[kfghkdghje]

security: you can think of x11 as being similar to how memory worked back in the dos world. any x11 client can look at the screen content of any other client, can steal/monitor inputs, etc. in wayland you have a framework called Portals that allows you to grant this access on a limited basis and ensure an indicator is displayed when the screen is being recorded/shared

performance: holy shit it's so buttery smooth, especially if you're on an intel or amd graphics stack. under x11, it felt like it was impossible to actually eliminate tearing everywhere. under wayland (my experience is limited to sway, gnome, and most recently kde) tearing just ceases to be a thing.

[Ferret7446]

> security

Any process you run can already access the memory and files of everything else as the same user.

Wayland's security properties are over-sold and practically irrelevant, and it doesn't help that it breaks a ton of functionality that people need in the name of this "security", like screen readers.

[akimbostrawman]

>Any process you run can already access the memory and files of everything else as the same user.

*When the applications themselves aren't properly sandboxed. If they are with for example firejail, flatpak or snap. Then x11 is a gaping hole like having proper doors in a house but broken windows.

It's not the job of the compositor to sandbox applications.