> X11 is, to put it simply, not at all fit for any modern system. Full stop. Everything to make it work on modern systems are just hacks. Don’t even try to get away with “well, it just works for me” or “but Wayland no worky”. Unless your workflow (and hardware) comes from 20+ years ago, you have almost no reason to stick with Xorg, especially as it continues to get worse and worse when the user experience relies on newer and newer features.
This is not a great way to start an article. You are not going to convince any "it works for me" person to try out Wayland with this attitude. I'll say it: X works for me, what's wrong with my 20 year old workflow?
> Xorg, from the very beginning, only ever had to deal with one display. It did originate from around the 1980s, after all. Having more than one display wasn’t even a thought in their mind, let alone ones with different resolutions and scales. The official docs even consider a “Display” to be the entire Xorg server, with all of its screens combined.
This paragraph seems to imply that X does not work with multiple displays, but I have never had issues with those.
I have nothing against Wayland and I think there are good arguments in favor of it in this article, but they are presented in a bad way. The author seems mad at users for... Not wanting to change a working setup? Do they not realize that most people only care about windows being shown, and not about how messy the internals are?
Sorry, not sorry. It works for me.