> I think you're ignoring most of the motives for Wayland development. I know there are other motives, but it's largely about getting more pretty rendering and

> I think you're ignoring most of the motives for Wayland development. I know there are other motives, but it's largely about getting more pretty rendering and the fact that X has a lot of baggage. Also, I'm still shocked that the only reason on their FAQ under "Is wayland replacing the X server?" is that VT switching is "horrible." > I disagree. For example, xpra (http://xpra.org/ http://xpra.org/) ships images across the wire and works much better for me than X11 forwarding over both local and remote links. xpra is faster for me over remote links, but native X is superior on local links, in speed, simplicity, and also robustness. X11 forwarding is super-simple and rock-solid; xpra is awkward to set up and is rather flaky. I fear that since network transparency is not a core, high-priority feature of Wayland, it will end up having a "second-class" feel like xpra does. Just because network transparency is under development right now doesn't mean it will be good. Their FAQ says it's not a high priority feature, and I've read several mailing list posts from developers that agree with that sentiment. > That looks like trolling. A better link might be http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Wayland-Beyond-X-14320.. http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Wayland-Beyond-X-14320.... My link may portray Wayland in a negative light, but only insofar as yours portrays it in a positive light.