>In general, Wayland is moving away from the modularity, portability, and standardization of the X server.<p>This is the core criticism that's been advanced since a decade ago. X is <i>the</i> standard, it's an actual standard. Wayland is apparently both a protocol which is defined by an XML file, a reference implementation, but yet not a standard. It's going to be tough to get it into deployment until it is standardized and finished, so to speak.<p>It also doesn't give me any benefits, the programs I use all use X so Wayland becomes a parent process to X and that's apparently its job. Why not just skip it? X is very time worn and honed to a sharp edge, it can run on incredibly minimal hardware. Wayland depends on a lot more.
> In pkgsrc we've patched the libraries to add kqueue(2) support, but the patches haven't been accepted upstream<p>How open are Wayland's developers to receiving patches to add support for platforms other than Linux?
"Everything is an extension" architecture is great when there's an incentive to promote extensions to some sort of core/standard library and then make them available everywhere.<p>If you look at the libxcb and xorgproto repositories you'll find something very similar to Wayland but for X (an RPC <i>framework</i> for building display servers / clients). The main difference is the X11 extensions are already known quantities thanks to X's monolithic history.<p>Developing a display server standard is a problem that Microsoft and Apple don't have to worry about.