alt Hacker NewsI had a look at that gist, and the majority of it is a result of the responsibility of wayland being smaller. xorg was dumping ground for a lot of functionality it shouldn't have been responsible for, so the majority of those Xs on the list are things that very much do work on a Linux system on wayland, just in theory you could build a wayland spec compliant DE which doesn't have them, but if you just install Gnome/KDE, it will all work.
For all the noise about the "unix philosophy" and systemd being too all encompassing, Wayland went the other way and people still aren't happy.
The exact reasons for it not working doesn't matter. It's the 'not working' part that's annoying people when it comes to Wayland. If X worked, and then Wayland doesn't, no matter how small the way in which it doesn't work, it's still a valid reason to not be a fan.
I'm yet to see someone complain about systemd and Wayland in the same comment, or even comment chain for that matter, which does scan, given how they have diametrically opposed philosophies to things. The Venn diagram of people who dislike and Wayland and systemd are probably not quite two separate circles, but I can't imagine the overlap is very large. I actually like systemd a fair bit, since it seems to do its job pretty well. I've seen people have problems with it, but most of the opposition to it are on philosophical grounds rather than about matters of functionality, whereas with Wayland, the opposite is the case.