I’d be fine with it, but I had to pin the flatpak to an old release for now, because the redesign fucked up the migration, deleted all my presets and also caused issues with voice chat apps not getting any audio input. The new UI is also unquestionably a downgrade and less accessible when it comes to setting slider values, but I hope that can be fixed with time. I certainly don’t blame FOSS devs for their work.

Btw. seeing some of the comments in here: is it the fate of all Linux shitposting forums to be filled with hardliners who really care what software you install on you Linux system? Let me use my GTK apps in peace. I don’t need opinions on UI cleanliness and density from people who don’t even use easyeffects, because my god, is it a mess currently.

Last time I used Nemo it was an unstable mess, but that was a while ago. I’m sure it’s been improved.

The Lunduke effect.

Good marketing or influencers perhaps? I’m not sure but I’ve been wondering myself.

If you use omarchy, you have bad taste.

KHTML and WebKit is a historic mess but it’s debatable at best if Apple actually violated license terms. In any case, it shows just how ineffective LGPL is at enforcing the intended contributions from corporate licensees. I’m not getting into this historic mess of a topic with someone who has yet to give a reason why Rust needs to be singled out for being MIT licensed when it was already the de facto default choice for most open source projects before it ever became popular. It’s quite clear to me from the endless brain-dead comments in Lundukes YT channel or in the Phoronix forums, that a vocal minority of the Linux community has a massive hate-boner for Rust and is desperately trying to come up with a valid reason for it. None of these people are actual experts from what I can tell, but boy do they have strong opinions about the programming languages used by the people who do all the work.

Really excited to see how this relates to Rust or MIT.

Yes, just like most things Lunduke or his tinfoil hat army of illiterate conservatives preach, it’s horseshit. You can license your own code in whatever way you want, Rust doesn’t prevent that. Neither does Zig, just in case you weren’t aware that Rust isn’t the only MIT licensed language ecosystem. In fact, there are very few that use a copyleft license.

Do you know how much software in the Linux ecosystem is MIT (or Apache) licensed? Why hasn’t X11 “hollowed out free and open source”, despite being included in damn near every desktop linux installation? Have you ever taken a look at other language ecosystems? It’s absolutely full of MIT licensed libraries everywhere. There is a reason that MIT and Apache licenses are by far the most popular choice at the moment. If you really want to be concerned about that choice, be my guest, but stop blaming Rust for it for fucks sake. And you people can fuck off with those “soy” comments too. Come back when you’ve actually written a single line of productive code, instead of pretending to be a concerned expert about a topic you can barely grasp.

Yes, hello? Is this the Bryan Lunduke comment section?

The more I scrolled through the comments, the more I longed for the familiar comfort of the braindead phoronix forums. It’s one thing to be convinced that C is the peak of programming language design (sometimes without having ever written a productive line of code), but it’s another thing entirely to be convinced that Rust is some sort of figurative (or even literal) trojan horse pushed by a global woke conspiracy and/or connected to the “planned release” of COVID-19.

His YT comment section is an experience. They’re breeding a unique kind of right-wing, tinfoil hat Linux extremist, whose software usage is determined solely by esoteric association and “suspicious timing” like seeing widespread adoption during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The phoronix comment section is a garden of rationality and level-headed thinking in comparison.

I do think there are long-term benefits in many cases, it just depends on available resources. There are plenty of projects that desperately need a rewrite for maintenance reasons alone so you might as well examine if language switch is worth it. It’s not like there aren’t a lot of success stories, even if there’s projects like sudo-rs where we’re, at best, not sure if there’s tangible benefits.

At this point I think the “thoughtful” C programmer is a myth and I don’t mean this as an insult. Even the most careful and experienced C gurus still make mistakes that would be much harder to make, if not categorically prevented in something like Rust. A lot of very secure C software is small in footprint, has had stable requirements for years, experienced thousands of hours of real world testing by users and the scrutiny of security experts. What I’m saying is: it should be easier to write secure software, especially with complex requirements or large attack surfaces.

I disagree that C has a notably smaller footprint than Rust for most purposes and system integration is in some cases harder in Rust precisely because of the notorious upfront implementation cost that prevents a lot of potential bugs.

Mozilla, where Rust was originally conceived, have already talked about this risk factor ages ago when they were still working on Servo. Reimplementing battle-tested software in a different language can result in logic bugs being introduced, which no programming language can really prevent. Many times they will actually reintroduce bugs that have already been historically fixed in the original implementation. This doesn’t invalidate the benefits of moving to a very memory safe language, it just needs to be taken into consideration when determining whether it’s worth the risk or the effort.

Honestly I have no idea whether sudo-rs is a good idea or not, but I have my doubts that any of the other people (especially the very vocal kind) chiming in on this do. Any time Rust is involved in the Linux community, a lot of vocal critics with very little knowledge of the language or programming in general seem to appear.

Getting comfortable with legacy software is completely valid as long as you’re aware of the potential disadvantages. Shitposting online about it or worse being wrong on the internet are different stories.

That’s not the same thing as shitposting online about your grievances with Wayland.

Did you try it that with Gnome? I heard that some input methods suffered with the wayland transition because mutter makes some weird choices. From my personal experience, libinput works great with a wacom tablet, so I’m assuming you ran into an issue with a specific DE.

Let me rephrase that: it sounds like a niche problem to have for an end user. It also doesn’t sound like a fair complaint, because no long-term replacement to X was ever going to be drop-in the way you seem to expect.

Alright then, since everyone assumes I’m here to participate in this shitty flamewar instead of genuinely asking what someone is talking about: the article does a pretty good job of explaining what the idea is behind not giving applications absolute coordinates to position their windows in. If that isn’t enough and you’re one of those people who insist that it must be those evil Wayland devs pushing their security agenda down everyones throats, then you might consider how much of a pain this was for any WM that wanted to do something like scrollable workspaces or managing a device that doesn’t have a standard screen shape. If anything, giving apps access to global coordinates the way X did, just makes them less portable to other environments. There are trade-offs here and you might disagree with the compromise we landed on for now, but all of this has already been discussed for years so at this point I really don’t care for snarky commentary from people who aren’t willing to contribute towards the changes they want to see.

If that was the case then maybe I’d have more patience for disingenuous shit like this.