Linux

X11 would have needed almost a complete rewrite. Wayland made sense. Eject the technical debt and focus on your use case. We aren't time sharing on a large central mini computer/mainframe anymore. And even then they generally are full single user systems run in parallel under a hypervisor these days. As wasteful as that might be.

But there's still occasions when you need to run a legacy application on old AIX, Irix, etc, or vax Hardware. And need a workstation. Which right now Wayland simply can't do without x.

Yep absolutely. It's been years since I've done that myself. But there's lots of Legacy software out there. Especially on Legacy systems that are not being developed for at all anymore. That will continue to require X11. One of the other more Niche uses which Wayland doesn't support I believe are multi graphical users on a single system. Again probably something I don't think I've messed around much with in the last decade. But it was a fun feature. Wayland is much more focused on a single session.

We'll get there. Honestly I think in the long run Wayland will be easier to troubleshoot and maintain. But then that may just be memories of troubleshooting XFree86 back in the 90s. I still have flashbacks.

Most new users won't even know that there is a choice until they're presented with it, and most will just stick with the default option anyway. (which most distros have/are switching to wayland)

Respectfully, disagree. A lot of the new modern users are into gaming. Something which Wayland specifically does better. I'm not just speaking from personal experience. Yes you could game under X11 before. But it wasn't as smooth or without issue. I 100% have seen performance increases and stability increases after switching to Wayland with regards to gaming workloads.

Those who don't care, don't have anything to say and should not the deciding factor. Why count voices who don't care?

The top comment in the linked article pointed out how that chunk of text was less than truthful:

There’s definitely regressions that need to be fixed, but the way it is presented here is just misinformation, mixing things like project-specific bugs and misunderstandings in as Wayland problems.

*BSD is officially supported by Wayland and by several display servers (a better state than for X11 where the *BSD’s had to patch things quite extensively downstream), the graphics tablet thing is a KDE-specific bug, and global hotkeys is available in some display servers through XDG portals (albeit a bit slowly), and using multiple independent mouse cursors is very specifically a Wayland feature (wayland multi-seat). Restoring window state is also supported, it just works differently than X11, and sway at least supports global fullscreen the same way as i3. [...]

The other comments pick out the other issues the top comment didn't go through.

Yes for many it's not. Lots of those issues, while actual issues. Are niche issues. Issues I've personally had brushes with in many cases. As someone who's used Linux and BSD since the early 90s. I know I'm not the average user these days. And I know X had it's own similar issues over the years. Still does. For the average person using a single screen who doesn't steam Etc. Wayland provides a very good experience. All the edge issues will be addressed individually as they were with X.

While I would like to see BSD support as well. Part of that is on the BSD devs and community. Many who are against it. There's lots of areas BSD is unfortunately falling behind in. But that's not everyone else's problem. I would love to be able to run a BSD desktop. But it simply doesn't have the software or support I look for. And that's okay