3 ms·

I know I'm going to lose points for pushing back on the pervasive HN RH-bashing, but this doesn't hold up. Wayland is being pushed by Redhat to make GNOME the o

I know I'm going to lose points for pushing back on the pervasive HN RH-bashing, but this doesn't hold up. Wayland is being pushed by Redhat to make GNOME the only stable option? Except that Wayland is perfectly fine (many would argue better than it is under GNOME!) on Sway, KDE, etc. KDE has more bugs than GNOME, but that's independent of Wayland, it's just because KDE's design philosophy is "hardcode every feature and option imaginable" and that leads to it being impossible to QA. Anyway, this is just conspiracy theory bullshit. I swear to god Red Hat is the Soros of Linux for a certain type of guy

vundercind 2y ago
Watching them a long time, too many coincidences. Looks like fire-and-motion, make yourself the standard then make it hard to deviate or to keep up. If it’s not intentional, it’s incredibly damn convenient.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- logicprog 2y ago
  Why do any of these standards make it harder for other distributions and desktop environments to keep up with them? wlroots exists, and in many people's minds is much better than GNOME with Wayland. This really strange thinking. Also, it isn't them that are making them the standard. It's independent distributions choosing to use what they produce (and not all of them do, either). Presumably, the maintainers and packagers who make those choices would be aware of these technical considerations, and capable of rejecting Red Hat's tech I'm favor of whatever hoary stack you prefer if it made it harder for them to "keep up." That seems to be something that is perfectly possible to do while still producing a usable distro, and it seems like something limit distributions are quite good at — ignoring what corporate operating systems are doing and forging their own path. Maybe it's because the technologies you are labeling as Red Hat technologies actually offer substantial improvements and push forward the cutting edge of the Linux desktop in a meaningful way, bringing it closer to the capabilities of a modern operating system?

vundercind 2y ago

Watching them a long time, too many coincidences. Looks like fire-and-motion, make yourself the standard then make it hard to deviate or to keep up. If it’s not intentional, it’s incredibly damn convenient.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
logicprog 2y ago
Why do any of these standards make it harder for other distributions and desktop environments to keep up with them? wlroots exists, and in many people's minds is much better than GNOME with Wayland. This really strange thinking. Also, it isn't them that are making them the standard. It's independent distributions choosing to use what they produce (and not all of them do, either). Presumably, the maintainers and packagers who make those choices would be aware of these technical considerations, and capable of rejecting Red Hat's tech I'm favor of whatever hoary stack you prefer if it made it harder for them to "keep up." That seems to be something that is perfectly possible to do while still producing a usable distro, and it seems like something limit distributions are quite good at — ignoring what corporate operating systems are doing and forging their own path. Maybe it's because the technologies you are labeling as Red Hat technologies actually offer substantial improvements and push forward the cutting edge of the Linux desktop in a meaningful way, bringing it closer to the capabilities of a modern operating system?