Indeed, it's common nowadays to label things (ideas, people, etc.) in order to frame them in a way that's convenient to the labeler and helps him advance his agenda. I think given the global situation, some people become more sensitive to this kind of tactic (which is often used), while others have shown just how susceptible they are to it.
The author of the software didn't attack anything. He just pushed some code into a place he had legitimate control of.
Some irresponsible (see what I did?) developers downloaded and executed this code without checking, and as a result their stuff broke.
Well, people _are_ entitled to telling other people their thoughts. You say "complete lies" but it's not black and white. This devault post is an emotional hyperbole, and you're just dragging it on.
Welp, as a user of Xorg I'm fine with what I have. You seem to be playing on both senses of Xwayland both being Xorg and not being Xorg, but Xwayland will continue to be irrelevant to me.
You say "now or never" but I've no idea what you're talking about. Your reply makes zero sense. If there's any trouble in the future, I'm sure someone will step up, as I said.
Why would Xorg users care about XWayland, or new releases or contributor patches?
Those who contribute to Xorg and feel stuck could step up to maintain it, if they wish. (Don't they do it already?)
If they don't wish to maintain it, maybe their contributions are a waste of everyone's time? (Then again, maybe they get paid to do it, in which case it's their money-misery trade-off to make.)
Over time, Xorg users may indeed need fixes. Then, I'm sure someone will step up.
Sure, I can understand people working on software X for a long time getting fed up with it and start working on software W.
I can also understand that these people have strong opinions on why W is so much better. The only trouble is that others, who are possibly not developers of window systems, may not care, or may find that it breaks their software, or may not want to write software that depends on W and doesn't work on X.
So what if Xorg is "barely maintained"? It works. Hell, as long as it works, it's likely better for it not to change. If there are issues, in the free software world we say "patches welcome". No developer should feel chained to a project.
I don't understand the point about maintenance. Is Xorg maintained? If so, are the current maintainers handcuffed to it? I assume they aren't, so what's the problem? If Xorg is not maintained, again, what's the problem? Software is known to outlive its creators and maintainers. If there's a need, it will eventually get new maintainers. Software is not magic.
Prior to sponsors, you developed that project for the fun of it. It was useful to some, so you gave this sponsorship thing a try. It was a success, maybe not a great success, but still. Now that you have sponsors, you feel somewhat obligated, but still not on the level of that "professional software industry" that destroyed so much about programming for you.
Time passes, and at some point it becomes clear that sponsors don't have infinite resources, and at some point some of them take their money and leave. It lingers in the back of your head, but you continue development. You notice however, that your motivation lessens, especially for that particular project people care about. You decide that you want to move on.
Many of the remaining sponsors don't take it well and back away. Now you feel that there's no point to even work on something else. Your soft income is nil. You remember the days you worked that software job. Back then, you managed to write a bit of code, push to a GitHub public repository, and be content that programming was not just a profession to you. Now, you don't even have that.
You look around. There are sponsored celebrities, political cases where sponsors withdrew en-masse because of some controversy, and the usual monetary disputes. Having GitHub sponsors has become yet another status signal for potential employers or clients, and it's another a standard goodie to have them, by contract, transfer a small sum that way every month. Sickened, you turn back to your own issues.
You decide not to let Microsoft poke bytes in your Incentive Unit that way. An optimist, you assure yourself that in a few months you'll repair yourself and be able to write some code again, this time Free Software, since you well know what Open Source means, what it always meant. The GitHub demon is no longer an option. No big deal, since it's also become more like a "social network for developers" with status lines and people using their legal names and professionalism all over it. GitLab still requires JavaScript to view source code, so that's DOA, what with you having your default browser running with JavaScript disabled (the Internet went to shit a long time ago).
So you consider setting up some private GitHub-like that's actually accessible on your own server, or maybe use that FSF hosting site. You learned your lesson, but the software world took yet another step towards the void.
The author of the software didn't attack anything. He just pushed some code into a place he had legitimate control of.
Some irresponsible (see what I did?) developers downloaded and executed this code without checking, and as a result their stuff broke.