As you saw from Lunduke’s video, that doesn’t exist anymore.
We all wanted Xorg but that ship has sailed already.
1 Like
Maybe you should stop reading the flame bait from Lunduke.
The latest Xorg release was yesterday!
2 Likes
So it looks!
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6aa06a969e
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-bf47909cba
1 Like
According the infamous Lunduke, some distros are adopting X11Libre. Raises questions why is that if Xorg stays around.
Unlike the init-process, swapping a window-system is not much different from swapping a window manager/desktop, so why not let the all flowers bloom if someone is willing to package it.
Classic Fedora tactic to solve issues by forcing everyone to suffer from those issues is not way to go, especially in this case when some software doesn’t work with Wayland. There are - believe or not, people working with Fedora desktop.
I would encourage anyone interested to look at the 1200+ commits that landed in the codebase in question on or about June 12th from a single person and draw their own conclusions about code quality.
I’ve looked. I’ve also looked at the subsequent merge requests issued by other people who found it necessary to revert changes made in that pile of what appears to be unreviewed commits.
I have concerns, which I will bring up in the formal system wide change proposal process when it opens up for discussion.
And apologies Scott, as this next comment isn’t directed at you but at the broader audience reading this thread. I know its a bit of a threaded coversation etiquette break to grandstand, please indulge me for a second.
Everyone please remember, the scope of the upcoming formal change proposal discussion will be a system wide change request proposing to replace one codebase for another. The discussion before us is scoped specifically about whether one fork of a codebase should replace another as a common shared part of the technology stack that other pieces are meant to rely on. The change proposal as structured requires a choice to be made one way or the other. Any discussion about freedom of choice or the limits thereof are sort of missing the point entirely. The project technical leadership is being asked by a contributor to make a choice.
-jef
10 Likes
@tuju Please leave other people’s family out of the discussion. This is a multicultural community with diverse values and we never know of other people’s backgrounds, and how far such comments can feel offensive or not. In any case, such comments do not add value to any discussion, especially if other people already tell you that they read this as attack. This is a warning, another such comment against another user will end up in a suspension.
You are also responsible to follow our Code of Conduct and to consider the four core values of our community in your conduct.
8 Likes
@leigh123linux This was not an appropriate way to talk about the work/contribution of other people at your GNOME comments, nor is it an appropriate here. It is your choice what software you use, and what not, but it is not up to you what others have to use or to prefer, or what they have to vote for in change proposals: if the majority shares your underlying opinion, the proposal will be rejected anyway. Otherwise, respect that your opinion does not reflect the majority. This is also for you the final warning before a suspension: the flags and violations you have accumulated recently cross the line, and although I appreciate the contributions you do for this community and have some understanding of the issues you face through the packages you maintain, we cannot ignore violations, and hiding your comments with the suggestion to correct them seems to not make a difference too. Your opinion is fine, being against the proposal is fine, but express is without treating others or their contributions offensive or disrespectful. CoC, 4 Fedora core values, I’m sure you know where to find them.
5 Likes
I’m sorry you didn’t like my technical opinion 
What has gnome got to do with this thread? maybe you should check your copy & paste comments
You made a comparable comment about GNOME a few days ago, and a moderator explained to you that this way of communication is not accepted. You have a sophisticated knowledge of software, and you know a lot of the relations/impacts between packages. It would be great if you use it in a way that adds value and that does not offend anyone else or anyone else’s contribution. If you state verifiable and/or reproducible facts about why this software should not be used in your opinion, that is likely to achieve more support for your position than just cursing it.
4 Likes
Read my first post as I’ve added more info.
So this is the Change Owner writing.
First of all, the Change is a proposal that has still not even been formally announced (I have in fact been waiting for more than a week for that now!). As per the Change process, the discussion is supposed to start at the point where the proposal is officially announced. And then FESCo is supposed to vote for or against the Change based on the community feedback.
My intent is to package this (myself, though I would welcome any comaintainers) if and only if the Change is approved.
As you can see, that is version 21.1.17, a bugfix/security release from the 4-year-old 21.1 branch, not a real new release, as in, a new branch from the current master.
The reason it was released at all is obvious: to fix security vulnerabilities that were recently made public: Multiple security issues in the X.Org X server and Xwayland disclosed, new versions released | GamingOnLinux (by the way, it looks like they missed one and are going to release 21.1.18 for that).
To my knowledge, there is no intent at X.Org to release anything other than security fixes (and possibly selected bug fixes).
As for Lunduke in general: I agree that he is not a reliable source. However, the facts are pretty clear: Enrico:
- started a fork of X.Org on the same infrastructure because he was unhappy with stalled merge requests,
- got banned from FreeDesktop.org / X.Org (it is actually the same organization) for alleged Code of Conduct violations (which, as usual, the CoC committee is not willing to discuss in public – this is standard procedure for CoC issues),
- moved his fork to GitHub, denouncing what he feels as censorship (and yes, including conspiracy theories and political statements that I, like most of us here, have a problem with),
- now has to witness even his previously accepted commits being mass-reverted from X.Org (see https://www.phoronix.com/news/X.Org-Server-Lots-Of-Reverts – link already posted in this thread). (I have not read any statement about that from Enrico so far.)
All this is verifiable from public GitLab commit history and/or issue comments and from various media (not just Lunduke).
(FYI, if anyone here expects a reply from @tuju (Juha Tuomala), you will be disappointed, as he was banned from this forum.)
4 Likes
And the first thing he did was tell Lunduke
How does this align with Fedora’s community guidelines? How is that not a permanent ban? This proposal was bad faith from the beginning.
1 Like
I filed the Change proposal, not @tuju. The proposal is not in bad faith, but because I seriously want an actively maintained X11 in Fedora (because I want X11, and Plasma X11, to remain in Fedora for a long time to come), and because the X.Org maintainers have made it clear several times that X.Org is in “maintenance mode” (i.e., a passive life support kind of “maintenance”) and that they believe people should switch to Wayland sooner rather than later.
I also did not send anything to Lunduke (he found out about my Change proposal either by himself or from someone else, and the news about @tuju’s ban was sent to him by @tuju himself, as should be obvious from the screenshot), though to be honest I also do not see why it would be an offense to inform a journalist about what is going on.
2 Likes
Your idea of keeping x11 going, while neither the plasma devs nor the xserver devs want to maintain it, is to adopt an ideological fork that has already pushed broken code?
the journalism in question:
and the countless videos that inspired the CSAM attacks on GNOME’s matrix?
2 Likes
For the record: Tuju was not banned, but only suspended for 2 weeks, in accordance with our rules. He did not fulfill the criteria for a ban, and we aim to always use the least possible way to educate users and to give them a second chance. As seen above, he was warned for his earlier actions violating another user, and as he then posted another violation, including an explicit rejection of our Code of Conduct, he was suspended as next step. Such actions are reviewed.
As @kkofler already mentioned: tuju is not the person creating this proposal, so the actions of tuju are not related to the proposal or the proposal owner.
Supplement: please keep on topic everyone!
2 Likes
I can’t see how either the proposal or Tuju’s actions are in any way promoting a healthy collaborative environment. They both are minimizing Lunduke’s bigotry and constant attacks towards open source projects and volunteers. Tuju clearly has direct contact. How are other Fedora contributors supposed to collaborate with people that are actively working against them? The Fedora project social media picture changes are very performative when notable contributors are working with people trying to undermine the movements Fedora is supposedly standing with.
I appreciate that we both want to see X11 continue thriving. However, I have concerns about the current transition approach that I’d like to discuss.
Current Technical Challenges
Xorg vs x11libre compatibility: While I understand the long-term vision for x11libre, Xorg remains the more practical choice at present due to broader hardware support. The ABI changes in x11libre have created compatibility issues with NVIDIA drivers, particularly affecting users with older hardware.
Legacy hardware support gaps: Users with 390xx and 470xx series cards face a difficult situation:
- These driver series will never receive x11libre support
- Wayland isn’t available to these users unless they switch to nouveau
- Nouveau works adequately for 390xx users, but 470xx users experience significant performance issues due to power management limitations (GPUs remain stuck at lowest clock speeds)
Impact on Users
This creates a problematic scenario where users must either:
- Switch to different distributions that maintain Xorg support
- Prematurely replace functional hardware, contributing to electronic waste
Specific Request
My primary concern centers on the proposed use of Obsoletes and Provides directives to phase out Xorg. Would you consider removing this aspect of the transition plan? This would allow users with legacy hardware to maintain a functional system while the broader ecosystem evolves.
I believe this approach would better serve the community by avoiding forced obsolescence while still supporting x11libre development for newer systems.
1 Like
The transition plan is indeed something we can discuss. I can see 4 possible options there:
- do not package X11Libre at all (null hypothesis),
- package X11Libre without
ObsoletesandProvides(withConflicts(most likely) or maybe even parallel-installable with X.Org), requiring users who want X11Libre to explicitly migrate, - package X11Libre with
ObsoletesandProvidesautomatically migrating users to X11Libre and drop X.Org from the repository, - compromise between options 2 and 3 similarly to how the Plasma X11→Wayland migration was handled: use versioned
ObsoletesandProvidesin a way that users upgrading from an older Fedora are by default automatically migrated to X11Libre, but can reinstall X.Org and will then never be automatically migrated again.
The Change currently proposes doing option 3, rejecting the Change altogether would be option 1, but option 2 and option 4 are options that sound reasonable to me and can be discussed. I believe both would each address your concerns.
1 Like
I like option #2
This option also gives x11libre the greatest chance for council acceptance IMO.
1 Like