> which destroys variety and flexibility

That's probably the worst argument that you could make against Wayland: there has only ever been a single X11 server in common use on the Linux desktop (first XFree86, now X.Org), but there are tons of independent Wayland "server" implementations (Weston, Mutter, KWin, wlroots, etc.) [0]. Lots of these are written in completely different languages and implement different extensions from each other, so there's way more variety and flexibility with Wayland than with X11.

The more common criticism that I've heard is that Wayland's variety and flexibility is actually bad, because it makes it harder to add extensions (since you need to implement it in multiple different projects, and not just the single X.Org codebase), and it means that applications potentially have to test against multiple implementations. (I don't necessarily agree with this criticism myself, but it's still a valid complaint.)

> and of course nothing would run on BSDes

FreeBSD [1] and OpenBSD [2] both have Wayland support.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_display_servers#Waylan...

[1]: https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/wayland/

[2]: https://xenocara.org/Wayland_on_OpenBSD.html#running-wayland