What does it mean by removing X11 support? [LWN.net]

What does it mean by removing X11 support?

Posted Jun 11, 2025 14:37 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: What does it mean by removing X11 support? by Wol
Parent article: Ubuntu 25.10 to drop support for GNOME on Xorg

> So basically, the deprecation/removal is just the removal of the actual client (in X-speak) that actively manages the hardware

That would be the server, not the client :) X clients continue to work just fine.

to post comments

What does it mean by removing X11 support?

Posted Jun 11, 2025 15:55 UTC (Wed) by daroc (editor, #160859) [Link] (4 responses)

Unfortunately, X11 does things backward. The part that talks to the hardware is called the client, and the part that talks to other software in order to render it/compose windows/etc. is called the server.

What does it mean by removing X11 support?

Posted Jun 11, 2025 16:39 UTC (Wed) by smcv (subscriber, #53363) [Link] (3 responses)

> The part that talks to the hardware is called the client, and the part that talks to other software in order to render it/compose windows/etc. is called the server.

Are you sure? That's the opposite of the diagram in the Wikipedia article you linked to.

In 1980s-era X11, my understanding is that the client is the application, which might be xterm or xeyes or something, and does not talk to the hardware at all, only to the X server; and the X server talks to the hardware on behalf of all clients. The X server is a server in the sense that it calls listen() and accept() on a socket, and the X client application is a client in the sense that it calls connect() to that socket.

The way in which it is backwards is that if you're using remote X11 to run an application (perhaps something that does heavy number-crunching) on a large computer that you might call an application server, displaying its output on a lightweight terminal that you might call a thin client, then the X client (software) is running on the application server (hardware) and the X server (software) is running on the thin client (hardware).

In newer X11 applications and toolkits, increasingly both the client and the X server talk to the hardware, and the X server's role is more about coordination than rendering, but the connect()/listen() are still the same way round as they always were.

Wayland is also the same way round as X11: the client is the application, which calls connect(), and the server is the centralized thing linking all your applications together (in this case it's called the Wayland compositor), which calls listen().

Other infrastructure components like Pulseaudio, Pipewire and D-Bus are also the same way round as X11 and Wayland, with one centralized server that calls listen(), and lots of clients that connect() to it.

What does it mean by removing X11 support?

Posted Jun 11, 2025 16:55 UTC (Wed) by daroc (editor, #160859) [Link] (2 responses)

> Are you sure? That's the opposite of the diagram in the Wikipedia article you linked to.

Argh. Yes, you're right. I had "X11 uses the terms backward" cached in my head, and didn't invalidate it properly. I suspect Wol may have done the same.

What does it mean by removing X11 support?

Posted Jun 11, 2025 19:16 UTC (Wed) by jem (subscriber, #24231) [Link]

The confusion comes from that a "server" is usually thought of as the big iron tucked away in some machine room and back in the day you interacted with it using a simple text terminal. The X Window System changed all that: now the display server was running on the machine where your graphics hardware was. The "server" was the Sun workstation on your desk, and the client app was typically the xterm program running on a mainframe in some data center.

What does it mean by removing X11 support?

Posted Jun 12, 2025 0:34 UTC (Thu) by gerdesj (subscriber, #5446) [Link]

Yes! The Xserver does the link to hardware and Xclients send their output to the Xserver.

The miss-understanding/interpretation comes about when you are running "remote X" (export DISPLAY=....). Now you run the Xserver locally and the Xclients are running remotely but displaying locally.

You can ssh into a remote box and daisy chain ssh sessions and still get a local X display for a client, if you are careful, even if the remote box does not have a graphical terminal. It will also be bloody slow. Having said that, modern internet connections are 1+Gb/s, which nicely glosses over a protocol developed in the days when LANs with 10Mb FD was a bit of a luxury. The cool kids got the 100Mb FD connections with their swanky PCI based Cisco 595s instead of a ISA based 509. Actually, X is even older than that funky late 1990's gear.

I shouldn't bother nowadays unless as a last resort. MeshCentral does the job, rather better!

Its tools for the job. I have a screwdriver that is an antique - it was my granddad's, then my dad's and I'm 54. It still works but it is a flat 1/2" bit and most screws I deploy are PH or torx. However, if I can, I love to dig out old Betsie because I'm a human and the handle is lovely to ... handle.

I still run X sessions across my home LANs because I can and in the case of MythTV (int al) - rather necessary if the server has no local display.

I rather like the old school charm of running X clients but it is just that - old school. I grew up when records and then tape was your only choice for music and the web did not exist. I do not now own a record player. I have converted my CD collection to FLAC.

So, I shall wipe a tear from my eye for X11 and Xorg (I barely noticed the passing of XFree86). If people who know more about this stuff than me and are prepared to slap code into a repo - then that's all good by me.

I remember when Linux looked shite, really shite on X. Funnily enough some console drivers with a good config got it right and looked lovely. Nowadays I have absolutely gorgeous founts and all sorts of funky stuff going on my screen. I'm happy to wait for the WL boys and girls n that to get things thrashed out. Its a really hard project that is progressing nicely but needs more time.

Sorry about the fount affectation!