Source? Nvidia's proprietary, closed drivers and the moving target that comes with that means I avoid Nvidia graphics hardware at all costs and I'd thought it was widely known their cards aren't great if Linux is the primary use for your hardware. (Linux is my daily driver and I also develop on/with it, but I don't game at all)
(I have not used NVIDIA on Linux as a daily driver for five years. I tried it again when the open source kernel driver came around, but quickly switched back after realizing it still wasn't stable enough in Sway or KDE.)
[1]: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...
If there's any strong evidence that NVIDIA still isn't winning in Linux desktop marketshare, I'd certainly be interested to hear it, and it would be news to me. I can imagine Intel technically has a lot of marketshare due to laptops, but then again, Intel and NVIDIA users are hardly mutually exclusive on laptops, either.
I'd pay for things to get better here. I desperately hope that Vulkan as an option for compute can mature and compete with CUDA, but I also think that to do so, quite an ecosystem will need to be built up around it, even if the API and drivers prove sufficient to work as a solid runtime.
It is already quite widely known that Nvidia is not necessarily great for Linux desktops. I know people who bought entirely separate AMD graphics cards just to drive their display even if they still needed the Nvidia GPU for compute.
It's usually possible to get Nvidia displays working, but the experience isn't nearly as good as with AMD.
Another highly misleading aspect is pointing out how many years Wayland has been in development. It's true, but it's not like progress has been linear. A vast majority of the Linux desktop ecosystem has been on NVIDIA graphics cards. I reckon Google probably has one of the largest deployments of Linux workstations internally and I believe they've only just begun the transition into Wayland. Thus, it should not be surprising that say, Chromium, has been behind on Wayland support.
While I empathize with people who think that the Wayland transition has been very expensive and slow, I don't really know what the alternative is supposed to be. There WERE and ARE some competing options. There was DirectFB, Mir. Arcan still exists. Probably others. Wayland gained mindshare as the baseline protocol for windowing, and here we are.
Will it fix everything wrong with the Linux desktop? Well, no. However, the painful irony of this post is that practically nobody uses XIM anymore due to limitations, they use out-of-band input buses. So each toolkit has its own plugin architecture for input buses, and then each input bus needs to have plugins for each toolkit, and you need to have the input methods themselves ported onto these. Note that you can also still use this approach if you want to in Wayland, especially important since Qt has been slow to adapt to protocol evolution lately.
All I can say is, it ain't going to be finished tomorrow, but a lot of what Wayland does really is architecturally a step in the right direction. There are some inherent downsides to the approach, but it also TODAY, right now, solves a lot of practical problems that users face that are hard blockers.