It sucks, I know. Decades of hard work "gone". But think of it this way, isn't it often said you shouldn't be afraid to throw away old prototype code? X is a decades-long foray into graphical computing, but perhaps it's time to throw away the prototype and start over with what we've learned from the process.
I hear this all the time. But so far there was not even one incident where major hack was done via X11.
The reason for that is that people who use X also exclusively use trusted apps. The Wayland security model makes many generic tasks insanely complicated. The real world security gains will be zero. Security through obscurity never worked.
> The reason for that is that people who use X also exclusively use trusted apps.
Well that's just not true. What does trusted mean? Most of the software on our desktops is unaudited. We don't have insight into the entire chain of deployment for more than a handful of applications we feel like keeping up with.
On a side note, that would be a wonderful service; A man-like utility which simply displays change-logs coupled with relevant source-code diffs. Reduces the surface of trust down to one party. Something like that would require financial backing, however.
It's time for something new. This isn't attention-deficit developers at play. People have spent a lot of time on the Wayland ecosystem. This isn't just some kids hacking away in their basements ignorant of better development practices.
You argument holds up for many Linux components, but not for X/Wayland. It's preposterous to take the stance that no component in the entire Linux ecosystem ever needs to be replaced.