> Wayland works for almost everyone, and works for more people than is even possible with X11. Most of the lies you’ve heard about ways that it’s broken are just that: lies. And if you insist on living in that fantasy, then keep it to yourself, asshole.

But it doesn't work for me (aka. important features are buggy in the gnome/wayland/whatever stack I am using if I select wayland in gdm). Am I now a lier or an unimportant victim of the March of technology?

I am using wayland on my laptop anyway, as it comes with better scaling. I actually want to like it and I am very thankful for the developers putting so much work into it.

But the rollout, especially of gnome-wayland, was a disaster. It wasn't ready* when it came to fedora and it wasn't ready when it first came to Ubuntu and it is barely ready today. The developers (and some diehard fans) repeatly insisting it was robbed many of any faith in the project.

People are saying so much about it because they tried and something broke. And yes it may be QT's (still problems with clipboard) or Firefox's or Gnome's or Nvidia's (half of all linux desktops) fault, not the Wayland core teams or the Wayland protocol's. Doesn't matter in the end.

* With ready I mean feature parity with gnome-x11. Working for "almost everyone" (and with a very, very, significant almost at that nvidia) is just not good enough. Not if you want to replace one of the most important components of a user's desktops. At least for my day to day usage it is pros and cons, but all the pros are something we learned to live without, all the cons are fresh wounds.