> variable refresh rate, not having constant screen tearing, support for a modern GPU acceleration (Vulkan)...

These all work under X and have worked for years. HDR support is also possible under X and I'm confident that different refresh rates can also be made to work without breaking applications. The only real difference Wayland brings is the "security" model and for an open desktop OS with trusted programs that's more of an anti-feature. I don't want a consumer appliance but a system where I am in control.

> Plus, I would prefer a system designed by people that cared about actually having clean, maintainable, up to date codebases and protocols, instead of the backwards-compatibility morass that is Windows.

Maintainable is a meaningless buzzword if you throw out the system instead of maintaining it. And backwards compatibility is seriously underrated.

> I think they did seriously consider it.

I have yet to see any evidence of that.

> And sure Linux has never asked people to change what software they use, totally.

Linux is a kernel and one that takes the backwards compatibility of the userspace API very seriosuly. You can use pretty old software on modern kernels just fine. That is what all system components should strive for.

> This is just such a disingenuous rhetorical question. Of course I mean the requirements of a free desktop operating system.

Then your position makes no sense.

> It's also silly, because 90% of the time an "applience" (whether you mean that literally or mean that in the sense of an iPhone) wouldn't be running "untrusted crap," it would be running only applications the company making the device approves of.

And what the appliance operator approves of is more often than not largely untrusted crap that would have been classified as malware only a decade ago.

> Whereas we who are free to run any software we want, from ANYWHERE, on our computers, who aren't forces to run only things that have been signed by our "betters" have more need of something that is secure by default and gives us agency to choose what our apps have access to instead of simply assuming they should have access to everything.

We have the option to containerize untrusted software and we actually have trustworthy open source software available along with a social mechanism to protect us: distro maintainers.

> Plus, the needs of a free desktop OS fundamentally includes being able to run commercial apps which might try to spy on you, or apps you don't completely 100% trust, because unfortunately we live in this dystopia where free software doesn't cover everything and we can be required to run proprietary software to communicate with loved ones or do work or even play the games we enjoy.

A) no it doesn't and if it did you'd actually care about backwards compatibility. B) if you want to run untrusted programs you sandbox just those programs instead of neutering your entire toolbox.

> Poorly, with a ton of unnecessary cruft that we don't need or use anymore cluttering up the code base opening up security vulnerabilities and making maintenance harder.

Meaningless buzzwords repeated without anything to back it up.

> That's why the Xorg maintainers eventually gave up on it and moved on to start Wayland.

Yes, because it's more exciting to develop something new than maintain an existing system if you are not the one bearing the cost of breaking the world around that system. Also the companies paying those developers (mainly Red-Hat) would very much like to sell you an appliance rather than a desktop OS.

> Plus, it's fundamental protocol and model of the world is just wrong and inefficient for the modern workstation, and you can't fix that by just adding more code and extensions to the ball of mud.

Again, a string of meaningless propaganda drivel. There is nothing fundamentally different about a "modern workstation" that makes X not workable. Unless you mean that most modern proprietary software is malware, in which case, again, you avoid or sandbox that malware.

> When the fundamental model the entire code base is built on no longer makes sense for what it's being used for, even if it sort-of works, I think it is.

The fundamental model works just fine and not just sort-of.

> Lmao that's a false equivalence. The problem with Xorg is that the extensions are layered on while leaving in* the old things they obviate. So you have everything you need, but also everything you don't. The whole jungle comes with the banana. Meanwhile, Wayland has a small easy to implement core, and then each DE/WM implements just the protocols they need, so that everything isn't massively overcomplicated, but composable and customizable to the needs of each. Isn't that what Unix people like?

And Wayland also comes with Xwayland. And you are seriously naieve if you don't think Wayland will look different once it is actually able to satisfy all desktop requirements.