[dontlaugh]

Wayland doesn't have the kind of abstraction that would allow that, partly since it would make it very hard to guarantee perfect frame rendering.

A lot of what X11 does is instead handled by Wayland "compositors", they deal with almost all such policy logic. This is largely the same situation as on Windows or macOS, which Linux desktops are finally starting to catch up to.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

I can't tell what level of parody we're at; if we're currently being serious, why would xkill or equivalent make rendering any harder than a normal close event?

[dontlaugh]

It would require that Wayland be aware of internals of the "compositor". Instead of that, Wayland is only aware of surfaces, which it can guarantee can be stitched together within a certain time budget. Hence none of the tearing that is unavoidable with X11.

A window close event goes to the "compositor" of a surface, without being aware of which PID may have caused what is currently rendered on that surface.

Windows and macOS do the same, if only because they have a single "compositor"/window manager.

[calvinmorrison]

I don't think it's parody. Wayland is just so kafkaesque not even windows know their own contents.

[dontlaugh]

Windows know their own contents, but Wayland doesn't. "Compositors" do know which PID has which window, though. Hence why there are "compositor"-specific alternatives to xkill.