> People keep on saying this, but I don't know where the heck the figure comes from. Every single user of X I have ever known has relied upon network transparency (often they were scientific users, running huge mathematical monsters on beefy remote systems).
I agree, sorta.
Remote desktop and remote applications are now _MAINSTREAM_.
It really opened my eyes working in a large scale corporate environment that HEAVILY depends on remote applications, remote desktops, virtualized desktops, thin clients, think clients, and everything in between for ALL users for pretty much everything. Between remote applications and html-based applications pretty much everything I use except my browser is a remote application of one thing or another and that is the way for almost everybody else around me.
But you know what?
X11 has nothing to do with it at all and would be nearly useless if somebody tried to be use it in the same manner. After seeing what people are now doing with remote applications the idea that something like X11 and it's idea of 'network transparency' is competitive or unique is silly. Microsoft Windows, especially combined with third party solutions like those provided by Citrix, have surpassed it.
OS X and Microsoft Windows has very good X Windows support. OS X has it nearly-native and Microsoft Windows, when combined with third party applications, has pretty much any and all X11 features you'd care to use, including GLX support. And, of course, you see none of those users clamoring for X11 support for any of the applications. What is more they have no problems when they feel the need to do things remotely in a relatively effortless and secure manner.
I am confident that if Wayland developers decided to incorporate some form network support in their system, even if it's just primitive as pixel pushing with jpeg compression (and they take security serious) that few people will find that lacking compared to X11. In addition to that you are not giving up X11 support by using Wayland. So if you need it: it's there.
If X11 'network transparency' is wanted so much then providing the option of NOT using X11 should not be a threat at all. If it's desirable then people will continue to develop and use X11 exclusively even if they can bypass it completely for their windows api needs.
In addition if they ever decide to be competitive with Microsoft Windows and Citrix in terms of network transparency and create a X12 X Windows protocol then Wayland could, using it's compositing approach, incorporate X12 support much easier then if we were still using our X11 X Servers to twiddle bits on our PCI buses in the traditional manner. :)