriad of different reasons) the Wayland ecosystem hasn't reached full feature-parity yet. And Wayland's trajectory would suggest that it's only a matter of time until those have been ironed out as well.

TL;DR: Use Wayland. Most of the ecosystem has already adopted it and what remains is actively in the process of doing so.

As someone who has used X11 and Wayland, it doesn't matter for the typical user. If you, like me, have a penchant for some smaller desktop environments like XFCE or window managers, you will be stuck with X11, but many are already working on porting to Wayland.

Couple edge cases for gaming, namely screen tearing on some X11 configurations and certain Nvidia hardware running into issues on Wayland. For multi-monitor or high DPI users, Wayland handles per-monitor DPI and fractional scaling far better than X11. Maybe a couple more edge use cases for remoting into the desktop, but Wayland support is also improving quickly on that end. In any case, Wayland is by design more secure than X11.

Waylad is technically a better idea, the progression of X11, more secure and should be faster and smoother when it's ready...

But I run into so many incompatabilities still and often janky support via xWayland that I really don't think Wayland is ready to be the default just yet.

It will be, I'm sure, but for now I spend more time fighting it than I do using it. A bit of snazz in KDE and Waydroid seem to be the only things that actually need it, for me, and so many legacy things just nope right out and crash without going back to x by force.

You can run either. The truth is depending on what you want to do, what hardware you running, and software versions you have available, your experience will be very different.

Personally I run X11 because I'm used to it. It's extremely stable and the failure points are well known.

The waylandism design really bothers me, and so does the attitude of waylandists. Throwing stuff that works away for no reason, chasing some sort of Android trash ecosystem dream that's never going to happen.

Whatever man, you're taking xgamma away from me over my dead body. cocks shotgun. Come and get it.

I think x11 is for older computers , or the ones that are not that powerful , while wayland is for capable computers . I am not sure though so someone please confirm! :)

Edit: So many downvots :)