>it's easy for others to read this and conflate "problems with application's Wayland support" as "problems with Wayland".
Yes, it's easy because that's explicitly what they say.
>The following problems are known issues in Wayland protocols or their implementation in desktop compositors, window managers or other layers in the display stack that are beyond our ability to resolve:
So we have two opposite claims. One from the developers of kicad in this write-up with examples and one from you above.
> So we have two opposite claims. One from the developers of kicad in this write-up with examples and one from you above.
You have the organizations maintaining entire Linux distributions with countless applications they support giving their vote of confidence based on their experiences.
You have the organizations backing and developing Wayland.
You have all the developers of Xorg ditching it and working on Wayland instead (the person vocally claiming to pick up the slack recently had almost all their work reverted when it was found to have been completely broken).
That's a lot of people voting with their time (and in some cases, money) on Wayland and its capabilities. So no it's not my claim that Wayland works vs. KiCad devs, it's the claim of everyone that actually have skin in the display server game.
(They will also agree that some features are missing, but things like focus, graphical glitches and performance are not Wayland issues, just application bugs.)
The Wayland developers also include major toolkit authors, and a bunch of them contribute far and wide.
But, to most users, switching to Wayland just means that everything got smoother, and easier ot use, with everything working. Even X11 applications will work just fine. Even if Wayland has an omission that is greatly upsetting to an individual, the X11 mode of the app will usually work exactly like it always have without leaving the Wayland server. Anyone using extremes like "unusable" (or "perfect"!) is not providing meaningful information and can safely be ignored.
It is clear that in the article and this comment thread your claim is the opposite that of the kicad developers. Your comment attempted to make it seem like their article was in agreement with you. That was a lie you wrote rather than actually saying what you meant: that you disagreed with the kicad developers. It's hard to believe you are arguing in good faith after such a disengenous start. Especially given your wild perception of the post-fork reverts of all the code which obviously weren't spurred by code quality but instead the fork itself.
edit additionally: your major re-write of your original post changing this can be hidden from most but I, and others, saw them and responded to the original with quotes in our own comments. This is more evidence for bad faith activity.
Editing a comment for clarification is not bad faith. It avoids misunderstanding and helps those reading it, even if some have already read an earlier version of it. It makes it sound as if you consider comments a battle, with changes being cheating or foul play, which... Is just wrong.
Nothing about my comment was bad faith or disengenious, nor did I say that I agreed with KiCad developers. I just said that, and will stand by, that it is erroneous to read their claims of e.g. performance issues when using their wayland platform code as being an issue with Wayland. If you write new code that is slow, you don't start by blaming your CPU, then your compiler, then your OS, and Wayland is generally known to perform better than X11 by virtue of being designed by people also working on the GPU driver stack.
Editing minor bits like typos, or changing some wording isn't, but completely changing your comment an ~hour later after multiple is. And I get the feeling you know that. You're obviously a smart, capable person. I don't buy the confusion.
Where did your ">it's easy for others to read this and conflate "problems with application's Wayland support" as "problems with Wayland"." go? That falsehood started this particular comment thread and everything it's about.
That statement is both still there in its entirely unchanged form, and still entirely true - quoting the comment as it appears on my screen right now, long after any edit window closed:
> but it's easy for others to read this and conflate "problems with application's Wayland support" as "problems with Wayland"
Yes, it's easy because that's explicitly what they say.
>The following problems are known issues in Wayland protocols or their implementation in desktop compositors, window managers or other layers in the display stack that are beyond our ability to resolve:
So we have two opposite claims. One from the developers of kicad in this write-up with examples and one from you above.