Wayland is not ready as a 1:1 compatible Xorg replacement just yet
&gt; Wayland solves no issues I have<p>This is a common sentiment, but it is kind of funny. Because software engineers working for companies will know the struggle of trying to justify reducing technical debt, improving security practices, etc. but fail to see why these things are useful to them personally when the tables turn.<p>Wayland indeed “breaks a lot of shit” but it’s not an accident or done due to incompetence. Also, it’s worth noting that since there is not one Wayland server the way there is one Xorg server, that not all of this applies evenly. For example, wlroots-based compositors like Sway do not suffer from the screen recording issues as Sway just supports a permissive screen recording API out of the box. I do think the XDG portal idea is a good idea, though, overall, and that the security improvements will be worth the toil eventually.<p>But more to the point, that the problem is that moving away from Xorg as a display server really needs to happen eventually. The legacy is holding back desktop Linux quite a lot. Issues like supporting modern high DPI displays or multi-GPU setups are ones that Xorg struggles with that Wayland can be made to handle more elegantly (in case of DPI, already does significantly.) It’s not just that. There’s tons of weird old crufty garbage in Xorg. Clipboard is weird. Drag and drop is weird. Wayland is simpler and makes improvements that are welcome, like a good API for keeping window configuration synchronized to help eliminate “imperfect” frames.<p>No doubt there are issues. I have some choice words about the decision of GNOME to push for using dbus to communicate cursor size changes on high DPI setups, and I do not like the way client side decorations are favored in Wayland.