The things I listed are just the tip of the iceberg. Having studied earlier versions of X like X10, X11, and now Wayland, I could go on and on. What I'm trying to emphasize here is not to look at Wayland through an Xorg lens. I know it's easy to look at Wayland and immediately think it's a rigid protocol that breaks everything, but the reality is that it's a lot more flexible than people realize. Once you understand it, I think the closest thing that comes to mind is "There is no spoon." And just like there is no spoon, there are also no windows, only surfaces, but again, that's only the tip of the iceberg.
If you want an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at projects like p9wl. [0] This is using wlroots to create a proxy between Linux and Plan 9 in order to display windows remotely. Such flexibility is only possible when the protocols are small and composable, which Wayland is.
> As for input latency... that doesn't seem like it was ever a problem.
I never said it's impossible to get acceptable input latency on Xorg. I'm just saying that when your input and graphics go directly through your compositor, the experience is on a completely different level. This is even more true with features like direct scanout, where the compositor steps aside to send graphics directly to the GPU and input directly to the game as it goes fullscreen. It simply makes using your computer so much more pleasant. These input latency issues were exactly what Kristian Høgsberg tried to fix in Xorg, and addressing them was one of the primary motivations behind creating Wayland. [1]
> This is a symptom of what's wrong with Wayland. Wayland doesn't do screenshots.
You're thinking through your Xorg lens again. That's understandable, since you're probably used to it. However, to really understand Wayland, you have to look at it through a different lens. Wayland isn't defective, and it's not trying to be Xorg 2. It's a protocol. It doesn't do your laundry, nor does it take screenshots. It's just there to provide the mechanism for sending buffers to your compositor.
You can think of Wayland as thin building blocks to build compositors, just as you can build window managers on X, except this time, the core protocol does one thing and the libraries already exist. Wayland exists because all the infrastructure is already there in the kernel and in libraries.
The screenshot feature is the job of the compositor. Most compositors already have this feature built in. As I mentioned before, XDG portals exist, and interoperability will only keep getting better.
> Similar situation for input automation and remote control.
I agree input automation and remote desktop are still problematic. GNOME and KDE have their own remote desktop solutions, as do most of the others, but I haven't had a need to use them myself. All in all, Wayland really isn't trying to prevent you from doing things, it's just a protocol.
I'm pretty sure all this will be solved eventually, and I understand the frustration of those who need these features. However, I also understand Wayland and compositor developers taking a careful approach here, and it shows.
> A position of "sure it has major problems, but it's too late now" is not a position of progress.
That's not what I intended to say. The intended message was: the core Wayland protocol is set in stone and won't change, but we can build these things that aren't working and make them work. That is already happening every day. Progress has been steady, it's a lot better than it used to be, and it will only keep getting better. Going from Wayland into a whole different windowing system, I don't see that happening, at least not in the next 60+ years, but I definitely see the whole Wayland ecosystem improving.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRx75piIlxo
[1] - https://archive.fosdem.org/2012/interview/kristian-hogsberg....