TLDR of linked gist: wayland is not X therefore it is bad. end of.
Wayland breaks Xclip: As you said it yourself, Xclip is an X11 application, so it doesn’t work on Wayland. Of course it wouldn’t work on Wayland. With Wayland, we’re trying to prevent what happened with Xorg from happening again, or am I wrong?
also, github.com/bugaevc/wl-clipboard. perhaps all OP (of gist) needs is a simple shim that can convert calls to xclip to wl-copy/paste? that doesn’t seem too hard to make compared to keeping X.org alive I’d say (perhaps they should try making it if it’s that much of a problem)
Wayland breaks screensavers: Yeah, that seems to be the case.
[…] Adding screen savers to Wayland is not simply a matter of “port the XScreenSaver daemon”, because under the Wayland model, screen blanking and locking should not be a third-party user-space app; much of the logic must be embedded into the display manager itself. This is a good thing! It is a better model than what we have under X11. […]
[…] Under X11, you run XScreenSaver, which is a user-space program that tries really hard to keep the screen locked and never crash. It is very good at this, but that it needs to try so hard in the first place is a fundamental design flaw of X11. […]
other people can comment on the parts they know about, these are two i know of off the top of my head
the rule of thumb here is that you should really just use one browser ad blocker. having multiple will conflict especially regarding anti-adblocker prevention (as uBO will try to hide itself and redirect to a “defused” version of an ad script and whatever other ad blocker you have will think that’s an ad and block it)
not entirely sure how well DNS ad blockers fit into this. there is a chance they could make your ad blocking detectable by blocking a request uBO intentionally lets through (possibly in a modified state), but as far as i’m aware there haven’t been too many issues stemming from combining DNS blockers with uBO and the likes.