so why create Wayland when we had X? why create another linux distro when there are so many already? why create C if we already had assembly? why create new model cars every year? why architect new homes every year? What you are proposing is we stop making changes or progress.

I don't propose this; I explain the apparent reasons why others do.

> so why create Wayland when we had X

Because X11 had a lot of issues that got papered over with half-baked extensions and weird interfaces to the kernel.

The problem is that Wayland didn't feel like doing the work to make fundamental things like screen sharing, IMEs, copy-paste, and pointer warping actually ... you know ... work.

The problem Wayland now has is that they're finally reaching something usable, but they took so long that the assumptions they made nearly 20 years ago are becoming as big a problem as the issues that were plaguing X11 when Wayland started. However, the sunk cost fallacy means that everybody going to keep pounding on Wayland rather than throwing it out and talking to graphics cards directly.

And client rendered decorations was always just a mind bogglingly stupid decision--but that's a Gnome problem rather than a Wayland issue.