This list sucks. It's basically a complaint that X11 software doesn't work on Wayland while conveniently ignoring patches or alternatives to that same software

This list sucks. It's basically a complaint that X11 software doesn't work on Wayland while conveniently ignoring patches or alternatives to that same software. This is akin to saying "32 bit x86 is not a 1:1 compatible ARM64 replacement" or "English is not a 1:1 compatible Japanese replacement" or "Writing with your left hand is not a 1:1 compatible right hand replacement". They are different things. Why should they be? Who said they should be? Where was it agreed it should be? I don't see anyone in the Wayland community who actually does work (e.g. maintaining the protocol spec or large projects) saying it should be. Also, there are either maintained forks for these (e.g. redshift-wayland for redshift) or straight up Wayland alternatives (e.g. wlsunset instead of redshift). The author even links to the Arch Linux wiki page for Redshift which at the top in a purple banner says "Note: Redshift does not support Wayland [1]. See Backlight#Wayland for alternatives." so that's some nice cherry picking to say the least. So while the claim "Wayland breaks Redshift" is _technically_ true (even though there's a patch) it is heavy implied, I feel, that there is no alternative which is objectively false and misleading. It's FOSS, go contribute if you are this upset; it's not like you do not have access to the entire protocol specification for Wayland, and the source code for each and every single item listed. This kind of complaint would make sense if it was closed source software where you cannot make changes without extreme effort in reverse engineering and potential legal problems with redistributing those patches. Not the case here.