You’ll notice the vast majority of the complaints and problems people had about systemd went away when it launched into distros and invisibly did everything init did, often times in a better way. They made big improvements WITHOUT crapping all over everyone’s legitimate complaints and expected features, and things went fine, to the point where I’d say even most naysayers begrudgingly admit they were overreacting.

Compare that to Wayland, which not only didn’t do that, it makes it worse by actively gaslighting power users, mocking them for powerful features in their workflow and demanding they make changes. It’s been active and spreading for years, and the complaints people had on DAY ONE are still there.

It didn’t work for Mark Shuttleworth when he pushed Unity, and it shouldn’t work now. This is not the proprietary Microsoft world where developers can decide they have a new, better way of doing things and take a wrecking ball to the workflows of millions of active users and then scream “my way or the highway”. I do not need others to tell me what is good for me. That attitude belongs in the closed software world.

I don’t particularly care that 80% of users are on Wayland. It’s not relevant - if I cared about what the majority of users were doing, I’d be on Windows. None of that fixes my inability to use Wayland for my daily tasks. I will continue to use X if I have to build it myself and exclusively run outdated desktop environments. I refuse to give up my functionality to add a layer of security that breaks my critical use cases with no option to opt out.