Venezuela is a test. If the world does not stop them, Canada is next.

Has anybody seen that World War II movie? They do a pretty good job of this storyline in that.

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.

This is a dramatically misinformed comment. You have clearly never used Distrobox.

1. The first bullet is the worst. This is like saying that Flatpak will break your host. It will not break the host OS. Learn what a container is.

2. It is not tools on top of tools. It is tools in a container that you can optionally create entries for in your app menu. Apps in the container execute directly on the host kernel in the container. If you are in a shell, you are either in the container or out and the full environment will reflect that.

3. It is not for “new users”. That said it dramatically simplifies many intermediate ones and make some advanced things possible. Once again though, there are no “stacks on stacks”.

4. The exact opposite. Containers do not change the host. If something goes wrong in the container, you can purge it completely without impacting the host.

In fact, one of my core uses for Distrobox is to keep my host system clean. I use Distrobox to setup dev environments, to try out new software, to work around Distro constraints, and a host of other tasks. It is great.

There seems to be quite a fundamental misunderstanding of what a container is. Everything runs directly on the host kernel. Apps outside the container run on the host OS and do not interact with the container. Apps in the container run in the environment inside the container. The only interaction apps in the container have with the host is the kernel, the filesystem, and via servers like Wayland, Pipewire, and XDG portals.

The entire point of a container is to create an application environment that looks exactly like an application expects regardless of system it is running on. It is clean and consistent between deployment. This is the exact opposite of what the above comment implies.

In practice, it “feels” like apps in Distrobox are running native on the host OS but in fact everything above the kernel is running inside the container and each container is distinct from the others.

The “example” is totally wrong. GCC is either on the host or it is not (from the host). GCC is either in the container or it is not. They do not interfere with each other. They do not even share C libraries. However, the can see the same source files.

Distrobox is absolutely nothing like Homebrew. Homebrew is a package manager. If you are using a package manager in Distrobox, it will be the one intended to work with whatever distro you are running in Distrobox. This is a fantastic illustration of the confusion of ideas at work here.

If you have to compare Dostrobox to something, compare it to Flatpak.

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.

How is a guy playing to 100 people in a field for free getting this much national press?

Shortcut is much simpler, in both the good and bad ways.

You cannot even decouple SystemD from Glibc, never mind separating the various components from each other. It is a bunch of processes but it is designed as a monolith.

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.

I think if Trump loses the election, it will hurt Pollievre as well.

While I understand the sentiment, we have to understand that Open Source developers work on projects that motivate them.

So, we can have a single example of each of these but they do necessarily get any more devs. In fact, if you take economic theory ( competition for example ), it is likely they attract less attention individually than they do competing as part of an ecosystem.

It would certainly help on the user acceptance and commercial software side where choice is an impediment. But, if we are just talking resources, limiting the number of projects only works if you pay people to work on them.

Why was each of these projects started ( eg. window managers )? The answer is simple. It is because the founding developer did not like any of the existing options.

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.

By the way, I do not use Fedora or RHEL and have no connection to Red Hat of any kind ( though I used to use their distros before Fedora existed and for a bit after — all long ago ).