KDE:

“The Unix philosophy favors composability as opposed to monolithic design”

Xorg is a monolith with essentially one implementation. Wayland is a modular system with almost every component available from multiple sources.

Saying adopting Wayland means you “hate UNIX” is one of the least thoughtful arguments I can imagine.

One of the great aspects of Open Source is that you can continue to use any software you like for as long as you want. Enjoy Xorg (or your other favourite X11 server).

Of course, a majority of Xorg devs disagreed with you which is why they started Wayland to begin with. And a majority of desktop Linux users disagree with you now as three quarters of them have switched to Wayland.

Wayland offers a lot that X11 does not at this point. So, nobody is coming back. But if you are happy with X, stick with it.

You are going to lose access to a lot of apps though. There are very few Wayland only apps now but there are going to be many more in the coming years. And when toolkits like GTK5 go Wayland only, you may lose a some you already use.

“For most users, this will have no immediate impact. The vast majority of our users are already using the Wayland session”

So happy to read this as there is always somebody still claiming that “Wayland does not work” and “nobody wants to switch to Wayland” just because they have not.

Also great to see that the plan is for Wayland on FreeBSD as well so the Open Source desktops can stay aligned. GNOME on FreeBSD is more problematic, not because of Wayland but because of Systemd.

https://www.cigatisolutions.com/blog/open-msg-files-in-thunderbird/

A Linux distro can be “for beginners” because it includes reasonable defaults and tools that make it easier to use. But it will never really be “only” for beginners.

Every Linux distro uses basically the same kernel. They all offer a console to access the command line. So, as an expert, what can I not do in basically any version of Linux?

With things like Distrobox, I can even get any other version of Linux on my version of Linux.

I could be installing applications from the AUR 15 minutes after installing ZorinOS. I could be running containers, compiling code, deploying cloud infrastructure, doing offensive cybersecurity, playing games in Steam, transcoding video, or running AI agents the console. What exactly can I not do on Zorin that need an “expert” distro for?

People are a bit too elitist sometimes.

Not a Zorin user by the way.

For some, the phone they use is mandated by their employer.

I am very pro Linux but “I like Windows” is valid enough for me. I might ask why but I am not going to act like that reason is invalid.

Very happy to shake hands. Have an excellent week.

Kent does a good PR spin on things

Actually, this is where he lost me. I was a huge fan of bcachefs and wanted it in the kernel. So, I was very much on Kent’s side.

But everything he screwed up he would immediately start trashing everybody else and shitting blame everywhere but himself. It was dishonest and distasteful.

Worst of all, he would also hide behind the “fighting for the users” line and, as a user, all I could see was a guy that was putting way too much effort into ensuring that my needs would not be met (because it was clear he was going to get kicked out of the kernel).

Anyway, I found his “PR” left A LOT to be desired. I mean, if you do not have much information then I guess you could just take his words at face value and be convinced. But if you had basically any prior knowledge, what he was saying just did not pass the smell test.

I agree with pretty much everything else you are saying. And I really wish there was a way of having bcachefs in the kernel.

Sorry buddy. It looks like I somehow replied to the wrong comment.

You misunderstood me (no surprise given the first sentence).

No, the CPU does not become “software” because it has firmware. Which is why it is crazy to disqualify Linux distros as “free” when they include firmware blobs.

Based on your comment here, I would say we completely agree.

[EDIT: Actually, I see my mistake now. I was replying to you. I just forgot to put the /s at the end of my first line. I said “You don’t get it” because “you do get it”.]

Don’t whip out “logical fallacy” if you cannot follow basic logic.

If you want to talk about false equivalence, it is that you are equating “corporations not giving you something” with “corporations taking something from you”. These are NOT the same thing.

The code that the community has access to and the benefits that the code offers the community stand alone. If you write code and contribute it to an Open Source project then the “community” around that project is the primary beneficiary. No other facts are required to support this statement. It is self-evident.

You seem to be suggesting that “your work” and “the benefit” disappear for the community when a corporation writes code that they do not give you. If you did not know that the company did this, would all “the benefit” still disappear? What is the mechanism for that? Is there a disturbance in the force that you are sensitive to that I have not experienced?

The only “benefit” that has been “lost” is the benefit that the corporation added under a non-free license. And it has not been “lost”. It was just not contributed.

I totally get that you do not want companies to benefit from your work and that you want to force contribution from them. That is super fine with me. I get that you think the GPL helps further your goals. Great. Use the GPL. But why do you have to make factually incorrect arguments about permissive licenses in the process? Why not just promote what you think is unique and good about the GPL?

People fall for this shit. I have spoken to so many people that think “they took it proprietary” somehow means the old Open Source code ceases to exist or was somehow taken away. And they think this because of comments like yours. But all the code is still there. It is still as available and useful as it was before. You can still do everything and anything with it that you wanted to do previously. It is still “free”.

I will follow-up on your link later but let me first just thank you sincerely for backing up your opinion. I appreciate it and hope to learn something.

Your hardware is 100% “not free”. It has proprietary firmware. Lots of it. Most of it is for internal chips that you are not even aware of. The hardware you are running is not free. And it has firmware. Clear?

So, your position is that hardware that let’s you upgrade some of this firmware, hardware that let’s you control what bits get put on it, is LESS free than hardware that does not let you see or control that. How greater control is less free is totally beyond me.

And the reason you think this is because you actually have the non-free bits that make up a firmware upgrade. So you tell yourself that not touching this upgrade is a good thing because that upgrade is “proprietary”. Except that you are still running proprietary firmware for the exact same hardware. It needs firmware to work. The firmware you are downloading is just an upgrade.

Either you are running hardware that does not let you upgrade its firmware but that still has firmware nonetheless or you are running hardware with firmware that could be upgraded but you are refusing to upgrade it.

Either way, you have done absolutely nothing to advance your “freedom”. Honestly, it just boggles my mind.

Now, if there really was hardware out there that could be run without using any proprietary bits, that would be a different story. If you were willing to run such hardware, I would buy your ideological purity story. But we all know that this is not the hardware you are running. If you are not typing these comments on x86-64 than it is on ARM. Either way, your words are going through proprietary firmware before they get to me (even if you run these FSF approved distros).

I look forward to the day when truly free hardware exists and I can lose this argument to you. I truly do.

Why does the proprietary firmware in your hardware only suck if it can be upgraded?

You are quite happy running hardware that uses proprietary firmware as long as it does not show it to you. But if it shows it to you then it has to be free software?

I am not saying free software would not be better. Clearly it would be. But saying that not showing the firmware to you is better than showing it to you makes no sense. Please try to make a good argument for why it is ok as long as you don’t see it?

Given that you are willing to run proprietary firmware, why are you not willing to run proprietary firmware that can be upgraded? Got an argument for that makes your “ofc it does” even a little bit valid?

Or are you running on 100% “free” hardware? Because that is for sure not anything based on AMD or Intel and for sure not using any GPU or network card that I have ever heard of.

RISC-V is fighting the good fight. But even there the actual hardware being used today is proprietary, including of course the firmware (accessible or not). And I doubt you are running RISC-V anyway.

I am not sure we are understanding each other. My point is that the FSF counting worse firmware outcomes as wins (like firmware that I cannot even see or update). Their position is that, if it is not a binary blob in your distro, it does not exist and is therefore ok. Whatever. Firmware that can be updated is better than firmware that cannot. The fact that that they disagree is nuts.

Let’s just agree that RISC-V is a good thing. I cannot wait to have Linux running on a truly free ISA. The hardware design needs to be free too though. The ISA is not enough. A proprietary chip is still a proprietary chip even if the ISA is RISC-V.

But, if the ISA is free, at least I am not locked into a proprietary ecosystem because I can also buy my hardware from somebody else and run all my existing software on it.

People underestimate how important RISC-V is on the micro-controller side. Because when you have an NVIDIA GPU, the “firmware” that you use on Linux is just small piece of the puzzle. There are several chips in that card and today you have absolutely no idea how any of them work. You may not even know what ISA they use. In the future (and it is increasingly common today) all those internal chips will be RISC-V chips too.

That depends on your hardware and what software you want to run.

The “normal” case is that Linux is very easy to install and does not require any more skills than other operating systems.

The “worst” case is that something goes wrong or is poorly supported and it really does take a lot of time. Some software may not even be available. This is less frequent than you may expect.

A “common” case is that everything goes fine but you have expertise in a different system and so you have to spend some time ramping up to similar skill levels on Linux. Some people enjoy this part.

The “best” case is that it turns out that Linux fits your needs better than your previous OS and you find out that you were spending a bunch of time fighting the short-comings in the old system. This is more common than you think. There is a reason so many of us use Linux. It is not a requirement. It is a preference.

It is hard to know which of the above experiences you will have until you try it.

Is there some agency out there that I am not aware of that stops you from buying new hardware if you are a Linux user?

One of my favourite things about Linux is that it runs so well on old hardware. I have some pretty old kit that still serves me well.

Bit it runs even better on more powerful hardware. No reason not to upgrade if you have the means.

If somebody says they cannot use wallpapers on other operating systems, just give them a thumbs up and move on.

Why would you want to recruit such a person.

Debain and Fedora are 100% free software operating systems.

Point at a single package in either one that is proprietary software.

Driver firmware does not count. Why? Because that is hardware. The hardware is proprietary regardless and there is proprietary firmware in my hardware regardless of what my OS does.

None of the operating systems listed run on “free” hardware, so arguing about how free the non-free hardware is is meaningless.

Calling Debian and Fedora “closed source” or “black box” because they distribute firmware is madness. Hardware that cannot be updated at all is less “black box”? If that is your view, your opinions hold no weight with me at all.

Fedora and Debian are 100% free operating systems that only include free software.

The FSF does not like them because they include non-free firmware.

The debate is entirely how you define what is software and what is hardware.