For most commercial software vendors that go out of their way to support Linux, it will account for less than 1% of their userbase. It already doesn't make any commercial sense for them to support it -- in a lot of cases it will be the project one or two passionate programmers that ported in their free time, and vouched to support it themselves.

They already have to deal with the fact that if they're shipping binaries that they actually want to work, they have to compile their own compiler, libc, libc++, Xlib, static link everything, don't touch anything the system provides, dynamically load the things you can't get around, test multiple .so paths for different distros, etc, etc, etc...

Now, on top of that, they're being asked to support a second completely different Window System layer, that an even smaller percentage of people use (and who mind you all also run Xwayland).Unlike X11, Wayland doesn't have one de-facto standard implementation, and the spec doesn't define anything - some common functionality is provided through different incompatible extensions, and some common functionality is not supported at all.

I was trying to set up my VR headset for Linux a few week back and I saw [1]. Feature disparity is so bad that Valve, the biggest corporate proponent of the Linux desktop, concluded they just can't support SteamVR on the biggest desktop environment, and basically tells you to switch to X or another compositor.

That's without going into the technical insanity of the protocol, like using sockets and a client-server architecture for something that can't actually run over the network, because Linux developers just can't envision a form of IPC that doesn't pass through the kernel and take 2ms, or the fact that the standard client library can't be static linked by default without you rewriting its build system.

If one day X11 dies, it will be because Linux has settled on the Win32 API, not Wayland.

[1] https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/18A4-1E10-8A94-3D...