You are right but mind that you also can't compete on Google's scale. Linux Desktop is mostly volunteer work which means the risk of breaking the same things is

You are right but mind that you also can't compete on Google's scale. Linux Desktop is mostly volunteer work which means the risk of breaking the same things is higher because a) it'll take much longer to build something better b) you'll run out of resources/motivation c) you'll get distracted d) you won't be able to test it as rigorously. I don't think it was a bad decision to go the Wayland way at all. But it accumulates because Linux is so fragmented. There's multiple distros, each with their own toolkits, own package managers, own cores etc. And then someone comes along and fragments it at an ever lower level by proposing Wayland. I am sure it fixed a bunch of core issues but look at the cost it will incur: 1. All GUI toolkits will have to support Wayland across the board. Some stuff will break, some stuff will have to be abandoned. 2. After that they'll have to maintain both because it'll take at least a decade or two for everyone to reasonably migrate. 3. The app developers will have to upgrade to this new version of the toolkit. Which they might not be able to do because the changes are too many and too big. 4. The toolkits might even have to backport the Wayland related stuff a few versions. Which would require insane amount of resources. Is the end result worth it? I bet for a long while we'll be having a way poorer experience due to Wayland. The worst case would be developers ditching X too early when Wayland isn't properly stable. Oh man, it's a recipe for disaster.