Linux Display Protocols | Wayland: The Gatekeeper | "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"

The first 20 minutes are just technical context. If you want to go straight to the argument: 18:20

After 15 years of development, the justifications for Wayland's security model remain unconvincing. The risks it claims to address—local attacks, input hijacking, screen scraping—are either overstated or irrelevant in most Linux environments. Meanwhile, its implementation has introduced significant costs in terms of flexibility, usability, and compatibility.

If these issues remain unacknowledged, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that Wayland's development is purely motivated by improving the Linux ecosystem. Instead, it raises concerns about corporate influence, standardization over innovation, and a disregard for the needs of the broader community.

The Linux community thrives on choice, flexibility, and autonomy. Any attempt to impose constraints under the guise of security must be scrutinized rigorously. In the case of Wayland, the costs seem to far outweigh the benefits, leaving many to wonder: Is this truly about progress, or is it about control?