@Blinky
I've watched some of the presentations about Wayland as it has been described at various Linux conferences, and while I agree that some X.org developers have become Wayland developers, that doesn't mean that they've carried across the things that makes X11 so useful.
The primary example is XWayland, which the main project just see as a relatively minor compatibility component for legacy systems.
But treating it like that just goes to show that they've ignored the primary purpose of X11. It was always meant for remote systems, and having the clients running on the same system as the X server was just an example of a normal session. Originally, even though both components were running on the same system, it still went through the network layer, so it was not even a special case, at least not until they added the shared memory communication model in X11 release 3 or was it 4.
But the X11 model does not work that well for accelerated graphics, client side rendering, high bandwidth windows (e.g. video) and a number of other things that are expected to work well when running on the same system, like desktop workstations. Over the years, there have been extensions added to the different implementation of X servers to allow some of these things to be more efficient (like Xrender, Xv, Mesa and Vulcan, and many others), but these have often been seen as just patching holes rather than fully embracing what is needed for high performance graphics systems.
When Wayland came along, I was interested, but felt that over time it has concentrated on same-server graphics systems at the expense of the original design goals for X11. Thus, as I am more interested in graphics-over-the-network, and with legacy Unix systems that are never going to receive native Wayland support, I've tended to stop following Wayland, and go back to core X.org with the necessary extension on my Linux systems.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
