The Curious Case of XLibre Xserver

After the dramatic fork of Xorg into a new project called XLibre Xserver, the open-source community briefly felt a spark of hope — maybe, just maybe, the beloved X11 would get a fresh shot at life. That hope came after major announcements from several leading (and mostly corporate-backed) Linux distributions that they were moving away from X11 altogether.

But as you’ll see below, that glimmer of hope probably won’t last. Two big issues stand in the way: the controversial reputation of the developer behind the project and the growing sense that some of the major players simply don’t want X11 anymore. Instead, they’re putting their weight behind Wayland—a project they’re heavily involved in, even though it’s technically community-maintained.

So, back to the topic. A few days ago, Kevin Kofler proposed (here’s our article on the subject) adding XLibre Xserver to Fedora as a replacement for X11. And boy, what followed… Things escalated quickly. Just 24 hours later, he personally withdrew the proposal, saying:

I have always argued that Changes that are overwhelmingly rejected by the community should not be approved by FESCo. So it would be very hypocritical if I attempted to push this through over the almost entirely negative feedback. I stand by my positions and also apply them to myself.

There are already a few hundred comments piling up, which you can check out here and here. As you’ll see, many of them aren’t really about the technical details at all—instead, they express open hostility toward the developer, known for being a vocal critic of Red Hat. Some even go as far as saying things like, “If this gets approved, I’m leaving the project.” Wow.

Please don’t get me wrong—this article isn’t meant to defend Enrico Weigelt, the person behind XLibre. I agree that many of his statements cross the line and veer away from technical discussion into politics and conspiracy theories, which just isn’t acceptable.

That said, it’s also disheartening to see people digging for technical flaws just to discredit a project because they don’t like its developer. In this situation, the line between personal feelings and technical criticism has pretty much disappeared—everything’s tangled up into one big mess.

However, I totally agree with one of the points: software without a solid track record of stability and functionality simply shouldn’t be accepted. I’m 100% on board with that.

But come on, calling it unreliable? Really? We’re talking about X11—the software powering the Linux desktop for the past 30 years. And now, after being forked, suddenly overnight, it becomes unreliable? That doesn’t add up. It’s literally the exact same codebase, right? Plus, the whole point of the fork is to improve it and fix many shortcomings in its aging design.

Let’s not forget that when it comes to XLibre, the project is trying to breathe new life into X11, and Red Hat is right in the middle of it. Yes, the same Red Hat is a major backer of Wayland. The company has a track record of pushing its vision hard—just think of what happened with the GNOME desktop, systemd, and now Wayland.

It’s a bit ironic, too. The same company that proudly waves the open-source flag is the one that took down CentOS, its biggest rival at the time, in a move that felt like a slap in the face to everything open-source stands for. And since then, it seems like Red Hat has gone out of its way to make things harder for the newcomers—Rocky and Alma included.

So, while I wouldn’t go as far as Weigelt does, I agree with one simple truth: X11 clearly isn’t a priority for the big players anymore, and now the focus is entirely on Wayland, and that’s fine. But why are you picking fights with anyone who dares to question your push for one specific technology?

Even if you’re new to Linux, it doesn’t take long—just a few days—to realize that Wayland (the project started by Red Hat, btw) still isn’t the fully polished, reliable replacement some people make it out to be. Oh, and this “new” thing called Wayland? It’s been in development for over 15 years. And yet, it still doesn’t feel quite ready for prime time.

The truth is, most users don’t care what it’s called—they just want their system to work. And in that sense, X11 still gets the job done. XLibre is trying to take things further, building on everything that’s come before to improve the experience. But for that to happen, the project needs to be given a fair shot. That’s hard to do when it’s dismissed outright because you don’t like the person behind it or because it doesn’t align with your company’s goals.

Right now, most other distributions are taking a wait-and-see approach, unlike Fedora (and, by extension, Red Hat), whose position is clear. So far, none of the others have made any firm statements about whether they plan to adopt XLibre. Of course, for that to happen, the project first needs to release a fully stable version (we already have a beta available).

Honestly, the open-source community has nothing to lose by trying to bring back something as fundamental as X11. If anything, there’s a lot to gain. That said, I’ve got to be honest—the drama surrounding Weigelt isn’t doing the effort any favors. And when you add in the obvious hesitation from big players to give X11 another shot, it makes the whole thing even harder.

The XLibre case is unusual—and in many ways, unprecedented—in the Linux world. That’s because it’s not just about technical merit. Instead, it involves people turning something down because of the reputation its developer has built, along with the refusal of certain “trendsetters” in the Linux space to bring back something they’ve already labeled as obsolete.

Linux is supposed to be all about choice and freedom, right? Or are those just nice-sounding slogans that don’t quite hold up in practice?