4 ms·

So many comments here are missing the point of the rant. If it doesn't work for you, fine, move on. But it takes a special type of asshole to go around harassin

So many comments here are missing the point of the rant. If it doesn't work for you, fine, move on. But it takes a special type of asshole to go around harassing maintainers and continuously putting down their hard work and in many cases just making overly broad and incorrect generalizations or propagating outright lies. There is a big difference between constructive criticism and what drove the author to write that rant in the first place. It boggles my mind how people can be complete assholes to people writing FOSS because the sense of entitlement that users have when it comes to FOSS is staggering, and the more technical someone believes themselves to be, oftentimes, the more caustic they tend to be in how they interact with FOSS developers. Obviously this isn't the case for everyone, but having been a silent observer on Github issues for many FOSS projects as well as reading the rants on reddit and HN against FOSS technology <X>, it really pisses me off even though I have no skin in the game. These are real humans and people devoting their own free time to build something they are passionate about and believe in. It may not work for you, you may even think what they are doing is a terrible idea. Then provide constructive criticism if you wish and move along. That's all too rare though. In reality, what people really want is they want Wayland (or insert Technology <X> here), but they want it the way they would wish it to be, and so they will essentially engage in negging developers and their decisions trying to beat them into submission. It's despicable behavior and no one should be defending this. Measured criticism is fine, but then move the fuck on. Let people passionate about FOSS they care about, continue working on it. But don't be an asshole and keep trying to tear them down just because you selfishly want what they are building, but you want them to really build it the way you want it and to meet your specific use cases.

roel_v 6y ago
At first they came for x, and I didn't speak out, etc...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
R0b0t1 6y ago
He's saying, literally, > So my new approach is “fuck you”. None of the Wayland detractors have a clue. Lumping everyone who may not have a rosy view of Wayland together. There's a good comment by an (alleged) pentester mentioning how Wayland doesn't really buy you that much. He's right. The bigger issue is lack of isolation within a gid. I can still debug your terminal and try to get your root password.
- oconnor663 6y ago
  > Blanket lumping everyone who may not have a rosy view of Wayland together. I think it's a lot closer to the author's intent to read the post as "here's what I'm experiencing" rather than "here's a category view of the world that I want you to endorse". Obviously a statement like "no one in [group] understands [thing]" is never going to be 100% true. When people say things like that, they're venting.
- kaba0 6y ago
  But in the same comment thread by the pentester, it turns out that what wayland does is a necessary step for security that X without embedded X sessions simply lacks. It is not sufficient but noone said so and it would be stupid to even assume that eg. a kernel bug can’t be used for escalation just because someone runs Wayland.
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    > It is not sufficient but noone said so and it would be stupid to even assume that Err, no, a bunch of people who bother talking about Wayland propose it as a solution to everything. Now that they are being called out on it they are walking back their positions.
    - kaba0 6y ago
      Please show me anyone that would think that running wayland with an unsafe kernel would make it safe?
      - 6y ago
NoodleIncident 6y ago
> “Wayland sucks!” is a conspiracy theory with no basis in truth, and its supporters have spent years harassing Wayland maintainers, contributors, and users. See that "and"? Your comment here only addresses the second half of that sentence, which is probably true, and people shouldn't do that. Most of this thread is discussing the first half, which doesn't seem like it's actually correct. You can't say "people are missing the point" when he's making two points in the same rant. There are pro-wayland people in this thread arguing the former point ("Wayland works for almost everyone"), and mostly they aren't putting up convincing arguments. So far I've seen: "it's really someone else's fault" (ok, in the meantime wayland doesn't work for me") -- "actually no operating system should support this" (ok, back to windows or apple or non-wayland linux it is). > More likely, it does work, and you swallowed some propaganda based on an assumption which might have been correct 7 years ago. > [Wayland] invented some new, fixable problems in the process — most of which have been fucking fixed already, and years ago! > Most of the lies you’ve heard about ways that it’s broken are just that: lies. The author didn't support these statements at all (which is the whole point of the rant, he's tired of doing that. that's fine). Someone else has to do that for this rant to make sense. So people are saying, "here is my common use case. how does it work on wayland now?" If they only thought it was broken due to lies and propaganda, it would be easy to explain how it's since been fixed. But people aren't.
oconnor663 6y ago
Weird social effects of being online: If we were in a room of 100 people, and two folks got into a shouting match, everyone would start listening. And then a group decision would get implicitly made. Is it a personal argument, best to stay out of it? Or is someone getting attacked unfairly, and it makes sense to intervene? Everyone in the room starts watching, and everyone starts thinking about what the group is going to do. Online is nothing like that. If someone behaves like a complete asshole on one thread, most people don't see it. Especially if the asshole is "some random guy" with no standing in the community. Since there's no real drama, the incident doesn't come to the community's attention. The person on the receiving end of the abuse never gets to have that moment that you'd have in a room of 100 people, where you know everyone sees you and supports you, and maybe you get some "points" for keeping your cool. There's no points for that online, just silence. I think it can feel very isolating and frustrating, and I'm not sure how to address it.
t0astbread 6y ago
This hits the spot. People are acting like Wayland developers are taking X and everything they liked about it away from them when in reality you can just continue running X if you don't like any particular Wayland compositor. The Wayland world will continue improving and chances are your problems will be sorted out one way or another in the future. But attacking people working to improve the status quo without any obligations on your side is fucked up beyond reason.

roel_v 6y ago

At first they came for x, and I didn't speak out, etc...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

R0b0t1 6y ago

He's saying, literally, > So my new approach is “fuck you”. None of the Wayland detractors have a clue. Lumping everyone who may not have a rosy view of Wayland together. There's a good comment by an (alleged) pentester mentioning how Wayland doesn't really buy you that much. He's right. The bigger issue is lack of isolation within a gid. I can still debug your terminal and try to get your root password.

oconnor663 6y ago
> Blanket lumping everyone who may not have a rosy view of Wayland together. I think it's a lot closer to the author's intent to read the post as "here's what I'm experiencing" rather than "here's a category view of the world that I want you to endorse". Obviously a statement like "no one in [group] understands [thing]" is never going to be 100% true. When people say things like that, they're venting.
kaba0 6y ago
But in the same comment thread by the pentester, it turns out that what wayland does is a necessary step for security that X without embedded X sessions simply lacks. It is not sufficient but noone said so and it would be stupid to even assume that eg. a kernel bug can’t be used for escalation just because someone runs Wayland.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  > It is not sufficient but noone said so and it would be stupid to even assume that Err, no, a bunch of people who bother talking about Wayland propose it as a solution to everything. Now that they are being called out on it they are walking back their positions.
  - kaba0 6y ago
    Please show me anyone that would think that running wayland with an unsafe kernel would make it safe?
    - 6y ago

NoodleIncident 6y ago

> “Wayland sucks!” is a conspiracy theory with no basis in truth, and its supporters have spent years harassing Wayland maintainers, contributors, and users. See that "and"? Your comment here only addresses the second half of that sentence, which is probably true, and people shouldn't do that. Most of this thread is discussing the first half, which doesn't seem like it's actually correct. You can't say "people are missing the point" when he's making two points in the same rant. There are pro-wayland people in this thread arguing the former point ("Wayland works for almost everyone"), and mostly they aren't putting up convincing arguments. So far I've seen: "it's really someone else's fault" (ok, in the meantime wayland doesn't work for me") -- "actually no operating system should support this" (ok, back to windows or apple or non-wayland linux it is). > More likely, it does work, and you swallowed some propaganda based on an assumption which might have been correct 7 years ago. > [Wayland] invented some new, fixable problems in the process — most of which have been fucking fixed already, and years ago! > Most of the lies you’ve heard about ways that it’s broken are just that: lies. The author didn't support these statements at all (which is the whole point of the rant, he's tired of doing that. that's fine). Someone else has to do that for this rant to make sense. So people are saying, "here is my common use case. how does it work on wayland now?" If they only thought it was broken due to lies and propaganda, it would be easy to explain how it's since been fixed. But people aren't.

oconnor663 6y ago

Weird social effects of being online: If we were in a room of 100 people, and two folks got into a shouting match, everyone would start listening. And then a group decision would get implicitly made. Is it a personal argument, best to stay out of it? Or is someone getting attacked unfairly, and it makes sense to intervene? Everyone in the room starts watching, and everyone starts thinking about what the group is going to do. Online is nothing like that. If someone behaves like a complete asshole on one thread, most people don't see it. Especially if the asshole is "some random guy" with no standing in the community. Since there's no real drama, the incident doesn't come to the community's attention. The person on the receiving end of the abuse never gets to have that moment that you'd have in a room of 100 people, where you know everyone sees you and supports you, and maybe you get some "points" for keeping your cool. There's no points for that online, just silence. I think it can feel very isolating and frustrating, and I'm not sure how to address it.

t0astbread 6y ago

This hits the spot. People are acting like Wayland developers are taking X and everything they liked about it away from them when in reality you can just continue running X if you don't like any particular Wayland compositor. The Wayland world will continue improving and chances are your problems will be sorted out one way or another in the future. But attacking people working to improve the status quo without any obligations on your side is fucked up beyond reason.