[wing-_-nuts]

>Arguably the problem isn't the display server

No. If you tell users they should switch to a new display server, you shouldn't be surprised if no one takes you up on it if you don't provide basic feature parity.

If you tell DE/WM devs they should use your new protocol, but say it's now their responsibility to do all these things that the old display server did for them, don't be surprised if it doesn't get much traction.

I don't for the life of me understand why wayland took off. It's provided no benefit to the average user, or DE/WM dev, and a whole lot of hassle.

[bigcityslider]

Was there some other reason distros switched to Wayland? I've always heard X11 was just not maintained well and had too much tech debt, not so much about the security.

From what I remember, Wayland is a thinner layer than X11, basically handing clients pointers to shared buffers for them to write into, which seems better than X11's server approach. Thought maybe people were eager to switch for latency reasons, but this benchmark is showing otherwise. And would think Wayland is more efficient too, but I haven't noticed or heard of a difference.