Having only two major options, X and Wayland, doesn't mean either one is correct. It is generally true that X needs to be replaced, but Wayland is not necessarily the replacement we need. It would be good to have more competition.

On a separate note, I think it's probably true that Wayland has significant drawbacks that preclude it from being an obvious replacement.

▲

LtWorf 5 days ago | parent [-]

I see wayland as the pulseaudio of display.

Everybody is pushing it and trying to convince the people who have problems with it that it's completely fine and their problems aren't important (like blind people being completely unable to use the computer).

At some point the pipewire of display will come along and we'll all forget wayland was ever a proposed solution.

	▲	dTal 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's not really how any of this works. Pulseaudio is both a protocol and also an implementation of that protocol. Pipewire also implements the pulseaudio protocol, hence its compatibility with all existing software. Wayland is a protocol only. Every compositor - and there are many - implements it "from scratch". The "pipewire of display" would simply be yet another Wayland compositor. No one is going to solve the problems of Wayland in one fell swoop by releasing another Wayland compositor. What is actually happening is that problems are being gradually solved by the introduction of protocol extensions, which usually get adopted by other compositors after achieving success in one.
	▲	krupan 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Man I hope you're right