> Yes but if more than 50% of the GUI softwares you run fallback to XWayland (including terminals), it makes no sense. For an Arch user, that 50% may be valid

> Yes but if more than 50% of the GUI softwares you run fallback to XWayland (including terminals), it makes no sense. For an Arch user, that 50% may be valid since the distribution encourages the use of an eclectic mix of software. On the other hand, most Linux users will be using distributions based upon Gnome or KDE. In those cases The majority of software will run under Wayland. It's also kind of weird to dismiss Xwayland due to it adding overhead. Traditionally, X applications could be displayed upon a completely different machine from what they were running on. This could be a dedicated X terminal, and even a Windows or Macintosh computer. I would suggest the only reason why X is thought of as a native graphics stack is due to the rise of Linux (and, to a lesser degree, BSD) on inexpensive personal computers.