If I need none of those, but need variable refresh rate for higher FPS in games, and if I trust my system because I use none flatpacks or snaps, then why not let me continue to use X11? Why not just integrate Weston X11 backend into Xorg and then let application developers to drop support for X11 completely, while letting me keep using X11? Do we need an IPv4 vs IPv6 battle again? Moreover, those «program X uses Wayland, but bla-bla-bla... set this environment variable to use X11 backend» are frustrating.
You CAN continue to use X11. There just isn't much point for most applications especially since XWayland lets you run X11 applications in a Wayland session. Wayland is more efficient than X11. Phoronix recently did benchmarks with games in both and Gnome's and KDE's Wayland sessions outperformed the Xorg session while using less power even though those applications were using XWayland.
"Why not just integrate Weston X11 backend into Xorg and then let application developers to drop support for X11 completely, while letting me keep using X11?"
That isn't how any of this works. Weston's X11 backend, just like the X11 backend of all DEs, relies on Xorg. There's nothing worthwhile from a Weston's X11 backend to implement into Xorg.
"Do we need an IPv4 vs IPv6 battle again?"
I mean the same people who worked on Xorg work on Wayland.They didn't come up with it for no reason. X is a protocol from 1983 and has been on version 11 since 1987. It predates GPUs, OpenGL, compositors, and multi-core desktop CPUs. They actually explain the rationale behind Wayland and what's wrong with X11 in the Wayland FAQ.
