> X11 is not actively developed, a fork is.

Xorg is not actively developed. X11 is fine.

Both are in maintenance mode?

Red Hat and Canonical made their calls, and basically every other desktop environment outside of their control as well. Some were late, but are now here. Outside of legacy systems, I just don't see why people are going out of their way to get back on X11/Xorg outside of perceived FOSS politics and posturing. See - XLibre code of conduct and the Arch fiasco.

	▲	yjftsjthsd-h 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Red Hat and Canonical made their calls, and basically every other desktop environment outside of their control as well. Thankfully, that's not really how open source ecosystems work. There are still people interested in both using and developing X11. > Outside of legacy systems, I just don't see why people are going out of their way to get back on X11/Xorg outside of perceived FOSS politics and posturing. Well, when Wayland supports the features that people use on X11 I suppose we can discuss it. As of the present day, moving "forward" to Wayland would mean massive regressions in a11y tools that I'm not willing to give up just yet, and accepting a fragmented landscape where questions like "how do I change the keyboard layout" or even "is it possible to change the keyboard layout to anything but us+qwerty" are "It Depends™, what compositor do you use" (because Wayland deeply believes in reinventing the wheel over and over again, forever).

▲

Gabrys1 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn't X11 a protocol (and version 11 at that)?

Being a protocol doesn't mean it can't be actively developed (look at HTTP at least), but if it's good it doesn't NEED to

	▲	yjftsjthsd-h 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, X11 is a protocol, which is still slowly developed by adding extensions to it. Whether it does or doesn't need to be actively developed is a question of what features you do or don't think it needs.