wlroots and smithay (I'm not familiar with louvre) do a lot of the difficult work for you, that most compositors will do without much variation but there's still a lot that compositor writers still have to do. It's still a significantly larger task than, for example, writing an X11 WM.

(Well, writing an X11 WM that also includes a built-in compositor is a bit more than just the WM, but I'd say still less than writing a Wayland compositor using wlroots or smithay. For example, xfwm4's compositor is around 5300 lines of C, which is... not nothing, but not crazy either.)

This is all playing a bit fast and loose with the details.

The "isolating windows from each other" stuff in Xlibre for example is the Xnamespace extension, which requires a static config file up front and lets X clients within the namespace interact as before. This may have some utility for specific scenarios (dunno, kiosks maybe?), but is nothing like Wayland's default security model.

Similarly, enabling TearTree in the modesetting driver and having another backbuffer in the driver is a huge crutch vs. having a proper architecture where the compositor can own presentation timing. For one it makes adaptive sync/VRR a lot trickier.

These things are overall not equivalent.

> Per-display DPI settings

fwiw, Xorg already had this, since you can set the DPI for each display through RandR/xrandr. In both X11 and Wayland it's up to the toolkit to actually detect the setting and rasterise accordingly.

Wayland actually went backwards in this respect by using "integer scales" (eg, 1, 2, 3) instead of fine-grained DPIs (eg, 96, 192, 288), so using a scale of 1.5 would result in downscale blur (toolkit sees scale as 2, then the compositor scales it down to 75%), whereas in Xorg you could just set the DPI to 144, and the toolkit could theoretically render at the correct resolution. As far as I know Qt was the only toolkit to actually do this automatically, but that's not X11's fault.

Wayland has at least since fixed this in the form of "fractional scaling" [1], but here's [0] an old thread on HN where I complained about it and provided screenshots of the resulting blur.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32021261

[1] Doing some quick searching it seems like this is still unsupported in Gtk3/Gtk4, maybe planned for Gtk5? Apparently Firefox has only just added support (December 2025), 3 years after the fractional scaling protocol was released. Seems ridiculous to me that Wayland failed to get this right from the start.

You can do per-display DPI just fine on X11 (through xrandr), it's just the major toolkits don't support it. GTK, for example, reads a single global DPI value from XSETTINGS; there's no reason why it has to be that way.

The annoying thing about the other things you mention is that they honestly are not that difficult to fix.

The X server can throw an error (or just silently ignore it) when one client passes the window of another client and button/key events in the mask to XSelectInput(). And the Xinput2 bits that allow for receiving all key and button events can be changed to only send events destined for windows in the same client. There: input snooping is fixed.

Lock screen awareness can be fixed with new requests/events in the MIT-SCREEN-SCREENSAVER extension (or, if that's fraught, a new extension) that allow an app to create a "special" lock-screen window, which the X server will always stack on top, and send all events to. (That new functionality should probably allow for child windows and popups for input methods as well.) This is honestly not hard!

And yes, some applications will break when you do this. But I cannot see how that's not significantly better than creating an entirely new display protocol that everyone has to port to.

There are other issues with X11, of course, mainly in the graphics pipeline (e.g. the compositor should really be in the X server), but it's hard to believe these things couldn't be fixed. It feels like no one really wanted to do that: building something new from scratch that (in theory) didn't have all of the mistakes of X11 would be more fun, and more rewarding. And I get that, I really do. But Wayland has created so much work, so many thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? million+?) of developer-hours of work for people that maybe could have been better spent.

So I think Phoenix is a great idea. It's basically "X12"[0]: removing the old cruft and making breaking changes to fix otherwise-unfixable problems. I imagine most modern, toolkit-using X11 applications would work just fine with it, without modification. Some -- perhaps many -- won't... but that's ok. Run a nested, rootless X11 server inside "X12" if they can't be fixed, or until they're fixed.

[0] Yes, I know that an X12-type thing was considered and rejected (https://www.x.org/wiki/Development/X12/), but I still think it's a better idea, after a decade and a half of Wayland still not being able to support everything we need to port Xfce's components and maintain all of their features.

Forking a project when the issue is that half of the staff left the project does nothing to alleviate the staffing issue, does it?

Valve ships a Wayland compositor that just runs XWayland for apps and doesn't even expose the Wayland socket by default. I'm really not sure how we're supposed to count that.