quick disclaimer before anyone starts telling their friends about x11libre; the project is associated with MAGA language and personally I don't trust it
If I were to take it several steps further, the conspiracy theorist in me says that redhat has the biggest incentive to make Wayland haters look silly. Of course that's just conjecture.
MountainMan1312•14h ago
As an anarchist these dem/rep comment chains always make me feel sad. Literally everyone in there is wrong because they're so caught up in their team, and it's even worse because they're basically the same team: they're all right-wingers who can't comprehend a world that doesn't revolve around the profit of a few parasites.
Everyone feeling welcome (which is explicitly stated in that project's README) is a good thing. But that's not what DEI is. DEI is when someone gets picked over someone else solely because of their association with a particular group. That's bigotry. Bigotry is bad. Diversity and inclusion are good; bigotry is bad. Bigotry is bad. Bigotry is bad. Bigotry is bad.
Bigotry is bad.
It's not just MAGA idiots who are against DEI just because the TV told them to. People who actually know what they're talking about are against it too. Support for DEI is limited to the left edge of the right wing. The fact that MAGAts are against it is simply a case of a broken clock being right twice a day.
slater•14h ago
> DEI is when someone gets picked over someone else solely because of their association with a particular group
That's a straw-man view of DEI
MountainMan1312•12h ago
It's what I've witnessed in person AND what I take from the intended meaning of the concept. Hire/choose/promote/etc certain people over certain other people because the "other" is some stereotype you don't like. It's just rebranded Affirmative Action. It's evil bigotry that happens to make you feel good because of the words they use to describe it.
I've seen DEI used as an excuse to fire and demote people just because they were part of some demographic, to make space for the "disadvantaged" folks. They were good at their jobs, did nothing fireable. They were deemed to be "advantaged" in the same way a random Asian is assumed to be good at math. And now they're struggling to survive. That's the logical conclusion of DEI. Absolutely evil. There's no excuse for it. And that's not a right-wing view either.
What other conception of it is there that doesn't just conveniently gloss over the details of how it works in practice? What am I missing?
Mountain_Skies•14h ago
So much "I'm not an X but..." encoded into one post. So many words saying what the words say it's not saying.
bluGill•15h ago
not my experience - I switched a year ago and have yet to notice anything not working. X backers rant about things all the time but realistically for most wayland just works. the example - xkill - is something that should be killed on X since it is a big security issue. there are also a number of cases where X does not work and cannot because of design issuses, but I have never encountered them either.
which is to say try it for yourself - odds it works and you won't have to worry.
bitwize•8h ago
No. Wayland fixes everything. It is the correct architecture for a modern display, and it works for most people. It still has a lot of bugs, but they'll never get fixed if people fall back to X. Be gay, do crime, use Wayland, file bug reports. The "but X is just fine for my use case" crowd are like vaccine denialists (funny, because Enrico is both): we have to actively stem the flow of their disinformation. No, it's not fine; it's dead, and it will never be improved from its current state. Go back and watch Daniel Stone's talk on repeat until you learn.
gala8y•1h ago
Thanks for the talk. I tried to learn how bad X was in terms of security and it wasn't easy to find anything concrete. Took me a while to realize it was a mess.
mouse_•15h ago
https://github.com/X11Libre/xserver/issues/40
If I were to take it several steps further, the conspiracy theorist in me says that redhat has the biggest incentive to make Wayland haters look silly. Of course that's just conjecture.
MountainMan1312•14h ago
Everyone feeling welcome (which is explicitly stated in that project's README) is a good thing. But that's not what DEI is. DEI is when someone gets picked over someone else solely because of their association with a particular group. That's bigotry. Bigotry is bad. Diversity and inclusion are good; bigotry is bad. Bigotry is bad. Bigotry is bad. Bigotry is bad.
Bigotry is bad.
It's not just MAGA idiots who are against DEI just because the TV told them to. People who actually know what they're talking about are against it too. Support for DEI is limited to the left edge of the right wing. The fact that MAGAts are against it is simply a case of a broken clock being right twice a day.
slater•14h ago
That's a straw-man view of DEI
MountainMan1312•12h ago
I've seen DEI used as an excuse to fire and demote people just because they were part of some demographic, to make space for the "disadvantaged" folks. They were good at their jobs, did nothing fireable. They were deemed to be "advantaged" in the same way a random Asian is assumed to be good at math. And now they're struggling to survive. That's the logical conclusion of DEI. Absolutely evil. There's no excuse for it. And that's not a right-wing view either.
What other conception of it is there that doesn't just conveniently gloss over the details of how it works in practice? What am I missing?
Mountain_Skies•14h ago