What I got from the video was that Apps are using X11 like VNC on a per window basis...not that X itself works like that. Their reasons may be good or bad, but X does not work that way in of itself.

I'm always curious about this attitude: how does being a developer make you an expert on something. Does someone who builds a highrise know everything about the building once it's full of people using it? How does that logic work?

I liked Daniel's video. It provided more detail about X than I've seen from any Wayland link so far and cleared up a lot about Wayland to finally get me interested in it's development. Daniel in particular is the first person I've seen talking about Wayland that I'm interested in listening to since he actually knows facts and can communicate them well as well as have a great attitude about what he's doing
That said, and I know I'm biased in favor of X, I'm very disappointed in the solution to all the problems in X11 that he detailed. Due to issues with how X handles it's job, the solution has been for years to let the client fix it at their end and use very little of X. Avoid fixing X. The Wayland solution sounds like take that work around and build a new display around it. Not encouraging.
From his description I agree: the X11 code cannot be fixed. But, my impression is that as coders/developers they applied a coders take to the problem and came up with a coders solution: Take the code written app-side as a work around and build a design on it. Reverse engineer a design based on code that exists. That sounds really negative and I know that will raise some bile, especially since the standard answer is "if you think they are wrong, code it yourself". Based on that video, there's no way I could code at his level so there's no ground for me to stand on there.
What makes me comment on this topic is that I like the X11 design/architecture and feel strongly it is more useful now than the alternatives (RDP/VNC/etc.) and will be more useful as time goes on. I would like a designers solution in that fix the design, then work towards getting that design coded. From the sound of things, that would mean dumping backwards compatibility with X11 protocol, but I would still rather loose X to a better design than loose it to what I see in the Wayland design. Unfortunately those who would be able to handle that kind of development look to be focused elsewhere...

Or working from their large expensive homes with government purchased expensive teleconference equipment connected through government purchased custom private lines to government purchased electronic conference rooms and telepresence equipment.

Hey, they had their backups setup....just switch some terms around and you can see how they actually DID have backups like they claim. sync happened every 20 minutes....so they kept multiple copies of one backup that was overwritten every 20 minutes. So, their window to detect and fix the issue before overwriting the backup is 20 minutes. no problem, right? What could possibly go wrong?
:)

Do we have yet another case of someone who makes an IT related product thinking they are IT? The mistake highlighted by the article and a lot of the comments thinking version control = backup remind me of the many time some vendor tried to sell an IT product to a company while in my mind the whole time the developer or consultant are talking I keep yelling "you don't get IT, you are not IT, go talk to YOUR IT back at your company...you know, the guys that pull their hair out every time you trash your PC installing dev tool de jour"
developer != IT .

You mean like the centralized distribution of IP addresses?

the filling station model is just wrong for full electric cars right now...I know it seems like a good idea to work up from the existing filling station infrastructure and fill in gaps with more of the same, but over and over we need a new infrastructure model to deal with limits on storage...not charging stations like filling station....power while moving is the trick. A new infrastructure. Keep the battery in the car for making the system easier to put together (not having to constantly power the car, but not relying on the battery to get you all the way to a filling/charging station). Overhead power lines, buried inductive cables, something. Bonus points if you paint chevrons on the powered part of the road to look like turbo boosts in the old driving games.

And I wish every single Wayland proponent would UNDERSTAND the features they say we don't use and we don't need before complaining about those of us that are concerned about loosing a vital feature of our interface. So far, I have not seen any comments from Wayland proponents on Slashdot at least and in none of the sites I've hit to learn about Wayland that show me that they do understand what the feature even is. Hence the constant pushback on Wayland's design.

I watched it, and I'm still not sold on Wayland. This is new info and gets 60-75% there, but it still drops things that X11 does today. Not theoretical stuff, but things actually used in real cases daily...
I'll give an example (even though it's been given multiple time) : you have a machine (server, appliance, corner or closet PC) with No display hardware on it. you run a GUI app on it and send it to the Monitor in front of you over the network. From that demo, with some more software added you might be able to do that eventually, but right now I don't see it as possible or planned.

The problem is even if they "do their job" how much can they do? Microsoft has the advantage of motherboard makers coming to THEM to get a key. On the other hand the Linux Foundation would have to seek out Motherboard makers large and small and convince them to add their key. It's not do-able to get all of them to agree even with unlimited time and energy.
The issue is, what keys come with the motherboard. for now, Microsoft guaranteed. So, the obvious short term solution (although problems like everyone has mentioned) is to ask nicely to use one of the keys that is already going to be on the board. Just not a long term solution, but at lest it lets us continue to have the option of booting Linux in some form without bypassing the boot security (as some have described it: without having to prepare, using MB maker's inconsistent and buggy tools and methods ). And booting demo/live disks relies on not preparing the MB before booting (at least for a lot of uses for live CD's)

replacing an oil dip-stick with a digital gauge that shows a dip-stick image.

you do realize when you talk about kernel changes, only the kernel developers themselves are working in a development environment, right? Production is everyone USING the OS (anyone from the average computer user , computer builders, installers, IT support , etc.) are production uses when it comes to an OS.

So, sounds like AT&T needs to stop dealing directly with customers. Companies like Consumer Cellular, Straight Talk, etc. can get better service from AT&T than consumers...maybe AT&T needs to be just supplier to companies, not end users. Any chance they would be happy as a back-bone supplier in cellular? Or would they still try to eat their customers lunch later down the line by trying to bypass 'em? I seem to remember AT&T going through phases like that in the past...

define "eye" vs "camera"