> they don't want to do without features and performance they currently have FWIW I do agree about the features problem, especially on Ubuntu - where I can onl

> they don't want to do without features and performance they currently have FWIW I do agree about the features problem, especially on Ubuntu - where I can only assume they have altered Wayland/Mutter just enough to break screen sharing. I don't have the problems on my personal NisOS machine, although to be fair I haven't used GNOME on my personal machine in >1y. Then there's also missing functionality, such as input emulation. I can absolutely see why someone wouldn't use Wayland from this perspective, even though I "deal with it" for one major reason: Performance. Wayland uses significantly fewer resources than X - as demonstrated by laptop battery life (like-for-like, GNOME Wayland vs. X). I lose about 30% to X, which is 2 hours during light usage. There's also the latency - where I suspect that people who claim to "not care" have not experienced using a GPU accelerated terminal on a >=144hz display. People are adverse to change (which is fine), haven't tried it in earnest (which is also fine), and yet have strong opinions about how bad it is.