On 1/12/24 15:20, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> immibis wrote:
>
>> On 1/10/24 23:05, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:15:05 -0000 (UTC), Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> immibis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Open source means: if you don't like how something is done, do it
>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is dogmatic and unnuanced.
>>>>
>>>> That is exactly how all those open source projects got started.
>>>
>>> What referring to are you?
>>>
>> Someone didn't like something, so they did it themselves.
>>
>> You don't get to demand that other people work for you for free. You can
>> demand that all you want, but it just makes you an asshole. You can do
>> it yourself, pay someone to do it, be an asshole, or shut up. Those are
>> the available options.
>
> Doïng it ourselves isn't an option because nvidia holds enough secrets
> about the workings of their cards as to make that impossible.

It's very difficult, and I don't envy the task. But this idea that it's
completely impossible is something The Natural Philosopher would
probably call an abdication of personal responsibility. Nvidia has given
us the complete source code of a working DirectX and OpenGL driver,
after all - it just doesn't have variable names, type definitions or
comments.

I was watching the developer commentary of a Minecraft challenge map
where he referred to hostile monsters as not "hostile monsters", but
"experience packets" - that's what you earn when you take them down. A
similar kind of optimism may also be useful when dealing with
closed-source software. I recommend getting a basic familiarity with Ghidra.

On 15/01/2024 05:29, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 21:43, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:16:32 -0000 (UTC), Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>
>>> immibis wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's intended to kill all the features a small group of people didn't
>>>> want.
>>>
>>> The administration of Wayland is not an oligarchy.
>>
>> There are those who prefer to complain about something, rather than take
>> effective action to remove the source of the problem from their lives.
>
> You mean, by continuing to use Xorg?

LOL :-)

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

immibis wrote:

> On 1/12/24 21:43, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:16:32 -0000 (UTC), Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>
>>> immibis wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's intended to kill all the features a small group of people didn't
>>>> want.
>>>
>>> The administration of Wayland is not an oligarchy.
>>
>> There are those who prefer to complain about something, rather than
>> take effective action to remove the source of the problem from their
>> lives.
>
> You mean, by continuing to use Xorg?

'Twould be futile; fight for Wayland change instead.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to
Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/
│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
I have six brick and three sheep. What the fuck am i supposed to build?

immibis wrote:

> It's fine that people are working on alternatives to X11 and that some
> people are using them. It's stupid that they're trying to make people
> actually use one that's clearly not a suitable replacement yet, and has
> a core design philosophy that clearly prevents it from being a suitable
> replacement for most people - "security is more important than
> functionality".

Then it sounds like you should fight for Wayland to change its philosophy.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to
Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/
│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
Sounds reässuringly competent!

immibis wrote:

> On 1/12/24 15:20, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>> Doïng it ourselves isn't an option because nvidia holds enough secrets
>> about the workings of their cards as to make that impossible.
>
> It's very difficult, and I don't envy the task. But this idea that it's
> completely impossible is something The Natural Philosopher would
> probably call an abdication of personal responsibility. Nvidia has given
> us the complete source code of a working DirectX and OpenGL driver,
> after all - it just doesn't have variable names, type definitions or
> comments.

By going ahead and doing it anyway, we'd be sending a message to nvidia of
“Hey, this is fine. It is completely okay for you to exploit us with
proprietary drivers for your hardware and we will still go ahead and
suffer through using them anyway.”. This is not a message we want to
send; we want to send a message of “Tell us how your graphics cards work
or we're not going to support them and you're going to lose market
share.”.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to
Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/
│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
Fetid!

On 1/15/24 14:53, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> immibis wrote:
>
>> It's fine that people are working on alternatives to X11 and that some
>> people are using them. It's stupid that they're trying to make people
>> actually use one that's clearly not a suitable replacement yet, and has
>> a core design philosophy that clearly prevents it from being a suitable
>> replacement for most people - "security is more important than
>> functionality".
>
> Then it sounds like you should fight for Wayland to change its philosophy.
>

Why should I? They're allowed to work on something they think they want,
and I'm allowed to continue using Xorg/X11.

Why should I force my philosophy onto their project that has nothing to
do with me?

Problems only begin when someone tries to force me to use that project.

My Linux tablet (Pinetab 2) uses Wayland out of the box on the usual
distribution (Danctnix). It's been pretty buggy, but I don't think most
of them are due to Wayland. Wayland might be better for "weird" devices
since the compositor has more ability to enforce weird rules on apps -
what's a problem for a desktop computer might be fine in other contexts.

On 1/15/24 14:57, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> immibis wrote:
>
>> On 1/12/24 15:20, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>> Doïng it ourselves isn't an option because nvidia holds enough secrets
>>> about the workings of their cards as to make that impossible.
>>
>> It's very difficult, and I don't envy the task. But this idea that it's
>> completely impossible is something The Natural Philosopher would
>> probably call an abdication of personal responsibility. Nvidia has given
>> us the complete source code of a working DirectX and OpenGL driver,
>> after all - it just doesn't have variable names, type definitions or
>> comments.
>
> By going ahead and doing it anyway, we'd be sending a message to nvidia of
> “Hey, this is fine. It is completely okay for you to exploit us with
> proprietary drivers for your hardware and we will still go ahead and
> suffer through using them anyway.”. This is not a message we want to
> send; we want to send a message of “Tell us how your graphics cards work
> or we're not going to support them and you're going to lose market
> share.”.
>

You were exploited the moment you bought an Nvidia GPU. You already
bought one knowing there wasn't an open-source driver, didn't you?
Obviously, your threats of time travel and retroactive unpurchase aren't
going to be credible.

On 15/01/2024 13:57, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> immibis wrote:
>
>> On 1/12/24 15:20, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>> Doïng it ourselves isn't an option because nvidia holds enough secrets
>>> about the workings of their cards as to make that impossible.
>>
>> It's very difficult, and I don't envy the task. But this idea that it's
>> completely impossible is something The Natural Philosopher would
>> probably call an abdication of personal responsibility. Nvidia has given
>> us the complete source code of a working DirectX and OpenGL driver,
>> after all - it just doesn't have variable names, type definitions or
>> comments.
>
> By going ahead and doing it anyway, we'd be sending a message to nvidia of
> “Hey, this is fine. It is completely okay for you to exploit us with
> proprietary drivers for your hardware and we will still go ahead and
> suffer through using them anyway.”. This is not a message we want to
> send; we want to send a message of “Tell us how your graphics cards work
> or we're not going to support them and you're going to lose market
> share.”.
>
>
>
And Nvidia will say "Do we look like we give a fuck?"
--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On 15/01/2024 15:08, immibis wrote:
> On 1/15/24 14:57, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>> immibis wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/12/24 15:20, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>>> Doïng it ourselves isn't an option because nvidia holds enough secrets
>>>> about the workings of their cards as to make that impossible.
>>>
>>> It's very difficult, and I don't envy the task. But this idea that it's
>>> completely impossible is something The Natural Philosopher would
>>> probably call an abdication of personal responsibility. Nvidia has given
>>> us the complete source code of a working DirectX and OpenGL driver,
>>> after all - it just doesn't have variable names, type definitions or
>>> comments.
>>
>> By going ahead and doing it anyway, we'd be sending a message to
>> nvidia of
>> “Hey, this is fine.  It is completely okay for you to exploit us with
>> proprietary drivers for your hardware and we will still go ahead and
>> suffer through using them anyway.”.  This is not a message we want to
>> send; we want to send a message of “Tell us how your graphics cards work
>> or we're not going to support them and you're going to lose market
>> share.”.
>>
>
> You were exploited the moment you bought an Nvidia GPU. You already
> bought one knowing there wasn't an open-source driver, didn't you?
> Obviously, your threats of time travel and retroactive unpurchase aren't
> going to be credible.

+1.

Faced with a semi real time game that was too slow I researched what
cards would work under Linux. The general consensus at that time was
that Nvidia would work well with their linux drivers. I didn't feel
outraged or exploited. I bought one and it worked, and I still have a
pair, although the latest desktop with Intel GFX is well fast enough on
its own.

I feel fortunate that I had a choice at all.
Life is rough, tough and desperately unjust, and you have three choices
in any given situation.

1. Accept it
2. Try and change it including moaning to someone else
3. Walk away.

With Nvidia and Linux you are free to walk away from either.

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

immibis wrote:

> On 1/15/24 14:53, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>> immibis wrote:
>>
>>> It's fine that people are working on alternatives to X11 and that some
>>> people are using them. It's stupid that they're trying to make people
>>> actually use one that's clearly not a suitable replacement yet, and
>>> has a core design philosophy that clearly prevents it from being a
>>> suitable replacement for most people - "security is more important
>>> than functionality".
>>
>> Then it sounds like you should fight for Wayland to change its
>> philosophy.
>>
>>
> Why should I? They're allowed to work on something they think they want,
> and I'm allowed to continue using Xorg/X11.
>
> Why should I force my philosophy onto their project that has nothing to
> do with me?
>
> Problems only begin when someone tries to force me to use that project.

It's not anyone in particular; it's simply the way that the modern
computing ecosystem is going. Since you're going to need to use Wayland
even though you don't like it, your best option is to fight to make it
something you do like.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to
Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/
│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
Flavored with blasphemy!

immibis wrote:

> You were exploited the moment you bought an Nvidia GPU.

I do not own an nvidia GPU.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to
Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/
│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
Cheese isn't supposed to sound like that!

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 15/01/2024 13:57, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>> immibis wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/12/24 15:20, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>>> Doïng it ourselves isn't an option because nvidia holds enough
>>>> secrets about the workings of their cards as to make that impossible.
>>>
>>> It's very difficult, and I don't envy the task. But this idea that
>>> it's completely impossible is something The Natural Philosopher would
>>> probably call an abdication of personal responsibility. Nvidia has
>>> given us the complete source code of a working DirectX and OpenGL
>>> driver, after all - it just doesn't have variable names, type
>>> definitions or comments.
>>
>> By going ahead and doing it anyway, we'd be sending a message to nvidia
>> of “Hey, this is fine. It is completely okay for you to exploit us
>> with proprietary drivers for your hardware and we will still go ahead
>> and suffer through using them anyway.”. This is not a message we want
>> to send; we want to send a message of “Tell us how your graphics cards
>> work or we're not going to support them and you're going to lose market
>> share.”.
>>
>>
>>
> And Nvidia will say "Do we look like we give a fuck?"

When their market share is at stake, they will certainly give many-a-fuck.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to
Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/
│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
“How'd you meet a penguin?” “Well, i was in the desert…”

On 16/01/2024 20:24, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2024 13:57, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>> immibis wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/12/24 15:20, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>>>> Doïng it ourselves isn't an option because nvidia holds enough
>>>>> secrets about the workings of their cards as to make that impossible.
>>>>
>>>> It's very difficult, and I don't envy the task. But this idea that
>>>> it's completely impossible is something The Natural Philosopher would
>>>> probably call an abdication of personal responsibility. Nvidia has
>>>> given us the complete source code of a working DirectX and OpenGL
>>>> driver, after all - it just doesn't have variable names, type
>>>> definitions or comments.
>>>
>>> By going ahead and doing it anyway, we'd be sending a message to nvidia
>>> of “Hey, this is fine. It is completely okay for you to exploit us
>>> with proprietary drivers for your hardware and we will still go ahead
>>> and suffer through using them anyway.”. This is not a message we want
>>> to send; we want to send a message of “Tell us how your graphics cards
>>> work or we're not going to support them and you're going to lose market
>>> share.”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And Nvidia will say "Do we look like we give a fuck?"
>
> When their market share is at stake, they will certainly give many-a-fuck.
>
Its pure cost benefit.
Consider:
The average onboard Intel chipset is as fast as an entry level Nvidia
card was years ago, so they have to do a lot better than that.

The vast majority of applications are either massive video editing
suites or real time games. Those do not run Linux

So what market share are they actually losing?
>
>

--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 21:44:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> The vast majority of applications are either massive video editing
> suites or real time games. Those do not run Linux

Professional-quality video encoding would certainly be done a lot on
Linux, using open-source software like FFmpeg.

On 2024-01-16 17:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 21:44:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> The vast majority of applications are either massive video editing
>> suites or real time games. Those do not run Linux
>
> Professional-quality video encoding would certainly be done a lot on
> Linux, using open-source software like FFmpeg.

There are plenty of closed-source options for professional use, too.

Black Magic Design's DaVinci Resolve runs on Linux as does Autodesk's
Flame. Both are very high-end video editing/effects software.

Then there are 3D animation suites like Maya and SideFX Software's
Houdini. Plus the CAD/CAE suites like AutoCAD and PTC Creo. All of
them run on Linux -- not just render farms, the actual modelling interface.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. There are lots of
high-end video editing and 3D packages that run on Linux and benefit
from very high-end graphics cards well beyond the capabilities of what
Intel integrated graphics can provide. The software typically costs
thousands of dollars (except DaVinci), so they're not things you see
every day. But they certainly do run on Linux.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 19:16:56 -0500, John-Paul Stewart wrote:

> On 2024-01-16 17:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 21:44:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> The vast majority of applications are either massive video editing
>>> suites or real time games. Those do not run Linux
>>
>> Professional-quality video encoding would certainly be done a lot on
>> Linux, using open-source software like FFmpeg.
>
> There are plenty of closed-source options for professional use, too.

I remember an item on the libx264 (open-source H.264 library used in
FFmpeg) blog, saying that people bought the proprietary products purely
for the patent licences, then did all their production encoding with the
open-source tools.

Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:

> It's not anyone in particular; it's simply the way that the modern
> computing ecosystem is going. Since you're going to need to use Wayland
> even though you don't like it, your best option is to fight to make it
> something you do like.

Given that Wayland is designed to walk away from the little-used
features of X11, I doubt they'll be particularly open to adding all the
"cruft" back.

Yes, I've used X11 tunnelling through SSH, or XDMCP and DISPLAY:
environment variables between Windows, *nix and VAXen (and not just to
annoy colleagues with xeyes) but I don't any more, I'd be much more
likely to use VNC and a complete desktop than individual remote apps now ...

Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Nvidia will say "Do we look like we give a fuck?"
>
> When their market share is at stake, they will certainly give many-a-fuck.

If they could obtain the fab capacity to produce 5x as many GPUs as they
currently sell, the AI industry would snap them all up, and nVidia would
happily hang the gamers out to dry ...

On 1/16/24 21:21, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> immibis wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/24 14:53, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>> immibis wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's fine that people are working on alternatives to X11 and that some
>>>> people are using them. It's stupid that they're trying to make people
>>>> actually use one that's clearly not a suitable replacement yet, and
>>>> has a core design philosophy that clearly prevents it from being a
>>>> suitable replacement for most people - "security is more important
>>>> than functionality".
>>>
>>> Then it sounds like you should fight for Wayland to change its
>>> philosophy.
>>>
>>>
>> Why should I? They're allowed to work on something they think they want,
>> and I'm allowed to continue using Xorg/X11.
>>
>> Why should I force my philosophy onto their project that has nothing to
>> do with me?
>>
>> Problems only begin when someone tries to force me to use that project.
>
> It's not anyone in particular; it's simply the way that the modern
> computing ecosystem is going. Since you're going to need to use Wayland
> even though you don't like it, your best option is to fight to make it
> something you do like.
>

They've been telling me that for many years. They've been telling me
that about systemd, too.

On 17/01/2024 19:26, immibis wrote:
> On 1/16/24 21:21, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>> immibis wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/24 14:53, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>>> immibis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's fine that people are working on alternatives to X11 and that some
>>>>> people are using them. It's stupid that they're trying to make people
>>>>> actually use one that's clearly not a suitable replacement yet, and
>>>>> has a core design philosophy that clearly prevents it from being a
>>>>> suitable replacement for most people - "security is more important
>>>>> than functionality".
>>>>
>>>> Then it sounds like you should fight for Wayland to change its
>>>> philosophy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why should I? They're allowed to work on something they think they want,
>>> and I'm allowed to continue using Xorg/X11.
>>>
>>> Why should I force my philosophy onto their project that has nothing to
>>> do with me?
>>>
>>> Problems only begin when someone tries to force me to use that project.
>>
>> It's not anyone in particular; it's simply the way that the modern
>> computing ecosystem is going.  Since you're going to need to use Wayland
>> even though you don't like it, your best option is to fight to make it
>> something you do like.
>>
>
> They've been telling me that for many years. They've been telling me
> that about systemd, too.

Its the old assumptive close technique. They told us that about the EU
as well., But when we tried to change it they told us to fuck off.

So we did.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 1/17/24 20:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/01/2024 19:26, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/16/24 21:21, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>> immibis wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/15/24 14:53, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>>>> immibis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's fine that people are working on alternatives to X11 and that
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> people are using them. It's stupid that they're trying to make people
>>>>>> actually use one that's clearly not a suitable replacement yet, and
>>>>>> has a core design philosophy that clearly prevents it from being a
>>>>>> suitable replacement for most people - "security is more important
>>>>>> than functionality".
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it sounds like you should fight for Wayland to change its
>>>>> philosophy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Why should I? They're allowed to work on something they think they
>>>> want,
>>>> and I'm allowed to continue using Xorg/X11.
>>>>
>>>> Why should I force my philosophy onto their project that has nothing to
>>>> do with me?
>>>>
>>>> Problems only begin when someone tries to force me to use that project.
>>>
>>> It's not anyone in particular; it's simply the way that the modern
>>> computing ecosystem is going.  Since you're going to need to use Wayland
>>> even though you don't like it, your best option is to fight to make it
>>> something you do like.
>>>
>>
>> They've been telling me that for many years. They've been telling me
>> that about systemd, too.
>
> Its the old assumptive close technique. They told us that about the EU
> as well., But when we tried to change it they told us to fuck off.
>
> So we did.
>

And now your country has burned to the ground. What does that metaphor
say about Wayland?

immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
> On 1/17/24 20:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 17/01/2024 19:26, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/16/24 21:21, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>>> It's not anyone in particular; it's simply the way that the modern
>>>> computing ecosystem is going.  Since you're going to need to use
>>>> Wayland even though you don't like it, your best option is to
>>>> fight to make it something you do like.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They've been telling me that for many years. They've been telling
>>> me that about systemd, too.
>>
>> Its the old assumptive close technique. They told us that about the
>> EU as well., But when we tried to change it they told us to fuck
>> off.
>>
>> So we did.
>
> And now your country has burned to the ground. What does that metaphor
> say about Wayland?

GB is no longer part of the EU, but that hardly qualifies as "burned to
the ground".

immibis wrote:

> On 1/16/24 21:21, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>> It's not anyone in particular; it's simply the way that the modern
>> computing ecosystem is going. Since you're going to need to use
>> Wayland even though you don't like it, your best option is to fight to
>> make it something you do like.
>>
>>
> They've been telling me that for many years. They've been telling me
> that about systemd, too.

What's systemd got to do with this?

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to
Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/
│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
Dealing with this isn't the easiest task; for one thing, you have to deal
with it when previously you didn't.

On 1/18/24 00:10, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> immibis wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/24 21:21, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>> It's not anyone in particular; it's simply the way that the modern
>>> computing ecosystem is going. Since you're going to need to use
>>> Wayland even though you don't like it, your best option is to fight to
>>> make it something you do like.
>>>
>>>
>> They've been telling me that for many years. They've been telling me
>> that about systemd, too.
>
> What's systemd got to do with this?
>

Very similar meta-game. There are more, too: PulseAudio and GNOME 3.

Did you know the creator of systemd is also the creator of PulseAudio? I
remember that ALSA pretty much Just Worked, most of the time, and then
we got software like Firefox that removed support for everything that
isn't PulseAudio.

The developers/evangelists of these projects like to write some software
that's an alternative to some existing software, which is fine, then
they ramp up the evangelism and propaganda rather than just letting
people choose to use the new software on its own merits.

* The developers push distributions to integrate the new system as the
default.
* The developers push to remove compatibility with the old system from
other software.
* The developers insult users who don't switch to the new system,
calling them luddites, afraid of change, refusing to adapt, etc.
* The developers sincerely believe they are always right and anyone who
isn't using their system is stupid because their system is the most
awesome thing ever.

All are understandable reactions when you think you made something cool,
but the intensity and lasting repercussions across the ecosystem are
unique to this handful of projects. Nobody is saying that if you use
Firefox instead of Chromium it means you're stuck in the past. Even Lynx
users don't get that treatment.

There's a substantial overlap of people, too. The GNOME project is a
strong force pushing for Wayland now, systemd in the past, and
PulseAudio in the distant past. GNOME wants to control the future (with
the CADT development model); KDE takes a much more practical approach of
predicting the future and supporting the predicted future and the
present, and submitting patches to those things to make them actually
work properly, like server-side decorations in Wayland.

On 17/01/2024 20:03, Rich wrote:
> immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>> On 1/17/24 20:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2024 19:26, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/16/24 21:21, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>>>> It's not anyone in particular; it's simply the way that the modern
>>>>> computing ecosystem is going.  Since you're going to need to use
>>>>> Wayland even though you don't like it, your best option is to
>>>>> fight to make it something you do like.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They've been telling me that for many years. They've been telling
>>>> me that about systemd, too.
>>>
>>> Its the old assumptive close technique. They told us that about the
>>> EU as well., But when we tried to change it they told us to fuck
>>> off.
>>>
>>> So we did.
>>
>> And now your country has burned to the ground. What does that metaphor
>> say about Wayland?
>
> GB is no longer part of the EU, but that hardly qualifies as "burned to
> the ground".

Technically the UK not GB. as NI is no longer part of the EU, except for
all intents and purposes it is.

--
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the
very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift