Since X is supposed to be eventually abandoned for the desktop, a future with X and Wayland would have mean this problem would be temporary, and that you could just write for Wayland without much trouble. The same would have been if Mir were there before Wayland, a Mir versus X would have mean only temporary problems and nothing that serious.
Has anyone seen this comment from Mark? What is he talking about here - any responses from Wayland devs? Is there some facts so far in the Wayland development that support Mark's thesis or is this just a hunch/assessment from Mark?Finally, yes, I think Wayland is repeating the mistakes of X, and I would like to have a fast, lean, clean option that does not.
It's not honest, it's marketing.
The x11 developers are well aware of x11 faults. They even created x12, at least in the paper. But in order to make complete distinction between x11 and it's sucessor, they called it Wayland.
Yes, the developers of x11, are essentially the same that develop Wayland!
They are well aware of x11's faults, and Wayland's aproach is completely different and thought off in a way as to avoid the mistakes of x11.
So, if Mark indeed made such a statement he is one of the following:
As for all the bs you said, you should check how different is Mir from what Wayland proposes. For a start it uses quite a few Wayland's solutions.
And XMir sure repeats X errors, and you praise it anyway.