[talldayo]

x11 is depreciated. It has no active maintainers and barely even qualifies for "maintenance mode" status; the push to remove Xorg can be justified by enumerating the security issues and nothing else.

Strictly speaking Linux is "productive and usable" with nothing but a terminal multiplexer and a shell to work with. With expectations as high as they are in 2024, I don't think former Windows or Mac users will feel at-home with an x11 session. Switching away from bazaar-style software development is a prerequisite for the Year of the Linux Desktop.

[mouse_]

I really do like Gnome and Wayland. I use them every day. That being said,

Bazaar-style software development is the sole advantage free desktop has over macOS and Windows.

[talldayo]

Cathedral-style development doesn't necessarily mean closed-source, but instead reflects the less-modular nature of Wayland in relation to x11. There aren't multiple desktops that are all using the same display server; instead each desktop implements it themselves around a common spec. Plug-and-play software has fewer and more restrictive interfaces to rely on. Modern desktop Linux is decidedly pared-back, which is a good thing when you consider how scarily open Linux is in the right hands.

"sole advantage" isn't correct either - there's a plethora of reasons to use Linux. In the enterprise, people pay companies money to keep their Linux away from bazaar-level patches and randomly packaged repos. More casually, a lot of people don't use desktop Linux for a particularly advanced purpose and just treat it like a Mac/Windows/Chrome machine with fewer advertisements. Some people do very much get a lot of value out of the bazaar-side of Linux, but the comparison between the two styles wouldn't exist at all if Linux didn't entertain both philosophies.