> Wayland was never going to be fully Xorg compatible.
Maybe not, but the fact that Wayland doesn't support an important use case for me is why, regardless of any benefits Wayland may have over X, I won't be using Wayland.
> Neither x11 or Wayland are going away
I sure hope this is the case. I don't care if Wayland exists, I worry that it will become the only realistic option.
> regardless of any benefits Wayland may have over X, I won't be using Wayland.
That's fine. I don't really know what your 'mystery feature' is, but I feel pretty certain it's on a Wayland roadmap somewhere. The same cannot be said for new features in x11.
> I don't care if Wayland exists, I worry that it will become the only realistic option.
It is the only realistic option, if you care about security and isolation. x11 is very flexible and fun, but it's not surprising that the people taking the Linux desktop seriously are pushing for Wayland. It sucks that you're unable to use it for whatever reason, but people aren't going to reallocate development resources to give a dying protocol new features.
> people aren't going to reallocate development resources to give a dying protocol new features.
Which is actually fine by me. I don't need it to have new features.
My point isn't that X is better or worse than Wayland -- clearly the answer to that question is "it depends". I was just expressing the concern that Wayland may eventually become mandatory.
Maybe not, but the fact that Wayland doesn't support an important use case for me is why, regardless of any benefits Wayland may have over X, I won't be using Wayland.
> Neither x11 or Wayland are going away
I sure hope this is the case. I don't care if Wayland exists, I worry that it will become the only realistic option.