Sure, but there is cost to maintaining X. If Wayland is smaller and can achieve the same thing more effectively (more secure, faster, better features for contai

Sure, but there is cost to maintaining X. If Wayland is smaller and can achieve the same thing more effectively (more secure, faster, better features for contained applications, etc...), then that is preferable. Yes, there is a cost to you, as a user, in switching. The benefits of Wayland don't really filter to you as a user in a perceivable way, but if it means that the applications you use are developed more quickly and end up being more efficient and secure, that's a benefit. The reality is that Wayland will be something you use, eventually, because people will support it (because it's better for them to target than X), and so eventually you will need it for something you want to use. That's why I call it a trade off. Right now, would I develop an application only on Wayland? Probably not. In the future, that'll shift and eventually tip - at some point the cost of developing on X will simply be that much higher it won't be worth it. I understand users being risk-adverse and not wanting to change, but the argument of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" has historically always lost in the end. It's rare for a system to have no room for improvement, and X is definitely not such a system. As to, why not do it in X - because X does want to be backwards compatible and stable for it's users. Secuity that breaks fundamental capabilities applications expect can't maintain that. Ripping out the cruft breaks existing stuff. Wayland aims to replace or remove 99% of X, so why work from a basis you are going to use essentially none of?