throwawaylinux

> Blair’s Labour—for all their faults—at least stopped the bleeding,

Stopped the figurative bleeding and started the literal...

But by stopped the bleeding, do you mean kept at levels comparable to those set by the previous conservative government? I.e., agreeing with the level of funding set by the conservative government.

I find it weird how governments are given a pass in that way. Setting funding from X to Y is a horrific crime, but leaving it at Y when you have the power to change it to X is somehow okay.

It is pretty blatant dishonesty to call it defunded or reduced spending though, as much as some ideologues like to claim it is.

> At least until mushroom clouds dot the horizons and the nuclear winter starts. Then the sun won't rise for a few years.

That's more fearmongering though. Nuclear winter doesn't mean blotting out the sun, it would be mostly imperceptible fine particles that might reduce global temperatures by a degree. But it's also pretty speculative and past predictions have over estimated the effect. So it's not a great way to disagree with this point. Global nuclear war would obviously be devastating but nuclear winter would be the least of our worries.

This isn't an argument though, you'd have to try to claim that a new scheme with a president (or whatever idiotic scheme the ruling class tries to foist on people) would cost less.

Stripping most of that funding from the useless crown representative and entourage would be a great idea. Could be done tomorrow with acts of parliament and executive with no fanfare and no need for constitutional grandstanding. The fact they don't gives the imagination a good starting point for how much it would cost to be a republic.

No, it's completely different, because this is not important at all. Evidence-free assertions of aforementioned grifters notwithstanding.

But tacitly admitting a poor cost/benefit with a reductio ad absurdum argument is not a great start anyway, because the actual situation is not an absurd one and margins matter.

When you die and go to secular-heaven you will be able to tell Saint Dawkins that you successfully resisted the billionaires by not giving them the pleasure of messaging your friends on their platforms, and will be permitted entry. Just don't tell him you were resisting from your iPhone.

A wasted opportunity for grievance peddlers and hand wringers to steal more limelight and derail public discourse from more important things, so they can hear themselves speak and act like they're bravely engaging battle at great risk to themselves for the benefit of all others, by stamping their names on pointless political and bureaucratic machinations that achieve exactly nothing for the common person.

> Yes, all kings are bad by definition.

By what definitions? Just claiming without evidence that something is bad "by definition" does not make it so, or relieve you of the need to accompany your assertions with any reasoning.

Thanks for letting everybody know.

> It was an architectural mistake to start bypassing GLX and depending on DRI at each app,

1. Well I assert that it was not an architectural mistake. So that doesn't really move the conversation. 2. Whether or not it was a mistake, does not change how things are. So you can't really use that as a point against Wayland for X.

> and Wayland wants to cement that. That’s why we see so many webapps where we would have expected remote windows driven by a backend server; Javascript became the GPU-local end of a lot of opaque rendering protocols to fill the gap.

Client side has been driven overwhelmingly by Windows in the past decades though, so I don't see how that is the reason. The number of javascript apps caused by DRI in X must be approximately zero, and caused by Wayland exactly zero.

> There never going to fully "leave" Xorg (Debian still ships token ring software FFS so the idea that they'll stop shipping X is just a weird fantasy some people have for some reason)

Obviously we're talking about using it as the default display server, and to that end they are and will. X will stay around for compatibility for quite a while of course.

> so in that sense they won't "go back".

No, so they won't switch to some other Xorg system, they'll just keep using what they have.

> Void is already working on packaging Xenocara and I doubt they'll be the last one; OpenBSD will just become the team that provides both a display server and a secure remote shell for lots of the Linux ecosystem.

I'm not sure about every last esoteric Linux distro, but the big ones. To that end, they are the ones actually paying people to develop Xorg and have been for many years. I don't see why they would move to something else even if they did go back to X, which they won't.

More advanced in terms of supported features and hardware.

Taking one off the top of my head that was relevant around the time Android was being developed, dynamic ticks which is important for low power operation. Linux supported this in 2007 about 5 years before FreeBSD and I think NetBSD still doesn't support it. Could not field a phone OS without that, at least not back in those days.

Pitchforks can be lowered. From the article:

> The sentencing change comes after her co-conspirator, Sunny Balwani, also saw two years shaved off of his 13-year sentence, with his projected date of release now 1 April 2034, according to the Bureau of Prisons website.

> Sure, Linux is on many, many devices which have proprietary UIs. And there it does pretty well, because the kernel just provides generic functionality cheaply. It’s a commodity backend that could be swapped with another commodify backend without any users knowing or caring. Hooray.

Sour grapes.

> Linux is the go to choice when you could just as well be using something else that’s really cheap, like BSD.

You actually couldn't be just as well using BSD. Corporations would love to be able to take Linux and not contribute their changes back (and that's frequently what happens when they use it internally but don't distribute it). They don't use a BSD licensed kernel in many such places (e.g., Android) because Linux is more advanced.

> Waypipe requires software rendering from any server that doesn't happen to have its own headless GPU.

X has to do that with DRI and client side rendering too, doesn't it?

> As long as Wayland doesn't deliver a remote rendering protocol, the best path forward seems to be shipping Javascript apps to a browser on the end user's machine (where his GPU will be available).

Why does that seem like the best path forward? Seems crazy. For incidental things, admin, etc., software rendering would be fine. The right path forward for a high performance application that needs to ship data to a client that can render it would be to transfer that data, not the drawing of it.

> This is about OpenBSD, whose team continues to maintain and update Xenocara.

Did you reply to the wrong comment? How does this address what I wrote?

> If I had to guess I would guess that when Linux distro grow tired of the new shiny they will switch to a port of Xenocara for their display systems.

Linux distros are not going back to Xorg. Xenocara is basically just that adapted to OpenBSD, but all the Xorg developers remaining pretty much work for Linux distros so if they did go back they would just switch to what they already package and ship today.

Network transparency at the GUI is not the way the "heavily networked world" is going though. In a lot of ways it doesn't scale. You want to administer and run things in a programmatic way, which means command line or an application specific protocol (which would have front-ends) so you can script and write tools for it and have that work over 1 or N machines.

So very few new things that require remote operation in the past 20 years should have baked in the requirement for a networked GUI.

The existence of Wayland does nothing to detract from the existence of X or its users or developers. Nothing stops anybody from maintaining and developing X. You can download and install X for your Wayland distro.

Not sure that anybody who "has a problem" has stepped up to really do much about it (most X development in the past few years is to support Xwayland), so it can't be that much of a problem.

Fair.

I know what you mean, it's just wrong. Spending on mental health is not tied to tax rates constitutionally such that politicians can't change it. They're probably glad not to change it because misinformed voters think it's still Reagan's fault.

Weird in what way? There's a dozen with higher average minimum temperatures, several with not signifiantly more rain (or less, Texas).

That is not the reason that spending on mental illness can not be increased.

> But then Ronald Reagan (as governor of california) cut state mental illness funding.

> Now clearly mentally ill people - who needed help - were turned away unless they were clearly "a danger to themselves and others".

It's been 50 years between then and now, so... why has no other politician increased it if the funding cut was the problem?

> “There is a link between drug trafficking and organized retail crime,” Kobach told lawmakers in June. “Organized retail crime is a problem that is getting worse, not better. And it does not exist in a vacuum. These criminal enterprises often overlap with the trafficking of drugs.”

Is there any reason to believe claims like these? Do they ever come with actual evidence?

A damning indictment of government driven rocket programs in the US and the EU.

I was sincere too. Hope you manage to cheer up and stop being so scared and hateful one day and wishing for god to smite people for not being the same way you are.

Such a bitter angry hateful sad way to go about your life. Wishing for god to punish people for not being a mopey sad sack like you are. Lot of projecting in your comment I'm afraid, none of it applies to me despite your seething armchair psychology.

Wrong again, it was name calling.

That's not a crucial difference for me when you include all my other examples. There are things you might or could have done, but it's not reasonable to think you can make perfect decisions. Life is full of ifs and buts. There might be some path in life I could take from here that would lead to malaria being eradicated. I simply don't feel the need to live in fear of any of it. Covid, malaria, driving, McDonalds, climate change. Strike 2 for attempted shaming though.

You got that right. I inform myself, I empathize with people, and I don't live in fear of things largely out of my control. Millions of people including my loved ones and likely I will die of a heart attack or cancer. Millions of elderly including my loved ones are at risk of flu and other common illnesses, falls, etc. Countless young (and old) people will die of auto wrecks and violence. The sun will strip the atmosphere off the earth in a few billion years. I simply don't live my life terrified about all these things. Just because you do doesn't mean you also have to get angry at people who don't, or try and fail to shame them -- not to scare you more but it's bad for your blood pressure and stress levels.