Moving complexity from the layer you only have one of, to the layers where there are many, many competing pieces of software, was an absolutely bonkers decision.

There's just no way to make that make sense.

It's hard to imagine a statement that could fly more in the face of open source.

It's absolutely an essential characteristic for long term survival, for long term excellence. To not be married to one specific implementation forever.

Especially in open source! What is that organizational model for this Authoritarian path, how are you going to - as Wayland successfully has - get every display server person onboard? Who would had the say on what goes into The Wayland Server? What would the rules be?

Wayland is the only thing that makes any sense at all. A group of peers, fellow implementers, each striving for better, who come together to define protocols. This is what made the internet amazing what made the web the most successful media platform, is what creates the possibility for ongoing excellence. Not being bound to fixed decisions is an option most smart companies lust but somehow when Wayland vs X comes up, everyone super wants there to be one and only one path, set forth three decades ago that no one can ever really overhaul or redo.

It's so unclear to me how people can be so negative and so short and so mean on Wayland. There's no viable alternative organization model for Authoritarian display servers. And if somehow you did get people signed up, this fantasy, there's such a load of pretense that it would have cured all ills? I don't get it.