I am very curious to see what kind of uptake COSMIC gets.

It seems like a nice compromise between the overly locked-down simplicity of GNOME and the complexity of KDE. And it balances tiling with stacking really well.

I moved my mother to Mint a few months ago. I have not had a single tech support call. She uses it daily. About a week in I asked her how it was going. She liked that printing worked more reliably and wished the scroll bars in Facebook were a bit thicker. Her printer used to show as offline sometimes in Windows but that issue has gone away under Mint. I was going to look for a theme with thicker scroll bars but she told me not to bother.

Granted she was a Firefox and Thunderbird user already so that helped with the transition.

Here is an argument that some of the grumpy old men clinging to Xorg may understand.

It is 2003 and all the cool kids are moving to this new web browser called Firefox. But every time you try your favourite websites in it, you find stuff that breaks. So back to trusty old Internet Explorer 6 you go. Call me when it works you say.

Wayland is like HTML. Wayland compositors are web browsers. And yes, all these “modern” web standards are all implemented a little differently or maybe not at all in some browsers. And, annoyingly, a lot of real world websites still work better in Internet Explorer 6 than in any of these supposedly “modern” browsers.

But, as with the web, it will not be long until all websites (Linux desktop applications) will be written to use the modern standards and will work well, and pretty much the same, in all browsers (Wayland compositors).

And, while there will still be websites (Linux desktop apps) that work better in IE6 (Xorg), most people will consider those sites broken and will probably not use them. Alternatively, you can run your browser (compositor) in compatibility mode (Xwayland) for those sites.

You can keep using Internet Explorer if you want. Many people held on for a long time. Just know what your advocacy sounds like to people that have moved on to Firefox and Chrome. Pointing at your corporate website that looks wrong in Firefox will not impress them. And understand that you will not be able to hang on forever. Well, unless you want to be stuck in a tiny corner of the web that still works on your browser. Most websites will stop working on Internet Explorer at some point.

It is not paranoia of you your risk assessment is accurate. It is just awareness.

Just because he doing all that as well doesn’t mean he won’t get to it. Destroying things is easy work. Sometimes all it takes is not doing other things.

They have made scamming infinitely more productive. Just another success story.

Were you having problems previously?

Why does every mention of Rust have to spawn these comments?

The story right after this one for me is how KeepassXC is porting to Qt6. I bet nobody has knee-jerk responded to that story bitching about the fact that they mentioned Qt. It is just the anti-Rust zealots that do this.

This article talks about the problems they were trying to solve, the tools they chose, and how those tools solve those problems. What is wrong with that?

Are you offering up informed commentary countering why you would have made different choices and why?

You do not need to attack every mention of a technology just because it threatens your historical preferences.

I do not recall other distros failing to update due to GPG key issues but it has happened to me on Arch distros many times. It is the biggest pain when converting from something like Manjaro to something like EndeavourOS as well.

I really do not understand why this cannot be fixed.

I have noticed that one of the groups that does not seem to be complaining about Wayland are the toolkit folks. GTK added support back in GTK3. Qt added it. Enlightenment added it. They must have jumped on it for a reason.

When you look at the Wayland readiness docs for things like XFCE, it stands out that all the apps are already ready ( because they are GTK based in this case ).

Like the other SVN, the author has been around forever in the Linux space. And yet his articles always come across like somebody that first discovered it a few months ago.

Somehow I find myself rankling at even his smallest editorials as well. Take this one: “Then, there's GCC Front-End for Rust, which can be loaded by the existing rustc frontend, but benefits from GCC optimizations.” Ok, sure, as long as we do not mind losing all the LLVM optimizations. Why not just say that Rust uses LLVM today and that there is a project to allow the use of the GCC-backend as an option? Leave it to the reader to decide which ecosystem or optimizations they prefer as this article is not even about that. It is like he Googled Rust and added everything he could find to the article. I can think of a reason to use the GCC version of Rust with the kernel. If you are using GCC to compile the C parts of the kernel, you also need LLVM for Rust. A GCC based Rust would eliminate that requirement. Presumably this also allows both the C and Rust code to target the same platforms. GCC and LLVM platform support is not the same. Those would be relevant points but neither of those is about “GCC optimizations”.

That is just one example.

Basically, I find his articles to be as misleading as they are informative and that is not what I want from the technical press.

Not enough curation. People can use whatever they want but you should never “recommend” many of these distros.

For example, with apologies to fans, nobody should be pushed to ElementaryOS anymore—especially not new users. I say this as somebody that loves the “idea” of it and find it beautiful.

I think they should have gone through the candidate distros, disqualified many of them for various reasons, and then mapped to the remaining ones with their questions.