I get it's useful. I know people love it. I've used it myself. I realize that may be 95% of what X has that Wayland doesn't that people are interested in.

My question is, what is that other 5%. He said "every advantage", I'm trying to find out if there is only one advantage or if there are others.

Seriously, though, the Wayland effort appears to be throwing out every advantage the X11 display had over the Windows display for a replacement that will probably never be quite as good as a Windows.

Emphasis is mine. Other than network transparency, what advantages did X11 have that Wayland doesn't? What other advantages did X11 have period?

Losing network transparency will effect some people, but there are some solutions to that. I'd wager the majority of linux GUIs deployed in the world don't use that feature (between embedded stuff like TiVos, normal desktops, TVs running Linux, etc). But I can tell you from more than 10 years of following Linux development that no one seems to actually like X11. From what I've read the various GUI developers seem to love Wayland compared X and can't wait for it to take over. X seems to be a giant ball of mud that's always getting in peoples way, hampering performance, and a pain in the ass to configure. The fact that it handles hardware setup, drawing, input, network transparency, fonts, 3D, and so much more it's clearly not following the unix philosophy of small tools doing one job.

Every time Wayland comes up, people come out of the woodwork to declare it a failure because it won't run over a network, but that's the only real gripe I've seen. You say there are others, I'm curious to know what they are.

I guess I was thinking of the iPad 1, although you might be able to get closer refurb. I still think the battery life is a big issue. An extra $50 to add another 4 or 5 hours of battery life would have easily been worth it.

Given that you can get generic "real" laptops for about that price, I'm still don't see a real compelling argument. The 3G is nice, but you don't get much data. At this point the average user has no idea these things exist, and I'm don't think this new model is really going to change that.

It feels more like a "we can make cheap computer and OS too!" kind of project than a real effort at making a dent in the market.

So it's slightly cheaper than an older iPad, but gets worse battery life. It has a fraction of the software of an iPad, and isn't as easy to whip out and use since you have to fold out the keyboard. It's less features than an netbook (which you could restrict down to be malware free) but at the same cost.

I'm just not sure about the value on these things.

For the record, I just Googled "Samsung Jelly Bean" and found that story. I wanted to choose a phone I knew was popular so there was a chance at having data. I didn't know it had compatibility issues, I simply recognized the name and figured it might make a decent comparison.

By "across all their devices" I simply meant that people were upgrading. I didn't mean that as a jab against the Android release process (which I know is a disaster due to the carriers, what isn't that carriers touch).

I simply meant "this well known Android phone got an update, in a similar time frame to Apple, how many people updated that phone"? I wasn't trying to compare the full platforms.