drewofdoom

Shouldn’t be, though. Humans deserve rest.

TBH, it sounds like you should go with a distro that makes no assumptions. Like an Arch/Endeavor. It definitely sounds like you’re current distro doesn’t meet your needs/ideals if you’re this angry about a default change.

Let’s be fair to the distro maintainers, though. They have the option to either keep shipping and developing against abandoned code, or they move with upstream. Since no one is developing X11 anymore, they’re all moving to the new stuff. Most of them changed defaults years ago, too. Hard to develop new features when X is so long in the tooth.

The writing has been on the wall about the death of X11 for a long time, now. No one stepped up to fork it or take over maintenance. So it goes. But this is Linux, so you’re free to run it forever. Or even fork and maintain it yourself.

FWIW, Wayland+Nvidia was fine for me. Promising, even, considering how new it is. There are bugs to squash, sure, but there always are in new software.

Ummm… Sure… Progress takes time, and it won’t speed up at all if everyone says “it’s not ready,” and edge cases never get tested. I mean, the project is sixsteen years old now. It’s been more than just " pretty good" for years at this point.

And I doubt that your distro is going to drop X11 session support anytime soon. So if you reinstall, you may need to do one more step to make that the default. Big whoop.

But the real meat here is that you had a bad experience something like a year ago, and it seems like you’ve developed true hatred over it. Would it help to know that Nvidia and Wayland play nicely now? They have for quite some time.

FWIW, I had very little trouble with xwayland even years ago. It didn’t really require any setup for me. It just kinda worked. Sure, there will always be SOME weirdness, but overall it’s been working really well for years.

Anyways, I’m sure you can still toggle over to your X session for years to come. At least until your DE decides it wants to go wayland only.

And here’s the other argument we hear all the time. “This bill doesn’t fix everything, so it’s pointless and should be dropped.”

Drinking in a car is illegal, but how would an officer be able to tell if there are passengers drinking behind tinted windows? If the driver has booze in his or her or their yeti, how would a cop know? Since the cop can’t know, drinking in cars should be legal, even for the driver.

That’s basically what you’re arguing.

Sometimes a bill is stripped down in order to pass with conservatives or moderates. Sometimes a bill is a trial balloon for what you really want to pass. Sometimes a bill addresses a specific issue, and that it doesn’t fix some other issue is just moot.

And sometimes you have to walk before you run.

LOL, “I’m willing to listen to reasoning, but only if you format it in a way that I’m willing to read.”

For real, though, fewer guns means fewer gun crimes. The whole ‘then only outlaws will have guns’ is really a myth. Statistics have shown over and over again that the vast majority of criminals who purchase guns do so legally. If they can’t purchase one locally, they just go a state over where the laws are lax. The whole ‘black market’ gun stores thing is just a false argument.

The idea that a ‘good guy with a gun’ will make everyone safer is also pretty well debunked. Just look at John Hurley - the ‘good guy with a gun’ who was posthumously branded a hero after he was shot by the police.

Guns are inherently unsafe. We’re never getting rid of them in military applications, but any reasonable restrictions for private ownership should be a no-brainer.

All the arguments for ‘private gun ownership makes us safer’ fall apart under any scrutiny. So does the constitutional argument. The only real, provable argument you have is that your personal freedom to own a killing machine is more important to you than public safety.

There are a lot of reasons to not judge it yet. First and foremost, the director/show runner has zero input on the trailer. That’s all the marketing department, and the trailer is designed to get as many eyeballs as possible on the final product. Numerous examples exist of trailers which bared little resemblance to the movie/show/game/whatever.

Secondly, they buried the lead on the director. Jonathan Nolan did direct much of Westworld. But he also wrote a bunch of award winning films for his brother, Christopher Nolan. Movies like Memento, Interstellar, The Prestige, and Dark Knight. He’s no slouch, and I’ll reserve judgement until I see it.

Hotline Miami +1

Nothing wrong with discovery, though masquerading an ad as an algorithm recommendation is super shady.

That said, Spotify has a track record of treating artists horribly. It also has atrocious sound quality compared to every other service out there.

I’m using Tidal. Has one of the highest artist pay out rates, and top notch quality.

It’s ok to get information from places like X/Twitter or Reddit. It’s even fine to have an account. But it’s better to post your OWN material to platforms that best align with your sensibilities.

You got it! We all need a little reminder to take context into account sometimes. And I do appreciate what you were trying to do, which is promote privacy. It’s a laudable goal, and one that I encourage you to continue. Just remember to meet people where they are, instead of where you want them to be. ;)

I think you misunderstood what they are trying to convey.

Yes, it’s quick and easy to install (privacy respecting alternative). But to even get to the point that you recognize that you need that alternative is a time commitment as well. They are so busy trying to stay alive and support themselves that they don’t have the extra mental registers to devote to keeping up with privacy implications of popular software.

Not to mention, some software now suffers from IE6-itis, except this time with chromium. So if a user encounters one of those issues on an important site, they’re more likely to drift over to the chromium side again. That friction alone causes more hardship for a person in their situation than simply giving up some privacy for convenience.

They’re also not even making excuses. They’re simply telling you what the point of view is in their world.

Your current approach presents a holler-than-thou attitude that is rude and off-putting. Ultimately, it’s not your job nor mine to chastise them for their choices. If they’re reading this thread, that shows interest in the topic.

Allow them to discover it for themselves (with guided encouragement and assistance if requested) instead of being guilted into a decision. That will have a much more long-lasting impact.

I see the method you attempt all over the Internet, and it always has the same effect of contributing to a toxic, elitist culture. IMHO, that needs to stop if we have any chance of changing more minds to be privacy-aware.

Shit, sorry, missed this earlier! This is one of them.

Except I work for a state’s community college system. Working for a state org, they want you to pay taxes in that state.

FWIW, they let me work from Georgia for the first year and change during the pandemic.

Then there’s my employer, who is giving us WFH for the foreseeable future. They might even sell our office building and move our datacenter.

We do a monthly small-team in person, and the occasional all-staff in-person, but otherwise it’s just “come in if you want, or don’t, lol.” Like, I technically have a desk. It’s just got a couple monitors on it collecting dust, though. I’m only really ever there (aside from the infrequent in-persons) when my rabbit has to go to the vet, which is closer to the office.

We actually showed more productivity after moving to WFH, so they said ‘let’s just keep it.’ So my only restriction is living in the state, since it’s a publically-funded org.

It’s even more sinister than that. An uneducated populace is good for the ruling class. They have more children on average and will believe the lies more willingly.

The Republican party has been trying to destroy the education system for decades. Not only do they not want the poors getting educated (more malleable labor), they want to privatize education (vouchers, divert more public money to private hands).

Not saying it’s a lie, but sourcing from NYPost is automatically a huge red flag.

I’ll put more stock in this when it’s reported by reputable outlets.

Forgive me, but I’ve been around the Linux/FOSS community for a couple decades and I have never heard someone mention the Freedesktop spec as a requirement to be considered ‘Linux.’ Considering that the Freedesktop spec is mostly targeted towards systems with graphical UIs, would that mean that any headless system running a Linux kernel and GNU userland is not considered ‘Linux?’ Furthermore, that kind of flies in the face of the idea of using Linux as a testing ground for alternative computing ideas.

Now, there’s been a lot of discussion around fragmentation, and I get the arguments towards enforcing standards, but to me this is a truly bizarre line to draw in the sand. You could just as easily say “Any systems not using SysV are not ‘real’ Linux.” Or any system that gets rid of /usr. Or any system that isn’t POSIX compliant (bye bye, NixOS…).

Seriously. I don’t get it. Please show me what I’m missing.

You could say the same thing about other distros that hide the difficult bits, tbh. Is Endless Linux? What about Elementary?

The thing about Linux is that it’s extremely flexible, and there’s a lot of choices about interface and user experience.

So what is it about ChromeOS that makes it not Linux? Is it that it doesn’t have GNOME, KDE, XFCE or the hundreds of other DEs? Is it that you don’t need to use the terminal for anything? I mean, it’s not the kernel or the userland or even the compiler…

So what is it?