Care to elaborate? Your comment reads as a sentence-long "NO, YOU!" right now. What about Canonical is a problem, and who are they causing the problem for?
As a "Linux idiot" myself, I hear your disapproval of the parent post, but am curious to hear the details that support your opinion (I might be able to learn something from it).
pilgrim689: Why is everybody hating on Canonical for
ditching X11?
sneak: Because they're "Linux idiots" who love X11.
ihsw: They don't love X11, they just hate Canonical.
ihsw is saying that the change isn't getting negative reactions because of the change itself, but because it is being made by Canonical.
I thought everyone was hating on Canonical for ditching X because rather than support the fledgling standard replacement for X, Wayland, they once again (just like with systemd vs upstart, compiz vs mutter/kdm) go off and do their own thing.
And if it turns out like either of those, they end up with an inferior barely maintained product that gets pushed to the sidelines once they show it off on a showroom floor.
Skimming the article, Canonical has some legitimate criticisms of Wayland, and are working on something that doesn't have those problems. Yay, this would be good! Except that it's by Canonical, and as you said, "Canonical never delivers". (That wasn't a quote from you, it was an iteration of "OP (never) delivers")
What I said was that when Canonical does deliver, they let the delivery wither and die without support because they are spread like a teaspoon of mayo thin on their footlong distro sandwich. See: Upstart, Compiz, Software Center.
As a "Linux idiot" myself, I hear your disapproval of the parent post, but am curious to hear the details that support your opinion (I might be able to learn something from it).