I think it's fair, since every one of those distros ships an X11 fallback. I desperately want Wayland to succeed but exaggerating its current wins won't get us there.
I don't want this post to focus on the negative, though, so I'll suggest a more positive argument: the people who would have been responsible for a hypothetical X12 instead decided to make Wayland. I can't think of a body of experts more likely to make a correct decision, so I have confidence in Wayland as the path forward.
Fair. I'll admit there are a few rough edges, mainly caused by some apps (Slack) having older versions of certain libraries that makes some functionality (like screen sharing) break.
Dudemanguy wrote about its deficiencies 2022-06-11 [0], ex lack of feature parity with X11 and self imposed limitations like only allowing integer scaling (ie to get 1.5 scaling, it uses x3/x2 scaling). For some perspective, consider checking other hn reader reactions to this post [1].
To be fair, I'm on an five-year old laptop with NVIDIA and since last year it almost works well enough to be a daily driver. For some weird reason Chromium doesn't render at all, even though Chrome does. That's the only remaining bug of significance.
Whereas when I tried a year before I had to bail after an hour because many applications would just have a black screen.
It kind of feels like it will take only one more year for this to work well enough (except then the laptop might be so old hardware support ends up lacking)
I have to disable hardware compositing on X11 to get a reliable desktop (and HW rendering in individual apps like firefox). I'm not sure if something similar is possible on Wayland.
Obviously it doesn't work if your workaround is disabling it. It is either bad hardware, or buggy driver. For the latter, it has to be some obscure hardware; popular hardware would have it fixed.
I have been using linux for over 20 years and reliable hardware acceleration has always been more "miss" than "hit." This goes all the way back to having to disable hardware cursors on my very first linux setup. I hear the amdgpu driver is pretty solid, and the i915 driver I use on my laptop is great. Nvidia is just a mess (nouveau and the nvidia binary drivers are differently buggy) and the radeon driver is complete garbage.
My first linux machine was 386 with Trident 9000, running Slackware, so I'm pretty aware how linux hardware support developed over time. Maybe I was lucky in picking my hardware, but buggy basic functionality was a big exception (minor bugs were there, like in amdgpu cursor not picking the same LUT as the framebuffer, and being jarring white compared to redshifted desktop; incidentally, windows driver had the same issue at the same time).
Not implemented functionality - sure. I've never got TV out running on Radeon 7500 (RV200) during early 2000s, for example. But basic functionality (today), like freezing texture mapping on a hardware, that has 3d driver implemented and that driver comes with distro, no. But then again, maybe I was lucky in my picks.
