All of this was well known when Wayland was developed. They just didn't give a shit about end-users. They had one or two specific things they personally wanted done, and they made sure that was supported, and that's it. And then a few major players decide they're going to push for this new system to become the system, so it's not just "a bad alternative", it's an unavoidably bad fate.

This isn't the first case like this. The Linux desktop ecosystem has been getting worse for years, as a few major players force systemic changes that make the system more complex, more brittle, and less compatible [with anything that came before it, or that doesn't use the same core components]. I've been using a Linux desktop for 25 years and it's never been more complicated or broken.

It's part of a larger trend of tech enshittification, but seems especially sad in the Open Source world. I always figured a decentralized, leaderless ecosystem could fight incumbent stagnation and selfishness, through the creation of alternatives. But some things there's just no alternative to. And apparently the list of things without alternatives grows.

Linux desktop has never worked for me better than today

If a good bit of what you’re writing about wasn’t “fire and motion” on Red Hat’s part, the effect, at least, is the same: it’s harder to justify picking a distro other than one connected to Red Hat than it’s ever been before.