Yes, I know Wayland has made some controversial design choices. The fact is, Wayland is the only viable X11 successor, which will hopefully bring more security and stability to the Linux desktop. Regardless of how it pans out, there’s nothing like a bit of competition to drive innovation. I won’t discuss any more politics in this post.
Also a disclaimer: I’m no systems programming expert (though I aspire to be), neither am I an expert in X11, Wayland, or their associated protocols or codebases. This post merely draws on my experiences as an end user that enjoys a highly customised workflow.
Wayland has been the talk of the town in the Linux world for quite a while now, but it seems a lot of important pieces of a modern desktop Linux distribution simply aren’t ready for it.
I’ve been using Wayland only on Fedora and Ubuntu for three or four years now and it has worked pretty well. That’s all with Intel or AMD graphics hardware. I’ve just been blacklisting the Nvidia cards in the laptops I use. They get used in a Windows dual boot but never in Linux.
And yes of course XWayland is used for a lot of things. And so? Are apps not “OS X Ready” if they run X on top of Quartz, or Windows DWM?
Windows is maybe a good example since it runs emulation of two or three older graphics stacks on top of their current Windows 10 one.
I’ve been trying Wayland on regular basis starting from Fedora 28. With latest realease I have no any major issues with it, but of course there are some small annoyances – like not cleaned window back-buffer which cause a momentary garbage to appear on screen, or stattering mouse pointer under load (I’m not sure if this one is Wayland specific or it just Gnome Mutter specific).
Overall, I think it is ready for most desktop users, unless I miss something critical in mine workflow.