Odpověď na názor

> To ze vsetci ostatni tradicne cikaju do bazena neznamena, ze sa bude cikat aj do Waylandoveho.
... nie je realny argument ale klamny argument, a nepochopenie alebo odmietanie pochopenia druhej strany.

Tu mas realne argumenty oboch stran:
PROTI: "Window placement in Wayland is not supported, not because of some arbitrary "Because security" that people assume, but because applications assuming global coordinates lead to some other issues, and made things less portable.
Also commonly cited is that in the future there could be a non-rectangular screen, or 3d screen or something. I remember in the Compiz days, people were talking about the X11 limitations when people were wanting a feature that wanted an infinantly zoomable window field."

PRE: Applications, though, are not designed and implemented with complete disconnection from any concept of what environment they should run in. If I write an application that I want to use on Windows, OS X and Linux desktop, and I want the user to be able to say, "This particular function should always open on this particular screen," well, I can do that on Windows, and I can do that on OS X, and I can do that with X11, and then Wayland comes along and says, "Foolish mortal, don't you know that there are environments where the concepts of 'window' and 'screen' don't mean anything? What if someone were to run your application on a tablet, or on a smartphone, or on a cylindrical vapour projection display, or in a 4D tesseractive voxelspace?"

Takisto nevidim dovod na konfiguracne prisposobene umoznenie fungovania aplikaciam, ktore toto Z PRINCIPU FUNGOVANIA potrebuju.