The random Wayland bashing seems both completely unrelated to whatever the topic of the article is, and uncalled for. Wayland literally is a protocol that is co

The random Wayland bashing seems both completely unrelated to whatever the topic of the article is, and uncalled for. Wayland literally is a protocol that is communicated over a file (WAYLAND_DISPLAY). Sure, the file is a (UDS) socket, but it is still a file! Also Wayland is purely an userland thing, so it is very much constrained on what primitives kernel has to offer. The way the Wayland section is included there, it seems like author is heavily implying that it is prime example of "spiralling software complexity and bloat", which to me sounds mostly like they do not know what they are talking about. Core Wayland is distinctly smaller and simpler than X11 ever was. Sure, modern graphics (etc) are intrinsically complex and Wayland exposes some that, but it does it mostly by keeping Wayland itself as simple and transparent as possible, instead of making Wayland (or rather its implementations) hugely complex and bloated. But besides this Wayland thing, I'm really confused what the article is actually trying to say and how does the title relate in any way to the content? The intro implies that there are some lessons to be learned from UNIX history, but the article sure as hell doesn't cast any light on what those lessons might be. There is also this implication that we are somehow coding ourselves into a corner, but that is never actually expanded on what they are meaning with that? In terms of lessons learned, the key observation maybe is that UNIX peaked somewhere around SysIII before BSD etc hippies set their grubby hands on it and messed everything up.