> On the contrary, who's willing to work on it isn't what matters either. What matters is whether the code actually does what people need it to do. That code d

> On the contrary, who's willing to work on it isn't what matters either. What matters is whether the code actually does what people need it to do. That code doesn't write itself. It needs someone motivated to write it. As someone who reverse engineered a video card and wrote an entire X11 driver almost 3 decades ago, I get this painfully. If I wanted it done, I had to do it myself. Both X11 and Wayland have some fundamentally wrong architectural choices. The problem is that both X11 and Wayland are sufficiently "good enough" that the activation energy to get traction above either of them is huge. It's a gigantic pile of grunt work until you get to the fun stuff, and nobody who isn't paid money by a company can muster the motivation to overcome it. And people paid by companies are going to solve the problems they are being paid to solve and not much else. Open source, in general, is having a problem with being stuck in "local minima". Lots of things are good enough to gain sufficient social traction that replacing them with something better is ferociously difficult. (package managers, git, dynamic libraries ... I can go on and on and on ...) It's part of the reason why I don't try to interfere with the "Rewrite It In Rust(tm)" brigade even when I think it's a silly idea. It is now a bigger problem to corral the motivation to do something in open source than gaining the technical skill to do it.