Wayland is pushed by people, who do embedded Linux. Think: infotaiment system in your car. All UI is pre-installed and fixed to one (maybe, custom) toolkit, custom "window manager" (and it is not full-featured WM, as X11 ones are, as you can not move and resize windows arbitrarily), one theme, no remote access, very low response time.
It is better than both X11 and plain framebuffer in this role, for sure.
Wayland is pushed by people, who do embedded Linux.
Maybe when Wayland was started. But X.org is now effectively unmaintained and most of the core X.org developers are now working on Wayland. From the release maintainer of X.org:
So here's the thing: X works extremely well for what it is, but what it is is deeply flawed. There's no shame in that, it's 33 years old and still relevant, I wish more software worked so well on that kind of timeframe. But using it to drive your display hardware and multiplex your input devices is choosing to make your life worse.
> So here's the thing: X works extremely well for what it is, but what it is is deeply flawed. There's no shame in that, it's 33 years old and still relevant, I wish more software worked so well on that kind of timeframe. But using it to drive your display hardware and multiplex your input devices is choosing to make your life worse
This implies it's a choice made in isolation, rather than with the matrix of WM features and hardware support driving.
People aren't "choosing" Wayland or X in large numbers. They're making decisions like "I'm using distro A which ships Wayland by default" or "I want a tiling WM and have nvidia hardware, so I have to use X".
I've done a spot of embedded linux programming before and it is a royal PITA to do anything but the simplest graphics. I can easily see a role for Wayland for that.
This is a great answer, thanks. Also, the comment about GUI isolation for security makes sense (though I suspect x11docker would solve the security issues as well). Seems like Wayland is on track to be a good solution for a niche use case.
