Wow, that wall of text you linked sure is worthless. First of all, you can’t even tell if it’s signed by three different people or a single arrogant one, either way just sad, and in any case it’s only one sysadmin. But you can just scroll to random points without reading and find contradictions.

For example, I scrolled and found the governance part, it says on X11 there’s standardized protocol and changes go through a democratic review process, but the same is true for Wayland, the people who develop Wayland are the same who developed X11, and Wayland is heavily standardized, but the protocol is subdivided in extensions of which many are optional. Then it goes on saying that by contrast on Wayland you have a dictatorship of compositors because each can implement parts of the protocol as they see fit, but this doesn’t make sense because if anything having a single server that decides everything is a dictatorship, while allowing desktops to decide what to support is democracy.

I won’t waste time reading all that, but I’m sure it’s like this throughout.

Also, the IT guy from your local high school is probably a sysadmin managing 500+ computers. It’s not a particularly qualifying position.

Oh, oh, I just noticed another inconsistency without even trying. You know all the babble about hardware support scattered throughout this and most anti Wayland posts, that it’s mostly about nvidia? Well guess what? Xorg has literally worse nvidia support! That’s right, X11 works on Nvidia only because the proprietary Nvidia drivers ship with an Nvidia specific implementation of the xorg server, but if you were to run real Xorg and not Nvidia xorg, it would have the same problem you have on xwayland. Except that with xwayland you get all the compatibility benefits of the recent move explicit sync in Wayland, that you would miss on plain xorg, so you would get all kinds of synchronization issues.