Perhaps because for the longest time it was being said it wouldn't be supported; the FAQ still says no network transparency:

http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html

I can understand and emphasize with the feeling that X is way too crufty and needs a re-write; and I know I've done jack-all to contribute (haven't had the time); but I wish that the lessons of history wouldn't be so quickly forgotten and people might ask themselves why X has hung on so long and is so beloved.

I realize that the Wayland developers worked on X, and recognize their expertise and hard work. I have high hopes for Wayland! But I also chose Linux because it doesn't lock me into options (like one window manager), and it's just so gosh darn flexible I can use it for everything from embedded systems to servers, smartphones, clusters, supercomputers and desktops, all being able to export GUI apps in individual windows, without them having to be specially written, even if the sending side doesn't have a graphics card. To lose that would be disappointing to say the least.

I wouldn't use "beloved" to describe X, not when even its developers say "it's time to switch to Wayland".

As for Linux and choice, its desktop market share is barely above statistical noise. Platforms which limit choice, such as Windows and Mac, are much more widely used. This is because, as it turns out, consistency is preferable to choice when developing a platform. It makes it easier to run new desktop apps, it makes software integration easier, and it even makes requisitioning IT or devops personnel easier because their skills more readily translate between jobs and environments.

So the chaos of development in the 90s is settling into a focus on a few well-supported software components. This includes systemd for the startup daemon and Wayland for the display server. Everything else will be in semi-legacy status, and you will see brokenness or limited functionality in other software if you stray from the community-accepted path.

Welcome to life with a mainstream, modern operating system.

"No network transparency" is still true of the Wayland protocol. However, compositors (such as Weston) can forward windows over the network. I think this is where most of the confusion comes from.

There's a very big difference between network transparency and remote display. The FAQ is misleading about this, though. It's long needed an update. Perhaps I'll get to rewriting it one of these days.