This is also where I'm at. I don't care what protocol or whatever is running underneath but I just want things to work and Wayland doesn't do that. It has lately been better, previously I would try Wayland and run into problems within minutes, recent attempts have given me hours without running into a problem. And as an end user I don't want to care that the problems I get aren't with Wayland but rather a particular compositor/WM implementation or whatever. I want it to work but it's only in the last year or so that basic functionality like screenshots has become reliable.
What gets me is how old Wayland is. It's now older than Linux itself was when Wayland started. It started in the era of 2.6 kernel series, when most software was still 32-bit, systemd didn't exist, when Motora Razr was more common than iPhones, when native desktop applications were still the norm, Node.js didn't yet exist and Google Chrome was a completely new beta browser. Wayland is now reaching feature parity and some kind of "it works out of the box, usually" state when it's from a completely different era of computing.
The nearest point of comparison is perhaps systemd, another Linux project that is very large in scope, complicated, critical and must interface well with lots of pre-existing software. Four years after Poeterring's "Rethinking PID 1" post that introduced systemd, it was enabled and in use on many distros. The conservative Debian adopted it within five years. Now it's been clearly a major success, but Wayland has been perhaps the slowest serious software product to be in development.
You have some weird memory, screenshots have been a solved issue for something like 6 or 7 years at the very least, if not a decade. I remember taking screenshots on wayland during the Covid era for instance.
Wayland experiences seem to vary wildly. It was most certainly not working fine for me six years ago. Well, six years ago I don't think I got as far as trying screenshots, I'd run into basic window placement or rendering issues that made the system unusable.
But say a couple years ago, I definitely had screenshot issues. Sometimes it just wouldn't capture a screenshot. Or I could only capture one monitor and not the other. Or I had graphical artifacts while drawing the snipping rectangle. Or the screenshot would be taken fine and fail to copy to the clipboard.
I'm well aware people's experiences are very different based on their setup and the implementations used but for me, last year was the first time I could do some work on Wayland without running into major issues, at least until I got to the part where I'd normally use ssh -X.
You have always been able to do ssh -X from a wayland client to a remote X as long as xwayland was running locally.
And waypipe has been solving this need to run a remote app on a wayland remote system. And it performs way better than X forwarding actually. With ssh -X you also need to remember obscure environment variables (looking at you QT) to not have unusable blank windows on some apps.
What gets me is how old Wayland is. It's now older than Linux itself was when Wayland started. It started in the era of 2.6 kernel series, when most software was still 32-bit, systemd didn't exist, when Motora Razr was more common than iPhones, when native desktop applications were still the norm, Node.js didn't yet exist and Google Chrome was a completely new beta browser. Wayland is now reaching feature parity and some kind of "it works out of the box, usually" state when it's from a completely different era of computing.
The nearest point of comparison is perhaps systemd, another Linux project that is very large in scope, complicated, critical and must interface well with lots of pre-existing software. Four years after Poeterring's "Rethinking PID 1" post that introduced systemd, it was enabled and in use on many distros. The conservative Debian adopted it within five years. Now it's been clearly a major success, but Wayland has been perhaps the slowest serious software product to be in development.