This is like arguing with someone on the phoronix forums and I'm genuinely disappointed. This isn't basic functionality, it's a complicated design choice and just going: "do it the same way everyone else does lmao it's not that hard" while ignoring all the problems this has caused over the years is incredibly disingenuous. I get it, you just want Windows, or MacOS or whatever traditional, windows inspired never-changing desktop UI you're used to. You don't care about things like different screen shapes, scrollable compositors or enabling new window management strategies. Ironically, most people can already have that with current Wayland compositors. It works fine for the vast majority of users. What's so "ivory tower" and "not real world usage" about that? I'm using it. I have been since before it was made default in Fedora, because it solved my screen tearing issues immediately. I'm using it at work and at home. It's fine. Yes there are missing features. No, it's not "basic functionality" or complete deal breakers for everyone but a tiny subset of users. That obviously doesn't stop some people from blowing it out of proportion apparently.

Fine, pivot to complaining about the pace of development instead. I'm sure everyone who has been successfully using Wayland for years is going to see your vague hints of what's wrong with it and the Wayland devs will go back to working on X.

I should know better than to engage with someone willing to throw around meaningless buzzwords like ivory tower design.