The "X11 is full of security issues" is full if FUD, IME. Like, they say true-but-irrelevant-and-misleading statements like "any program running in an X11 server can view/alter any other program in the same X11 server, and Wayland fixes this" - this irrelevant because common security of practice, IIRC, is to run nested X11 servers and give each program its own.
X11 also has a whole lot of commonly-used security/sandboxing extensions, but these are ignored in lieu of comparing vanilla X11 with vanilla Wayland, and pointing out that only the latter does security properly.
Meanwhile, Wayland forces monolithic design, in requiring the panel, hotkey daemon, WM, etc to be built into the compositor. Essentially, each Wayland compositor is its own DE (not its own WM, despite common misconception).
I want to see X11 die, but Wayland has some serious failures as an X11 replacement.
X11 also has a whole lot of commonly-used security/sandboxing extensions, but these are ignored in lieu of comparing vanilla X11 with vanilla Wayland, and pointing out that only the latter does security properly.
Meanwhile, Wayland forces monolithic design, in requiring the panel, hotkey daemon, WM, etc to be built into the compositor. Essentially, each Wayland compositor is its own DE (not its own WM, despite common misconception).
I want to see X11 die, but Wayland has some serious failures as an X11 replacement.