Replacing something featurful with something minimal is silly. The replacement needs to solve the users problems at least as well as the previous solution did.
Decomposing the solution into smaller simpler parts is fine, but you can't just solve part of the problem and expect the users to be happy about it.
Wayland's biggest issue is that it was born out of developer frustration, rather than solving a user problem. As such, users have little reason to adopt it.
It doesn't and other software should and will fulfil those purposes. It has for many users and with a few years, will have for most. How do you think some distros run only on Wayland? What are they missing?
It was actually created because of design issues in x11 that prevented certain solutions to modern problems. I think there was also certain security concerns. I did read a blog about this previously.
No one spends their free time writing software for years out of frustration only. I gather you don't make open source software...
Replacing something featurful with something minimal is silly. The replacement needs to solve the users problems at least as well as the previous solution did.
Decomposing the solution into smaller simpler parts is fine, but you can't just solve part of the problem and expect the users to be happy about it.
Wayland's biggest issue is that it was born out of developer frustration, rather than solving a user problem. As such, users have little reason to adopt it.
It doesn't and other software should and will fulfil those purposes. It has for many users and with a few years, will have for most. How do you think some distros run only on Wayland? What are they missing?
It was actually created because of design issues in x11 that prevented certain solutions to modern problems. I think there was also certain security concerns. I did read a blog about this previously.
No one spends their free time writing software for years out of frustration only. I gather you don't make open source software...