Ah yes, the time honored "I don't like the new thing, so I'm going to cry foul and lie about the actions of others to characterize them as evil" strategy.
Saying "hey, we don't want to keep supporting this product so we're going to stop" is not the same as "we want to make this go away, let's sabotage it." It's indigenous to equate the two. But you don't care right? The ends justify the means after all.
Well now I'm mostly going to conclude that Wayland proponents are remarkably unpleasant if you dare disagree with them. But cropping out the personal attacks and addressing substance:
> "hey, we don't want to keep supporting this product so we're going to stop" is not the same as "we want to make this go away, let's sabotage it."
From inside Red Hat, that's true. From outside, they look similar. As a user, they're functionally identical; anything not actively maintained and supported will degrade or die, because users are forced to new hardware that needs to be supported (if nothing else, by old hardware dying) and new software and OS versions (by company policy, audit requirements, and vendor support). If and end-user was using, say, an accessibility tool that doesn't work on RHEL 10, the motives and mechanism are secondary to the fact that the tool no longer functions.
> Well now I'm mostly going to conclude that Wayland proponents are remarkably unpleasant if you dare disagree with them.
I literally just threw your own rhetoric back at you. Is that an admission that you're remarkably unpleasant?
> From outside, they look similar. As a user, they're functionally identical;
The sort of entitlement you must have to think anyone is required to financially support your project...
This is how open source works, you support the projects you like and want to succeed or that benefit you. Full stop.
No one is required to fund or support a project just because it's open source and anyone is allowed to walk away from something when they feel it no longer serves their interest.
If X can't survive without Redhat funneling money into it, then Redhat was the only thing keeping it alive and it's time to put it out to pasture. You may not like the thought of your project or community dying but it is 100% dishonest to characterize it as sabotage or an attack. That's the type of logic abusers use on victims.
Saying "hey, we don't want to keep supporting this product so we're going to stop" is not the same as "we want to make this go away, let's sabotage it." It's indigenous to equate the two. But you don't care right? The ends justify the means after all.