Overall, this a refreshing change to the normal crop of anti-Wayland coverage. There are some important issues raised. By the end though, he kind of lost me. I

Overall, this a refreshing change to the normal crop of anti-Wayland coverage. There are some important issues raised. By the end though, he kind of lost me. I sometimes lament that too much choice hurts the success of Linux. I rarely think that it hurts the quality of the ecosystem in the long run though. If the Xorg mono-culture was a good thing, I hope we are all reading this is a Chrome browser. Wayland compositors are to the Linux desktop what web browsers are for the web. In the long run, more is better. All the same arguments can be made for the dev convenience of only having a single implementation. In the short run, a single implementation can be higher quality and innovate faster. Over time though, a diverse ecosystem with competing implementations delivers better results. Also, while Wayland progress has been slow, the idea that it will never improve does not ring true. The article has to be updated with “surprise” progress. The same is true of “someday” features like HDR that are already upon us. NVIDIA has been a long road but there has been a lot of recent progress. Overall, the idea that Wayland adoption will stagnate from here may resonated a couple of years ago but heading into 2024, it seems clearly wrong. In just a few months, KDE is going Wayland only. RHEL is going Wayland only ( and hence GNOME realistically ). Wine is adding Wayland support at a rapid pace. I expect the Steam Deck to go Wayland only at some point which will drag the Linux gaming scene with it. All the significant Desktop Environments have near-term Wayland plans ( Cinnamon just dropped a preview recently ) and even many niche choices are looking at it or have Wayland equivalents. Again, the article raises some great points. Things could have been easier. However, the overall thesis is not one I can get behind.