My experience with Wayland has been mostly positive, with only a few annoyances here and there. But those annoyances don’t exist with Xorg. Without this choice, I would be forced to live with those annoyances until they are fixed, and there would be, of course, no guarantees that this would happen.
Even if we assume that my use case is such an impossibly remote edge case that is not worth the time to implement a fix for it, I still can do without issues using an existing technology, a couple of clicks away. This is the power of freedom of choice, and indeed the real trouble with Wayland.
In short, it’s great that we have Wayland. Competition is good for the consumer. But there needs to be a real viable choice to be made. Gnome has made this very clear: they will stop offering Xorg as an option in the near future. Distributions like Fedora are ahead of schedule on this. And distributions like Zorin OS are implementing this as the default option. Defaults are extremely powerful.
From the user's perspective it's irrelevant why the old screenshot tool, or whatever, doesn't work. It used to work and now it doesn't. The user is being told that the improvements happen under the hood, but those improvements should not come at the cost of the ones over the hood.
If breaking changes need to happen it better be worth the trouble. With Wayland, I'm struggling to see the improvement at the moment; maybe this will change in the future.
To compare this Wayland situation with something we all here are familiar with, the numerous issues that the Zorin OS 17 release is going through, take a look at this recent thread, titled "Why upgrade from 16.3 to 17.1?".
As with Wayland, I've only experienced a few issues here and there with Zorin OS 17 (granted, I only use it in a virtual machine). But, as with Wayland, at the end of the day, I need things to work. I honestly don't recommend people to upgrade to Zorin OS 17 unless they have good reason for it, like the need to run newer versions of a library, kernel some other software. I give the same advice when this comes up even on the latest version if Zorin OS.
In theory, the benefits of Zorin OS 17 more than justify making the upgrade. But, to quote Linus Torvalds:
Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time.
That is the trouble with Zorin OS 17, and indeed the trouble with Wayland. For as long as there are issues to resolve that impact the user experience, it should remain an alternative to Xorg, not the default, and certainly not the only viable option.
With all that said however, there's something that I'm really curious about regarding the security aspect of Wayland and Xorg. Everywhere I looked online it's stated that Wayland is more secure than Xorg because of how it's designed, and how Xorg allows any running program to read the contents of any window in the display server (and please forgive me if I'm misusing some of these terms).
Only here have I read from Aravisian that this is not the case, at least not anymore. I would really like to know more, but I'm not proficient enough to read directly from the source code. So, is there a proof of concept that demonstrates this or some other source that compares the security mechanisms of Xorg and Wayland?