>> They have 2D XRender acceleration if they can be used to accelerate XRender drawing compared to CPU-based software rendering.
That was supposed to be a definition of "acceleration".
> No. They. Don't.
Obviously you have your own understanding of the word "acceleration" too. Can you explain what would you call "accelerated xrender" then?
> Besides, you've missed the part about threading - XRender in X.org works in a single thread for ALL clients. Do you think it's a good design?
First, as long as you have a single videoadapter having a single thread to work with it is perfectly fine. Second, as long as Xorg uses less than 100% CPU, yes, single-threading is the best design, because it makes X-server faster. Third, that's not a limitation of X11 protocol, you know? And finally, Wayland/Weston is also single-threaded.
> I think that X should be killed with fire as soon as possible. It was THE greatest stumbling block for Linux users for a long, long time (XF86Config - ugh).
Yeah, I understand that, but I don't understand your reasons. If the problem was in Xorg bugs then the best option would be to fix Xorg or write another implementation of X11 protocol (there're many of them). Since you prefer Wayland instead there should be some fundamental limitation of the X11 protocol itself that can't be fixed by different implementation.
You should be saying where Wayland is better, instead you're mainly saying what you don't like (or rather don't know) about X. Every time you said that Wayland has some feature while X has not, it appeared that X actually has it but you didn't knew that. Or worse, that X has it, while Wayland has not or it's useless there. The rest of your reasons were just childish excuses like: "Look, at the Wayland code! 'd->gbm'. Do you think that calling variable 'd' is a good design? Wayland should be killed with fire!"
If all your reasons were wrong then why do you still hate X? Have one of X devs stepped on your foot?