And I encounter _serious_ issues when I use X. Neither is perfect, but this insistence that Wayland is "not ready" because it doesn't have certain people's pet features ignores the silent majority for whom it just works and works better than X ever did.
This is not me downplaying those issues some people encounter in Wayland. But I think you're sort of doing the opposite.
Because wayland is 'ready' when X can be properly killed, i.e. wayland is working for essentially all users. As it stands a huge fraction of users have issues with it, because most users have at least one 'pet feature' which they are not willing to give up.
As far as I'm concerned, a technology being "ready" (for mainstream adoption or whatever) means that it works better than or equally well as what it's replacing for most people and at least "well enough" for a significant majority. As far as I can tell, we've been there for a while with Wayland. The vast majority of people don't have to care that they're on Wayland.
X doesn't work for essentially all users. It works for substantially fewer users than Wayland does. There are several features that X is missing, and you might call them "pet features" but they are features that the vast majority of graphical desktop users expect these days.
That's quite the claim; maybe you operate in different circles than I do, but most power users I know still avoid Wayland like the plague. X doesn't have support most of the modern fancy features, yes. But on older hardware, which people with less money usually have, X works.
This is not me downplaying those issues some people encounter in Wayland. But I think you're sort of doing the opposite.
(And, Wayland is not a "product".)