I recently evaluated all of the other distros since Ubuntu 12.10 was such a turd.
What I discovered was that even though 12.10 sucks, it was still better than anybody else's.
1. Mint - slightly less stable than Ubuntu, less useful desktop, it has nothing on Ubuntu
2. Arch - A toy, not a real distro meant for real work
3. Fedora - 17 was decent(except for the bugs), 18 is unbelievably shitty
4. OpenSuse - Are they still around?
5. Mageia - Might be contender someday, but not yet
6. Debian - I appreciate them being the extremely FOSS-minded, but they always have a dinosaur kernel that can't boot a newer PC. Debian Unstable is... Unstable.
So Android comes out of nowhere with it's own display server to become the dominant consumer OS, better than Windows OSX, iOS or anything else. Maybe Wayland isn't as good as everybody claims, and if Ubuntu can write something that's small, simple, and fast, and STILL beat Wayland to market, then why shouldn't they? Should they have also just went with Gnome3 instead of Unity so that they could be as crappy as Fedora 18? Or why not the perpetually buggy KDE? In all fairness though, the latest Gnome3 is so buggy that KDE is probably the stable one now, and I never thought I'd say that. More competition in Linux standards is great, because a some of the current standards suck and need to be dethroned by a new contender.
Those of you that think Ubuntu should wait until Ubuntu 14.10, 16.10, or whenever to adopt Wayland when it's finally ready, probably have no credentials to be telling Ubuntu how to operate. Ubuntu just works, and the only other distro that can make that claim is RHEL and it's copy-cats, and RHEL accomplishes that by sitting on really old versions of software. Ubuntu is the only distro in LInux history that can properly do bleeding edge kernels and other software, I trust them over the armchair-quarterbacks of the internet.
Tablets and smartphones may be where the money's at, but you also need to suck up to developers who aren't going to be coding on either of those two types of devices (unless they are truly masochistic)...
"All the drivers in Mesa that support DRI2 under X and have KMS support can run Wayland today. The reference Wayland compositor (Weston) has no chipset specific code, it's all done through generic Wayland EGL extensions and KMS. The support for Wayland is in the shared Mesa infrastructure, so when driver writers enable a new chipset in Mesa, it will automatically support Wayland."
And please would everyone stop with the anti-gaming rhetoric every time games expose a problem with something. It is a challenge not an insult.
Thanks for pointing out what I was implying - they are FOSS - anyone can 'port' them. It's not that I'm anti-gaming- you don't gotta go rip me a new one - I only said it because I'd rather have a slick/sick Wayland-based business/app desktop at the expense of a slick gaming display server, at least in the first iteration of Wayland.
Wayland's #1 goal is to get Wayland into a usable state so that X can run on it smoothly, paving the bridge for X->Wayland migration, for no one who ever tried to supplant X outright actually succeeded, and now when we have a golden opportunity, perhaps one in a lifetime kind of opportunity, to move away from X while not forgetting X, it'd be a crying shame to allow our egos to blow this one...
Whenever I hear a PR type talking about 'our vision' or something vision related I think: We have absolutely no idea on what to do, no technical skills to accomplish anything, yet we think we are so badass that we will completely change accepted paradigms just so that you know we're unique and somehow superior to the guys that lived on earth before...