Because usually the part "my current xorg-based setup works well enough for me" is not true. It will be said, when it comes to wayland, and they don't want to switch... but once hidpi or mixed-dpi displays or reliable screen-lock or something other comes on topic, then suddenly "linux" (not xorg, but linux) is behind the times, doesn't work out of the box as other systems do and requires hours and hours of configuring.
That's the "my current xorg-based setup works well enough for me" in the full glory.
> Because usually the part "my current xorg-based setup works well enough for me" is not true.
case in point. What do you know about my current setup for example? it works remarkably well for me.
Stop making the whole wayland thing look like a bunch of annoying people.
Same rehash the same arguments of Linux vs Windows that people have been having for years. It's turtles all the way down :)
It's only less common nowadays around these parts since tux has become far more usable day-to-day in the last decade.
Look at the sibling of your comment (link for brevity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26004250).
They might care a little bit more when their only interactions are with snarky people going "sO yOu StILl CaN'T tAKe ScReEnShOts oN wAyLaNd haHaHa sHiTtY sOftWare", or legitimate assholes.
- if you rely on something that doesn't currently work on wayland and you write about it on (for example) hacker news then you're the asshole and you should be dropping that something and switch to wayland (which of course, most of us cannot do)
- if your current setup works and you'd rater spend your time doing your stuff instead of rebuilding on wayland, you're an asshole
rinse and repeat.
Most wayland advocates can't seem to understand the philosopy of "I don't really care about xorg vs wayland, my current xorg-based setup works well enough for me, i'll switch when I can be equally productive on wayland".