> we can finally abandon xfree86

The trouble here for those who use Unix-likes as graphical programming environments is that Wayland is the intended replacement for Xorg, and the quoted statement comes from the perspective of making products for non-technical end-users instead of something power-users (like many of us here) can use efficiently. I will not claim here that it is theoretically impossible for efficient graphical programming environments to be based on a Wayland compositor, but the facts are firstly that currently Wayland based systems are a downgrade compared to Xorg (I think the Wlroots/Sway is currently the only compositor that tries to cater to power users, and the issue with Wayland is also that support from the compositor is necessary and difficult for almost any feature), and secondly that the Wayland design is hostile to features that power users are already accustomed to from X Windows. More broadly, Wayland is actually hostile to features like screenshots that all users of other operating systems are accustomed to, meaning that Wayland is actually causing an unnecessarily ugly image of Linux systems among users of other systems. Causally related to the above is the fact that the Wayland design necessitates great duplication of effort for both compositor implementations and applications that want to be able to use more than one incompatible compositor.

Three days ago there was a discussion here on basically the same topic, and because my comment there[1] is completely relevant, I'm going to mostly just copy it here:

A too common complaint about Wayland (or Wayland compositors, more specifically) is that it is taking a long time to catch up to X11. The elephant in the room is that this situation stems from a deeper issue: Wayland has a horrible design, for an X11 replacement, a design that leads to massive fragmentation issues across the graphical part of the Linux ecosystem. Implementing a Wayland compositor requires much more effort than implementing an X11 window manager and each new compositor implementation reinvents the wheel many times, leaving users with less options for a desktop environment than on X11. Even worse, Wayland does not standardize on or is hostile to some essential features, meaning that users need to rely on compositor specific behavior for those features, if they are even available. E.g., an application that needs to grab the entire screen will need separate code for each compositor it supports screenshots on, or it must use a protocol outside Wayland to get the screenshot. Quoting Red Hat:
> Furthermore, there isn’t a standard API for getting screen shots from Wayland. It’s dependent on what compositor (window manager/shell) the user is running, and if they implemented a proprietary API to do so.

An xdotool (an input event automation tool, imagine wanting to inject or intercept input events) replacement is not possible on Wayland (without having separate support for each compositor, of course). These seem to be intentional design decisions (marketed as being necessary for security, but really being power-user hostile), this[0] Reddit comment puts it nicely:

> It has been almost a decade, why does Wayland not have a protocol definition for screenshots?" - answer - "Because security, dude! Wayland is designed with the thought that users download random applications from the interwebz which are not trustworthy and run them. Wayland actually makes a lot of sense if you don't think of Linux desktop distributions and desktop systems, but of smartphones. But for some reason we absolutely need this technology on the desktop, like we had not enough pain and lose ends over here without it.

But the lack of these features AFAIK also causes big trouble for users with special accessibility needs. Wayland is also, with its forced composition, hostile to interactive applications requiring low latency, e.g. video games.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/7lb5l7/new_screensho...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886074