hearing linux old heads complain about wayland is really strange as a newcomer, because the most intractable problems i ever encountered were caused by x11, and were immediately solved when i switched to wayland.
(that switch also coincided with switching from nvidia to AMD, which probably helped, but i was told some of my issues were specific intractable problems with x11 itself, not with nvidia drivers)
specifically, x11 could not work with my monitor setup - a high refresh 1440p monitor paired with a 60hz 1080p one. I was told x by design could not handle monitors with different refresh rates, so i had to limit everything to 60. but wayland handled it without issue out of the box.
i also had issues with vsync, vrr, and crashes in various games running at high refresh rates. these were also solved when i switched to AMD/Wayland, but it's hard for me to untangle how much of that wass Nvidia vs AMD or how much x11 vs Wayland.
i get that wayland uses more resources, so i understand why people who like running linux on older hardware prefer x11. and since i don't really understand the technical details of it all, i'm open to the possibility there are some things about wayland under the hood that aren't ideal.
but the comments about wayland being a worse user experience just don't ring true at all to me. x11 was the source of some intractable problems for me, whereas wayland has "just worked" (at least in linux adjusted terms).
deafhobbit
Seshan "Seshpenguin"