Xlibre: The X11 fork that reopens the debate on the future of the Linux desktop

In the vibrant and ever-changing universe of free software, few news items have raised as much dust as the recent appearance of Xlibre, the fork of X11/Xorg that will be released in 2025. We are talking about a topic that not only shakes the technical foundations of the desktop Linux, but also brings with it philosophical debates, personal controversies and countless questions about the future of the graphical experience in GNU/Linux and other similar systems.

If you're interested in the future of the graphical interface in Linux, the eternal struggle between X11 and Wayland, or want to fully understand why this fork has sparked controversy in the community, don't miss the detailed analysis we bring you here. Get ready to dive into the technical intricacies, the motivations behind it, the community reactions, and the social context that shapes the evolution of Xlibre and the history of X11 itself.

The origin of Xlibre: what is it and why did it emerge?

Xlibre was born as a direct fork of Xorg, the legendary graphical server that has supported the visual experience on most systems for decades. Unix and Linux. The initiative was led by Enrico Weigelt, a developer who, although he began actively contributing in 2024 – and was not an official Xorg maintainer as some media outlets wrongly reported – quickly became the main driving force behind the project.

The reason for the creation of Xlibre goes beyond purely technical issues: According to Weigelt, his decision was a response to alleged blocks, boycotts and purges of his contributions within Xorg, especially attributed to employees of large companies such as Red Hat. The developer claims that the demise of X11 in favor of standards like Wayland is being actively promoted., considered more modern but, according to him and many defenders of the old school, with notable functional and accessibility deficiencies.

The Xlibre announcement coincided almost exactly with Canonical's move to remove X11 session support by default in Ubuntu 25.10, leading to numerous theories about whether it was a direct response or a lucky coincidence. The truth is that the emergence of Xlibre comes at a time when the future of X11 seemed more threatened than ever.

Personal controversies, blockages and ideological positions

Xlibre has not only made a name for itself for its technical proposals, but also for the social and philosophical upheaval it has sparked. Weigelt himself has been subject to bans and deletions of his accounts and repositories on platforms such as GitLab and Freedesktop.org, triggering a wave of support and rejection throughout the open source community.

• Weigelt's accusations against some members of Xorg –especially those linked to Red Hat– include the alleged "purge" of their presence and contributions in the repository, closure of tickets and merges, and deletion of their account, which has openly polarized opinions.
• Xlibre's position, expressed in its GitHub README, insists on independence from large corporations and the rejection of policies it considers "discriminatory" or politicized., which has earned him both praise from those seeking a space free of commercial agendas, and criticism from those who see it as an extreme or polarizing position.

The controversy has been fueled by Weigelt's own previous statements, including on social, technological, and health issues (such as Linus Torvalds' public rejection of his anti-vaccine views in 2021), which some in the community find distracting from the technical debate and others find irrelevant to the project.

Technical overview: proposed changes, risks and current status

Xlibre was born with the declared objective of cleaning, modernizing and optimizing the Xorg code, openly confronting the “burden” that Weigelt himself denounces in the base of X11. Among the main technical innovations and challenges that the fork brings, the following stand out:

• Deep code cleaning, with the intention of eliminating obsolete, redundant or unstable components.
• Security and performance improvements, seeking to achieve a more agile and robust user experience, while maintaining compatibility with classic X11 uses.
• Modifying ABIs (module binary interfaces), which means that drivers and modules must be recompiled to ensure compatibility with Xlibre, since older ones may stop working and cause serious system crashes.
• Specific warnings for advanced users: It is recommended to prepare the environment for possible crashes or critical errors, suggesting configuring remote access via SSH or timers, to avoid forced reinstallations if the graphical server hangs.
• Support for proprietary drivers: The most delicate case is that of the drivers of Nvidia, since porting these to the main Xorg branch was already problematic, and in Xlibre there are no guarantees that they can continue to work without errors.

Despite these challenges, Xlibre ensures that virtually all Xorg drivers should continue to work after a recompilation, although the community must be willing to deal with some experimentation and possible initial instabilities. However, the technical community itself has highlighted the need to take extreme precautions when testing the server for the first time, recommending doing so only in testing environments or Virtual machines.

Social arguments and accessibility: the debate with Wayland

One of the key points that has fueled the debate between Xlibre/Xorg and Wayland advocates is accessibility, an area in which X11 continues to have an advantage.

Many veteran users and developers argue that modern environments that rely on Wayland, especially GNOME and KDE Plasma, have significant shortcomings in accessibility and keyboard functionality, making them less friendly to people with special needs. In contrast, traditional desktops like MATE, XFCE, or Unity, which are X11-oriented, continue to offer more inclusive and flexible control, with plenty of options for advanced users and those with reduced mobility.

The Xlibre fork has served as a catalyst for a portion of the community to express concern about the trend of eliminating or deeming "obsolete" classic functional elements that, while they may seem outdated, are essential for many people. This is where things like advanced window management, keyboard-controlled menus, network transparency, flexible key remapping, and support for multiple input and output devices come into play.

At the same time, Wayland advocates – mostly younger – prioritize advanced features such as adaptive synchronization, support for HDR, variable refresh rates and a “safer” design from its conception, although sacrificing many possibilities that X11 has offered for decades.

Criticisms and challenges from the technical community

The technical community's reaction to the Xlibre fork has been very mixed:

• Some voices point out the risks of accepting contributions from Weigelt, claiming that his track record includes repeated build breaks, dangerous ABI changes, and poor code stability management. Some people even recommend banning his contributions to Xorg, fearing unnecessary fragmentation and poor maintenance quality.
• Other developers see it as positive that there is at least one alternative, even if it is a minority one, as long as it has a minimum community interested in keeping it active.For them, the diversity of options is a pillar of free software.
• It also warns of the risk of Xlibre becoming stagnant, as has happened with other forks that ended up relegated to maintaining compatibility with new versions of GCC and little else., without real evolution or significant user base.

Weigelt himself has responded to these criticisms on forums and mailing lists, insisting that anyone is welcome to contribute to Xlibre without discrimination, although his own posts have been controversial for their direct and sometimes confrontational tone.

The question of independence, politics and community

Xlibre perfectly illustrates how in the world of free software the line separating technology, ethics and politics is almost non-existent. For some, the birth of this fork is a legitimate reaction to the growing control of key projects in the Linux ecosystem by large corporations ("BigTech"), as well as the imposition—according to them—of social and diversity policies that can be discriminatory in themselves.

Others are wary of Xlibre's openly dissenting stance toward initiatives such as Codes of Conduct and inclusive discourse, fearing that the project will end up attracting polarized or exclusionary views. The project's own README explicitly states its refusal to adopt a code of conduct equivalent to an "ENOENT" (Unix non-entity error), which has generated some sympathy in some quarters and harsh criticism in others.

The battle between functionality, modernity and legacy

One of the hottest topics is the practical confrontation between the classic X11 model and the "all-in-Wayland" bet of the major distros. In an extensive and critical analysis published on websites such as Dedoimedo and specialized media such as The Register, it is highlighted how Wayland, after 15 years of development, still does not offer features considered essential by a significant part of the community:

• Support issues with VNC, remote desktop, SSH forwarding, custom keys, accessibility options, legacy software, and absolute desktop positioning.
• Complaints from flagship projects like KiCad (a PCB design tool) about issues with Wayland integration, including menus and multi-window handling.
• Criticism of the way Wayland is being "imposed" by major distributions by removing X11 support without functional parity having yet been achieved.
• Constant reference to the elimination of classic options in the name of modernization, which for many users (especially older or disabled users) means losing essential tools for their workflow or accessibility.

For its part, Xlibre is committed to maintaining and modernizing the X11 base, integrating improvements in security and code cleanup, without sacrificing the usual features. (medium multi-monitor, proprietary and open source drivers, professional tools, etc.). The goal is not only to compete with Wayland in functionality, but also to offer a smoother transition for users who are reluctant to adopt “the new” as long as it doesn’t at least match what they already have and need.

Impact, community, and adoption: What future holds for Xlibre?

Since its announcement, Xlibre has managed to generate considerable interest:

• On GitHub, the repository already has thousands of stars and an emerging community. who actively participates in both technical and social debates. The Telegram group "x11dev" has over 500 members, and numerous threads have been opened to discuss everything from code developments to legal and ethical issues.
• The reaction on forums and "programmer social networks" like Hacker News is mixed, but the fork's presence has established itself as a regular topic of debate and monitoring.In some cases, there are even allegations of alleged smear campaigns and information manipulation regarding the origin of the fork, the reasons for Weigelt's block, and Red Hat's diversity policies.
• Under the hood, Xlibre already offers support for a long list of drivers for both input and video (AMD, NVIDIA, Intel, Wacom, Synaptics, etc.), although recompilation is required to ensure proper operation with the new ABIs. The README and official documentation emphasize precautionary measures to avoid irreversible crashes during initial testing.

The existence of Xlibre reaffirms the vitality and the fracture that exists in the FOSS community regarding what the future of the graphical experience on Linux should look like.A clear commitment to progressive modernization or a risky leap toward new paradigms that are not yet fully mature. The outcome will depend on the project's ability to stabilize, gain real support in the major distributions, and gather a community willing to maintain and evolve it beyond the initial controversies.

Thus, Xlibre becomes a phenomenon that goes far beyond the technical. It is a tempered reflection of the debates and tensions inherent in free software: autonomy from large corporations, the constant battle between innovation and stability, the passionate defense of universal access and accessibility, and the inevitable clash of egos and ideological positions. Its future is undetermined, but its emergence has served to reopen the conversation about who should pilot the evolution of the Linux desktop and how to do so without leaving anyone behind.