So, X11 development has been moribund for years. All the major GUI >environments are adding Wayland support now.
X11 is full of legacy cruft, like that graphics API (at least the font
server API went away years ago).
In article <v1f0ja$3ot7f$2@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
So, X11 development has been moribund for years. All the major GUI >>environments are adding Wayland support now.
X11 is full of legacy cruft, like that graphics API (at least the font >>server API went away years ago).
The latest version of the Raspberry Pi hardware/software combination has >embraced Wayland. However, people are having problems with it, and many
are giving (and taking) the advice to switch back to X.
It doesn't look ready for prime time yet to me.
So, X11 development has been moribund for years. All the major GUI environments are adding Wayland support now.
X11 is full of legacy cruft, like that graphics API (at least the
font server API went away years ago).
And probably never will be [ready for prime time] but will probably
be adopted anyway even though its half baked crap because the
momentum of vested interests and the herds of sheep will make it
happen, just like systemd.
It also doesn't help that the
wayland team dismiss anything thats hard to do as not required , eg
remoting.
On 08.05.2024 um 04:55 Uhr Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
So, X11 development has been moribund for years. All the major GUI
environments are adding Wayland support now.
... does anybody know a window manager like mwm that runs on Wayland?
X11 is full of legacy cruft, like that graphics API (at least the
font server API went away years ago).
Some cool features like X11 forwarding will also go away.
On Wed, 8 May 2024 20:12:05 +0200, Marco Moock wrote:
On 08.05.2024 um 04:55 Uhr Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
So, X11 development has been moribund for years. All the major GUI
environments are adding Wayland support now.
... does anybody know a window manager like mwm that runs on
Wayland?
Either somebody cares enough to have written one already, or nobody
does.
If the latter, you can be the first.
X11 is full of legacy cruft, like that graphics API (at least the
font server API went away years ago).
Some cool features like X11 forwarding will also go away.
Wayland is designed with security in mind.
On 08.05.2024 um 20:41 Uhr Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Wayland is designed with security in mind.
How does X11 forwarding treat security?
Wayland is little more than a high level frame buffer.
If you don't use a high level toolkit you're in for a whole world of
pain.
On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:01:35 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
Wayland is little more than a high level frame buffer.
That’s all you need. The idea that X11 had to provide its own graphics API >was starting to look anachronistic a quarter-century ago.
If you don't use a high level toolkit you're in for a whole world of
pain.
You start with a graphics library to draw into the frame buffer. A good >choice is Cairo <https://www.cairographics.org/>.
On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:01:35 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
And probably never will be [ready for prime time] but will probably
be adopted anyway even though its half baked crap because the
momentum of vested interests and the herds of sheep will make it
happen, just like systemd.
Nobody controls Open Source. Proprietary software is dominated by amoral, >profit-driven megacorps, but Open Source isn’t, and never will be. Basic >economics ensures it will stay that way.
It also doesn't help that the
wayland team dismiss anything thats hard to do as not required , eg
remoting.
Wayland is designed with security in mind.
If a framebuffer is all thats required now then whats the
point of Wayland?
You start with a graphics library to draw into the frame buffer. A good >>choice is Cairo <https://www.cairographics.org/>.
Oh give me a break.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 06:54:06 +0200, Marco Moock wrote:
On 08.05.2024 um 20:41 Uhr Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Wayland is designed with security in mind.
How does X11 forwarding treat security?
It doesn’t. It is completely insecure.
RIght, because ssh tunnelled X11 was completely insecure.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:39:00 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
If a framebuffer is all thats required now then whats the
point of Wayland?
In a word? Compositing. We run modern multitasking OSes nowadays,
remember.
You start with a graphics library to draw into the frame buffer. A good >>>choice is Cairo <https://www.cairographics.org/>.
Oh give me a break.
Give it a try. Then you earn the right to complain about it.
On 09.05.2024 um 05:18 Uhr Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 06:54:06 +0200, Marco Moock wrote:
=20
On 08.05.2024 um 20:41 Uhr Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:=20
=20
Wayland is designed with security in mind. =20=20
How does X11 forwarding treat security? =20
It doesn=E2=80=99t. It is completely insecure.
Why ssh X11 forwarding is insecure?
On Thu, 9 May 2024 06:54:06 +0200, Marco Moock wrote:
On 08.05.2024 um 20:41 Uhr Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Wayland is designed with security in mind.
How does X11 forwarding treat security?
It doesn’t. It is completely insecure.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:36:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
So ssh is insecure?
Remember that any system is only as secure as its weakest point.
Notice the part of the system we’re getting rid of here.
Hint: it’s not SSH.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:50:58 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:36:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
So ssh is insecure?
Remember that any system is only as secure as its weakest point.
Notice the part of the system we’re getting rid of here.
Hint: it’s not SSH.
Do you understand the concept of tunnelling?
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:50:26 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:39:00 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
If a framebuffer is all thats required now then whats the point of
Wayland?
In a word? Compositing. We run modern multitasking OSes nowadays,
remember.
Do we? Thanks for the heads up. All thats needed is a thin layer above
the framebuffer level to marshal graphics requests. Compositing isn't complicated.
You start with a graphics library to draw into the frame buffer. A
good choice is Cairo <https://www.cairographics.org/>.
Oh give me a break.
Give it a try. Then you earn the right to complain about it.
My point was why should I have to pick a specific library to learn that
may well fall out of fashion when X11 provides an API thats been
standardised for decades.
Its not, he's just another Wayland shill.
So, X11 development has been moribund for years. All the major GUI environments are adding Wayland support now.
Tk isn't.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:19:47 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:50:26 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:39:00 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
If a framebuffer is all thats required now then whats the point of
Wayland?
In a word? Compositing. We run modern multitasking OSes nowadays, >>>remember.
Do we? Thanks for the heads up. All thats needed is a thin layer above
the framebuffer level to marshal graphics requests. Compositing isn't
complicated.
Go to the top of the class. That’s exactly what you get with Wayland.
My point was why should I have to pick a specific library to learn that
may well fall out of fashion when X11 provides an API thats been
standardised for decades.
You mean the X11 graphics API has been stagnant for decades. It’s just >useless baggage by this point.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:36:13 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
Its not, he's just another Wayland shill.
Da Wayland Gravy Train FTW! How do you think I can afford all those
Caribbean holidays? All those kickbacks from the Wayland Cabal ... dat’s >some moolah, kiddo!
But none for you. The Wayland Ideology Committee has deemed you Persona
Non Grata. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:16:01 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:50:58 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:36:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
So ssh is insecure?
Remember that any system is only as secure as its weakest point.
Notice the part of the system we’re getting rid of here.
Hint: it’s not SSH.
Do you understand the concept of tunnelling?
SSH ... you have a strong lock on your door.
X11 ... your door is made of cardboard.
On Fri, 10 May 2024 00:38:47 +0000, Javier wrote:
Tk isn't.
I find Tk to be lacking in some other ways. For example, it doesn’t >integrate nicely with Python’s asyncio event framework. I would expect
So, X11 development has been moribund for years. All the major GUI environments are adding Wayland support now.
X11 is full of legacy cruft, like that graphics API (at least the font
server API went away years ago).
So many promises over the years of something better, but none have
displaced X11.
On 10.05.2024 um 11:11 Uhr Zach Metzinger wrote:
So many promises over the years of something better, but none have
displaced X11.
Although, this process started some years ago and is continuing.
Some distributions like RHEL already have deprecated xorg and it is a
matter of time when it will be removed - at least from RHEL - and moved
to EPEL.
So many promises over the years of something better, but none have
displaced X11.
Good thing I use FreeBSD ...
A framework added for dummies who can't understand threading, a bit like
the future/async API in C++.
Shilling is rarely done for money, its usually personal
preferance and/or ideology.
On 5/7/24 23:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
So, X11 development has been moribund for years. All the major GUI
environments are adding Wayland support now.
X11 is full of legacy cruft, like that graphics API (at least the font
server API went away years ago).
.. but does it work "well enough"? Yes.
So many promises over the years of something better, but none have
displaced X11.
Remember this one?
https://github.com/graydon/berlin
On FreeBSD, none of my AMD, or Intel GPUs can handle switching to the
vty from X, or even display suspension, the graphics become fucked,
...
Was unfortunate on the license choice tho.
I would love to know why Wayland, or how it came to be, to push the complexity of compositing further out from the Display Server into the client, like the window manager. Why is the complexity moved up the
software stack, instead of down, into the core.
On FreeBSD, none of my AMD, or Intel GPUs can handle switching to the
vty from X, or even display suspension ...
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:37:16 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
A framework added for dummies who can't understand threading, a bit like
the future/async API in C++.
Really? So C++ programmers are “dummies who can’t understand threading”,
too?
On Fri, 10 May 2024 15:56:48 -0500, Zach Metzinger wrote:
Good thing I use FreeBSD ...
I think the BSDs are also looking at trying to support Wayland.
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:32:51 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
SSH is the door, whatever is tunnelled is behind it.
Which is where I point out that SSH does not validate who or what is going >through its tunnelled port. It is wide open to any process on the remote >machine.
This didn't used to be a problem. It's gotten worse with recent
versions of Xorg.
On 5/10/24 21:18, Alastair Hogge wrote:
On FreeBSD, none of my AMD, or Intel GPUs can handle switching to the vty
from X, or even display suspension, the graphics become fucked, input
still works,
Works fine for me (suspend/resume or VTY switch -- why anyone would want
to switch from X to a console befuddles me, but whatever).
On FreeBSD, none of my AMD, or Intel GPUs can handle switching to the vty from X, or even display suspension, the graphics become fucked, input
still works,
On 2024-05-08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
So, X11 development has been moribund for years. All the major
GUI environments are adding Wayland support now.
On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:56:59 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:32:51 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
SSH is the door, whatever is tunnelled is behind it.
Which is where I point out that SSH does not validate who or what is
going through its tunnelled port. It is wide open to any process on the
remote machine.
If you don't want remote machines to connect to X then
either use xhost to set up whitelists
... or disable the TCP connection entirely. Simple.
I prefer software that works to that being worked on. My
understanding is that there're a plenty of others who share this
preference, however odd it might seem.
From my limited experimentation, it's the color map that's left messed
up so badly that "white" is rendered as a dark grey that's pretty much indistinguishable from black. If you're at a command line prompt (such
as from display suspension), try "vidcontrol yellow blue". It won't
actually do yellow and blue because the color map is messed up, but, for
me, it switches to two colors different enough to be readable.
vidcontrol has 16 color combinations. In my testing when things are
messed up, 0-7 are alike and useless. 8-15 are also alike but readable ("yellow blue" is #14). Your results may differ.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 21:45:50 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:19:47 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
All that[’]s needed is a thin layer above
the framebuffer level to marshal graphics requests. Compositing isn't
complicated.
Go to the top of the class. That’s exactly what you get with Wayland.
If tha[’]s all it was it wouldn't still be in development after 15 years except for low level driver updates.
My point was why should I have to pick a specific library to learn
that may well fall out of fashion when X11 provides an API thats been
standardised for decades.
You mean the X11 graphics API has been stagnant for decades. It’s just >>useless baggage by this point.
Or possibly it[’]s stagnant because it works.
Change for changes sake is a waste of everyones time and effort. Pity no
one tells this to the Windows GUI team.
On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:58:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:56:59 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:32:51 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
SSH is the door, whatever is tunnelled is behind it.
Which is where I point out that SSH does not validate who or what is
going through its tunnelled port. It is wide open to any process on the
remote machine.
If you don't want remote machines to connect to X then
either use xhost to set up whitelists
Note that xhost only offers host-level access control: you can’t restrict >accesses from arbitrary processes on the remote machine.
I did say the door was made of cardboard, didn’t I?
... or disable the TCP connection entirely. Simple.
In other words, disable the tunnelling you thought was such a good idea?
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:34:15 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
If tha[’]s all it was it wouldn't still be in development after 15 years >> except for low level driver updates.
So do you think that “thin layer above the framebuffer level”, which >supposedly is “all that’s needed”, is still not ready for prime-time?
You
think maybe it turned out to be harder to come up with than you thought?
You mean the X11 graphics API has been stagnant for decades. It’s just >>>useless baggage by this point.
Or possibly it[’]s stagnant because it works.
No, it’s stagnant because it’s been overtaken by other, far superior >graphics APIs. Like Display PostScript, OpenGL, Cairo, Vulkan ...
Basically, the X11 developers gave up on enhancing their graphics API
years, decades ago. And since then, most proper GUIs have been using their
X windows as little more than compositing framebuffers anyway, with all
the non-trivial rendering happening through those other APIs.
Change for changes sake is a waste of everyones time and effort. Pity no
one tells this to the Windows GUI team.
This is why, on Linux, you have a choice.
Until the zeolots decide X is for the bin just like they did init and replaced it with the bug ridden POS called systemd.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 02:23:32 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:34:15 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
If tha[’]s all it was it wouldn't still be in development after 15
years except for low level driver updates.
So do you think that “thin layer above the framebuffer level”, which >>supposedly is “all that’s needed”, is still not ready for prime-time?
Its all wayland seems to do. Provide a low level buffer and let the
clients generate the pixels.
You think maybe it turned out to be harder to come up with than you >>thought?
No, it turned out the Wayland design was a poorly thought out dogs
dinner and now they're trying to get it to work properly.
You mean the X11 graphics API has been stagnant for decades. It’s just >>>>useless baggage by this point.
Or possibly it[’]s stagnant because it works.
No, it’s stagnant because it’s been overtaken by other, far superior >>graphics APIs. Like Display PostScript, OpenGL, Cairo, Vulkan ...
OpenGL was running on X back in the 90s FFS.
Plenty of programs still use Xlib ...
... and having the compositing side as an X extension ...
This is why, on Linux, you have a choice.
Until the zeolots decide X is for the bin just like they did init and replaced it with the bug ridden POS called systemd.
And how do you propose to restrict access to specific processes? Process name, user, some kind of certificate? All these things can be spoofed.
You're the one who's paranoid about remote connections, not me. But then wayland can't do this anyway ...
(... but it has colors and graphics for status output ... 1337! :-\ )
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:39:00 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
If a framebuffer is all thats required now then whats theIn a word? Compositing. We run modern multitasking OSes nowadays,
point of Wayland?
remember.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 08:44:04 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
And how do you propose to restrict access to specific processes? Process
name, user, some kind of certificate? All these things can be spoofed.
Process identity can’t be spoofed.
You're the one who's paranoid about remote connections, not me. But then
wayland can't do this anyway ...
Actually it can, via Waypipe.
Note that Wayland uses a Unix-family socket, not TCP/IP ports. These are >subject to normal Linux filesystem protections, and access to them can be >controlled that way.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 08:48:49 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
No, it turned out the Wayland design was a poorly thought out dogs
dinner and now they're trying to get it to work properly.
But you said yourself: “All that[’]s needed is a thin layer above the >framebuffer level to marshal graphics requests. Compositing isn't >complicated”. Are you changing your mind now?
OpenGL was running on X back in the 90s FFS.
On top of, yes. As a replacement for, no. Given that you have something
that powerful, the X11 graphics API itself becomes ... superfluous.
Plenty of programs still use Xlib ...
Actually, a lot of them switched to XCB.
Until the zeolots decide X is for the bin just like they did init and
replaced it with the bug ridden POS called systemd.
Ah, seems you lack what the French call “Systéme D”. There is a >discussion
about that in comp.os.linux.advocacy, if you want to go there and rant
about it.
Or we can rant about it here. I don’t really mind, though some others >might.
In comp.windows.x, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 07:39:00 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
If a framebuffer is all thats required now then whats theIn a word? Compositing. We run modern multitasking OSes nowadays,
point of Wayland?
remember.
I don't use a compositing window manager now, or ever that I can
remember, but I have been using Linux full time since before Y2K.
And "multitasking" on Unix much longer.
That's no reason to switch to Wayland.
Wayland being a rewrite that removes a lot of cruft in X11: that would
be something to emphasize.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 20:37:18 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 08:44:04 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
And how do you propose to restrict access to specific processes?
Process name, user, some kind of certificate? All these things can be
spoofed.
Process identity can’t be spoofed.
Really? So what sort of idenfication system prevents spoofing then?
You're the one who's paranoid about remote connections, not me. But
then wayland can't do this anyway ...
Actually it can, via Waypipe.
A side plug in that seems to have to run as a server alongside the
wayland server. Very efficient I'm sure.
X can also use unix swockets
And then they could call it .... X12.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:00:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:...
X can also use unix swockets
No it can’t. An X display has to be a number, not a name.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:00:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 20:37:18 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 08:44:04 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
And how do you propose to restrict access to specific processes?
Process name, user, some kind of certificate? All these things can be
spoofed.
Process identity can’t be spoofed.
Really? So what sort of idenfication system prevents spoofing then?
The kernel. It’s a feature of Unix sockets, because of the fact that >they’re strictly local.
A side plug in that seems to have to run as a server alongside the
wayland server. Very efficient I'm sure.
It’s called “modularity”.
Wayland is only reachable via a Unix socket, which, unlike TCP/IP ports,
is subject to standard Linux filesystem protections.
Waypipe extends to relaying that via a Unix socket on the remote machine, >which is subject to standard Linux filesystem protections there.
You see how all the parts fit together, without compromising security?
X can also use unix swockets
No it can’t. An X display has to be a number, not a name.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:09:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
And then they could call it .... X12.
Here <https://www.x.org/wiki/Development/X12/>. Go wild.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 09:45:24 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:09:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
And then they could call it .... X12.
Here <https://www.x.org/wiki/Development/X12/>. Go wild.
Disagree with a few things but generally looks like a good plan to me.
FFS man, you know perfectly well I'm talking about remote processes on another machine.
Unix sockets can't connect over TCP and once
you're on another machine spoofing is technically simple.
What Wayland does isn't complicated so why is it
still in development after 15 years?
The GPU is superfluous on a lot of PCs that only get used for office
work, so what?
Actually, a lot of them switched to XCB.
I've used X for years and had to go and google XCB.
It was an analogy.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:08:14 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
FFS man, you know perfectly well I'm talking about remote processes on
another machine.
So was I. On a machine whose Linux kernel you presumably trust, even if
you don’t necessarily trust other users on that machine.
Unix sockets can't connect over TCP and once
you're on another machine spoofing is technically simple.
Each end enforces its filesystem protections. SSH provides the secure >connection between them. Every part is secure, and the combination is
secure. It’s that simple.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:03:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 09:45:24 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:09:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
And then they could call it .... X12.
Here <https://www.x.org/wiki/Development/X12/>. Go wild.
Disagree with a few things but generally looks like a good plan to me.
Get coding, then! Show us how you can come up with something better than
that nasty, tewwible Wayland!
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:05:38 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
What Wayland does isn't complicated so why is it
still in development after 15 years?
Why, were you working on something that was ready to go as an X11
replacement 15 years ago?
The GPU is superfluous on a lot of PCs that only get used for office
work, so what?
Not any more. It’s an integral part of video acceleration in modern GUIs >now.
Actually, a lot of them switched to XCB.
I've used X for years and had to go and google XCB.
Really? That tells me maybe more than I wish to know.
It was an analogy.
Pro tip: argument by analogy ≠ argument by facts.
The socket is usually called /tmp/.X11-unix/Xn for display n.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 22:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Get coding, then! Show us how you can come up with something better than >>that nasty, tewwible Wayland!
Ah, that tired old riposte.
"If you don't like it write something yourself!"
If I don't like a book should I write my own? If I don't like a car
shall I build my own?
On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:31:50 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield wrote:
The socket is usually called /tmp/.X11-unix/Xn for display n.
The socket *has* to be called X«n», and be located in /tmp/.X11-unix/.
Which is a world-writable directory. You see the problem?
The Wayland socket goes in $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR, which is a variable under the >control of the user. It usually points to /run/user/«userid». Which
belongs to that specific user.
On Tue, 14 May 2024 07:37:39 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 22:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Get coding, then! Show us how you can come up with something better than >>>that nasty, tewwible Wayland!
Ah, that tired old riposte.
Tired of Open Source already? To paraphrase Samuel Johnson: “Those who are >tired of Open Source, are tired of life!”
"If you don't like it write something yourself!"
That’s where all Open Source comes from. It doesn’t write itself, you >know. Here you are criticizing something you were given for free: if you >don’t like it, do what the developers of that software did: create >something new yourself.
If I don't like a book should I write my own? If I don't like a car
shall I build my own?
Yes, and yes. Where do you think all those books and cars came from?
On Tue, 14 May 2024 00:49:21 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:05:38 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
What Wayland does isn't complicated so why is it still in development
after 15 years?
Why, were you working on something that was ready to go as an X11
replacement 15 years ago?
You've already used that fallacy. Don't dig your hole even deeper.
On Tue, 14 May 2024 07:39:44 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 00:49:21 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:05:38 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
What Wayland does isn't complicated so why is it still in development
after 15 years?
Why, were you working on something that was ready to go as an X11
replacement 15 years ago?
You've already used that fallacy. Don't dig your hole even deeper.
You are the one spouting hot air, and betraying your lack of cred as an >“armchair programmer”, not me.
I have little time for the "If you don't like it then do your own
version or else just suck it up".
Why do you think so many companies have panels that check out their
products and give feedback?
OSS has many advantages but one disadvantage is that unlike a commercial operation it can't go out of business no matter how shit the product ...
want to.
On Wed, 15 May 2024 07:18:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
I have little time for the "If you don't like it then do your own
version or else just suck it up".
And yet you have plenty of time for complaining about how bad things are, >that other people are taking the trouble to produce for free.
Why do you think so many companies have panels that check out their
products and give feedback?
“If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a >faster horse.”
-- not quite Henry Ford
OSS has many advantages but one disadvantage is that unlike a commercial
operation it can't go out of business no matter how shit the product ...
want to.
First of all, “Open Source” does not preclude “commercial”. And >secondly,
isn’t your complaint about “can’t go out of business” somewhat at odds
with your whining about “zealots deciding that X is for the bin”?
On Sat, 11 May 2024 10:25:40 +0000, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
I prefer software that works to that being worked on. My understanding
is that there're a plenty of others who share this preference,
however odd it might seem.
That's fine. Except there don't seem to be enough such people, for X11,
at least, to continue working on it.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 00:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 10:25:40 +0000, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
I prefer software that works to that being worked on. My understanding
is that there're a plenty of others who share this preference,
however odd it might seem.
That's fine. Except there don't seem to be enough such people, for X11,
at least, to continue working on it.
The only danger to X11 is that RedHat will probably remove it from its >distros, and most or all other Linux distros will follow suit. In the >meantime, who knows what else RedHat will drop support for, for no reason >other than "old software bad."
Fortunately, the BSDs will continue having X11, and they haven't been >wrecking their OSes like the Linux community, so that could be a viable >alternative.
The only danger to X11 is that RedHat will probably remove it from its distros, and most or all other Linux distros will follow suit.
Fortunately, the BSDs will continue having X11 ...
On Sat, 25 May 2024 09:47:11 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian Wells wrote:
The only danger to X11 is that RedHat will probably remove it from its
distros, and most or all other Linux distros will follow suit.
Nobody sees Red Hat as a leader in the Linux world, apart from its
paying customers. And those are mostly in North America, anyway.
On Sat, 25 May 2024 22:39:20 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2024 09:47:11 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian Wells wrote:
The only danger to X11 is that RedHat will probably remove it from its
distros, and most or all other Linux distros will follow suit.
Nobody sees Red Hat as a leader in the Linux world, apart from its
paying customers. And those are mostly in North America, anyway.
That's really odd, given that every time Red Hat does something stupid,
the other distros follow suit. Examples: Systemd,
usrmerge, PulseAudio, and Wayland.
On Sat, 25 May 2024 22:39:20 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2024 09:47:11 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian Wells wrote:
The only danger to X11 is that RedHat will probably remove it from its
distros, and most or all other Linux distros will follow suit.
Nobody sees Red Hat as a leader in the Linux world, apart from its
paying customers. And those are mostly in North America, anyway.
That's really odd, given that every time Red Hat does something
stupid, the other distros follow suit. Examples: Systemd,
usrmerge, PulseAudio, and Wayland.
On Sun, 26 May 2024 09:21:56 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian Wells wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2024 22:39:20 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2024 09:47:11 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian Wells wrote:
The only danger to X11 is that RedHat will probably remove it from its >>>> distros, and most or all other Linux distros will follow suit.
Nobody sees Red Hat as a leader in the Linux world, apart from its
paying customers. And those are mostly in North America, anyway.
That's really odd, given that every time Red Hat does something stupid,
the other distros follow suit. Examples: Systemd,
usrmerge, PulseAudio, and Wayland.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Linux_distributions_without_systemd>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 365 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 06:02:23 |
| Calls: | 7,785 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 12,914 |
| Messages: | 5,750,439 |
