Though combining a paid "lifetime" plan with the deactivation of inactive accounts as the article suggests seems like a bad idea. That's deceptive in my book.
It would check the arguments and return type of the function. Map takes a function with three arguments, toReadableNumber only takes one, therefore the functions are of a different type. So someNumbers.map(toReadableNumber) would be an error and not execute at all, instead of being a "bad practice" / potential mistake.
> GNOME doesn't work for you. GNOME uses Wayland, but the bugs you experienced are not the fault of Wayland. They're the fault of GNOME.
Yes, but I, and I believe most people talking about Wayland mean "user experience on current Wayland implementations", of course.
> None of that has any bearing on Wayland
No, Wayland is not a project that can stand for itself. It drives, needs and causes further work and implementation in compositors, Window libraries, applications, distributions, etc.
Wayland on it's own is a academic coriosity. Wayland that "works" for anyone is a interplay between diverse forms of software implemting or relying on parts of it. Getting Wayland to work is were the problems are, not in the protocol (at least I assume so, I don't have any real insight into it).
And that "Wayland stack" is not (completely) working for me.
Then again I don't post on the Wayland bug tracker, but on the gnome one and I don't want to make excuses for
> spiteful people who choose to use the botched GNOME roll-out to harass anyone who has anything to do with Wayland
Harrasment has no place in in this discussion, no matter what one thinks of Wayland.
... But op was not really about that (at least I didn't understand it like that). It was about "wayland not working" being lies and people not getting it being either malicious or so fooled they are living in a fantasy.
> People in charge of large FOSS projects like Gnome should not pretend it's just some hobby project they can do whatever they want with. Those projects are essentially public infrastructure and should be treated as such. It's not their personal plaything.
Pretty sure they are aware of this, even Gnome. Gnome's Dev Team is often citing user studies etc. and I believe they are genuine in trying to produce software for the public, rather then themselves.
...Though I believe they don't grog how disruptive changes (any change) can be.
> Wayland works for almost everyone, and works for more people than is even possible with X11. Most of the lies you’ve heard about ways that it’s broken are just that: lies. And if you insist on living in that fantasy, then keep it to yourself, asshole.
But it doesn't work for me (aka. important features are buggy in the gnome/wayland/whatever stack I am using if I select wayland in gdm). Am I now a lier or an unimportant victim of the March of technology?
I am using wayland on my laptop anyway, as it comes with better scaling. I actually want to like it and I am very thankful for the developers putting so much work into it.
But the rollout, especially of gnome-wayland, was a disaster. It wasn't ready* when it came to fedora and it wasn't ready when it first came to Ubuntu and it is barely ready today. The developers (and some diehard fans) repeatly insisting it was robbed many of any faith in the project.
People are saying so much about it because they tried and something broke. And yes it may be QT's (still problems with clipboard) or Firefox's or Gnome's or Nvidia's (half of all linux desktops) fault, not the Wayland core teams or the Wayland protocol's. Doesn't matter in the end.
* With ready I mean feature parity with gnome-x11. Working for "almost everyone" (and with a very, very, significant almost at that nvidia) is just not good enough. Not if you want to replace one of the most important components of a user's desktops. At least for my day to day usage it is pros and cons, but all the pros are something we learned to live without, all the cons are fresh wounds.
> There are a lot of projects (sudo being the most recent example) supported by a team of developers in the single digits (or just one) that are relied upon by projects raking in millions if not billions in annual revenue.
But the whole reason they are relied upon is them coming for free. If sudo users where expected to give something back it wouldn't have landed on millions of machines in the first place.
FOSS coming for free means, of course, maintenance being dependent on the authors' whims. Not paying means not being owed anything.
Yes, that's not sustainable. FOSS is a gift from the developers to the world. It's not a business model or a way to make a living (at best it's part of a strategy to make a living).
It would be great if we all could gift something back be that help with maintaining or money.
But we should be careful not to demand support. Everyone "whising up" and only relying on software they either maintain themselves or paid someone to maintain might look different than we imagine. Might just be people buying proprietary software rather than funding open source development.
> Fundamentally i think the solution is competitors. This was a much easier position to take when the web did not just have a few social media giants with network effects, but still: if youtube becomes to dranicon, start a new website. The tools to stream video (albeit not at scale) are just an apt-get away.
There's no serious YouTube competition because YouTube is not (just) a video host. Video hosting isn't that big a deal (though hard at scale).
YouTube is a network of videos, creators and viewers powered by recommendations, subscriptions advertisements (paying creators) and massive network effects.
You could build yet another video host and even have niche success with it. But you have no chance of providing the equivalent effect of a video landing on the YouTube frontpage.
> In my opinion it seems like Elastic wants ElasticSearch to still be perceived as the fully open source project (with all of its good connotations) it once was.
This. It is too bad they couldn't have satisfactory financial success building on open source and it is their right and perfectly fine to switch to a different model, but their justification as well as the SSPL dual licensing muddle the water unnecessarily.
At least the blogpost clearly states it is no longer open source, but then it goes "it's just definition, we're actually totally free and open, just, you know, not OSI free and open".
SSPL software is not free software, it is not FOSS. Calling it "free and open software" is misleading at best.