The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

> and I believe its maintainer who says that there are issues with Wayland which make support infeasible.

* Where did they say that?

* What are the issues?

I am trying to narrow down exactly what the issues are. Too much of the conversation is 'something' is broken in Wayland because of 'something'.

I've not had any issues with screen sharing in, like, 3 years.

The problem is that people use video chat clients by vendors that don't give a crap about Linux.

Generalizing: the technical merits of are mostly irrelevant. People use software- or any other tool- to solve actual problems that they have, not because they are prettier technically.

For example, I have been using Pipewire for a while now, because I have to use a USB sound card intermittently. I don't think it is bad, but I wish I did not have to switch card so I could use ALSA directly. I don't care if PW is technically "superior", for me ALSA worked and I could get perfect audio even if the computer mostly hanged.

I use XCFE because I need to get stuff done and XFCE does not change the UI or move buttons around. It does not support wayland. I don't have time to fiddle with config files or to use a DE that churns the UI on each release.

The articles arguing for the technical superiority of always sound like they are scorning the user for not recognizing the obvious superiority of the new thing. Almost like they considered anyone who does not adopt the new system stupid.

> Author at first glance appears as just a user and developer on Linux, in fact they are a full blown Fedora-GNOME-Wayland follower and what I read was a Fedora advertising piece.

I'm assuming you're talking about [0], but I can't for the life of me figure out why you say this. It doesn't mention Fedora once!

> Since the inception of systemd (but this trend is older than systemd, take for example Ulrich Drepper's work on glibc) I tend to notice a pattern, and they are the same as the Apple fanboy stereotype (an endangered specie nowadays).

There's an insinuation here that should be spelled out rather than being made via oblique references to existing stereotypes. What exactly is the pattern you've noticed?

[0] https://orowith2os.gitlab.io/posts/wayland-breaks-your-bad-s...

For one thing, Wayland is a protocol, not a specific piece of software. But mostly, that progress has been non-linear. A ton of it is not about writing code, or even about Wayland itself; much of it tied into the modernization of the Linux and general open source graphics ecosystem, moving it away from being oriented around X.org specifically and implementing modern features like generic buffer management and kernel modesetting. A lot of setbacks have been simply waiting on NVIDIA to support these modern facilities well in their still-very-popular proprietary drivers.

HDR support has been in the works for years. Why? Well, nothing terribly specific to do with Wayland: there has been a ridiculously deep dive into the entire space of color management, wide-gamut colorspaces, etc. to try to build HDR protocols that don't merely just get things out the door, but ideally support current and future use cases for the foreseeable future, have good backwards compatibility and handling of unaware apps, etc. These things are non-trivial and can't be solved by writing code or staring at GDB. (Not to mention there are few drivers that can currently support this, so it's also a bit of a chicken and egg problem.)

That is to say, Wayland is a lot less of a software problem than it is a design and social problem. And as you can probably see, ultimately, Wayland will be nobody's favorite, but hopefully with time, it can at least be everybody's favorite.