> 99.9/100 Wayland beefs are based on ignorance and regurgitation of others' ignorance
That's irony right there.
Virtually every criticism of X11, that it's "inefficient" or "insecure" is based upon ignorance and regurgitation of other's ignorance. And it was that ignorance that lead it to be left unmaintained and developed for 15 years while the former devs worked instead on an awful, less efficient, replacement that only has superficial compatibility and still, today, lacks critical features - some of which the devs are actually opposed to like applications giving hints as to where their windows should be positioned upon opening.
Basically we have a bunch of clowns who replaced the experienced X11 developers who were leaving, who didn't understand the code because it was old fashioned C and part of an application that, after 15 years, had inevitably become a little rough to maintain, who decided the protocol, not the code base, was the problem, and who really only had one legitimate reason - in the mid-2000s - for criticizing the protocol, which was back then it was difficult to add much in the way of security to the protocol so applications can't spy on each other.
And why was that? Because 15 years ago it wasn't possible to give applications unique identifiers that could be used to give them different privileges without integrating X11 into the OS itself.
So they waste 15 years developing an entirely new X11 replacement that cuts out functionality users actually use because "it's insecure" and create new ways to do the same thing but in an awkward kludgy way, only for the rest of the GNU/Linux community to wholly embrace containerization for desktop applications, and, woah, wouldn't you know, but containerization makes it possible to give applications their own individual identifiers so they can now tell an X server that they're Firefox, OpenOffice, and program-pretending-to-be-firefox, and the X server could - if they'd added the protocol - determine these are three different applications and should have different rights, preventing the latter from getting Firefox's privileges.
Nobody has implemented that extension because it'd literally blow all the serious reasons for Wayland out of the water. But it is now possible to implement.
So what's left? "Efficiency"? Wayland is less efficient, it has measurably poorer latency, and this is a design issue, not an implementation issue. The only reason this might be a surprise to anyone is there are still Slashdotters unaware that X11 generally doesn't run over a network and hasn't been reliant upon network protocols since the early 1990s. Memory usage? A traditional Wayland stack is a bigger memory hog than X11 ever was. Better maintainability? Wayland isn't modular and the entire protocol, not just the code base, and everything reliant upon it will need to be thrown out the next time a major change happens - by comparison it took a few months to add compositing to X11.
But sure, it's the Wayland critics who are "misinformed". Your entire shitty windowing system is based upon misinformation. It's literally why it exists - people being unaware of the implications of X11's SHM extension or not realizing that user space security improvements over the last few years had even made the (already less than convincing) X11-can't-have-security argument obsolete.
Go away, and take your crappy functionalty-impaired windowing stack with you.