> I'm really sad X11 is legacy software myself, as an aside. It's a disaster, sure, but now we have one more layer of "uhhhh..." for all the UX-types to get scared away by: it used to be "(WinAPI) vs ((Qt)/(GTK+)/(Xlib/XCB))", which was embarrassing enough; now it's "(WinAPI) vs (X11((Qt)/(GTK+)/(Xlib/XCB))/Wayland((Qt)/(GTK+)/(???)))" which is just plain annoying for low-level graphics hacker wannabes - I can make a WinAPI app in C that opens a window in a few KB, where as to do that in Linux now I HAVE to support XCB and also write my own tiny UI for Wayland.
That's worse than this: you will quite possibly need features that are not implemented through Wayland, but through each different Desktop Environment, through different APIs, since Wayland ditched many X11(+standardised extensions) features.
Another commentator noted that X will just become a Wayland client when things even out. I suspect that things won't necessarily work out that cleanly/elegantly, and eventually X11 will installed on fewer and fewer devices.
Whatever we're left with will create quite an interesting ecosystem; here's hoping it's not too much of a political disaster.
For me, that means hoping Qt keeps up at the end of the day; it's been far superior to GTK in every way IMHO for some time.
That's worse than this: you will quite possibly need features that are not implemented through Wayland, but through each different Desktop Environment, through different APIs, since Wayland ditched many X11(+standardised extensions) features.