"On Linux under Wayland" is a big part of the problem. On X11 a significant part of missing "GUI-exposed-as-api" is present.
If we concede (and I think otherwise) that we need a FOSS operating system and desktop experience to be fully on par with competitors and offer agentic-first options, I think that an open-minded developer (or one that can afford to run a fairly good LLM on local machine), presented with the problem, can see evidently that said roadblock doesn't exist: X11 can stop being a maze, or thousands of Wayland apps can be forked to make them expose an API, the FUSE filesystem kind of API.
I don't care much about agents though, I sure see as potentially useful some desktop assistant, and that is that.
The ofac is a list under the dept of Treasury. Bessent. So, it's one of those cases where the difference doesn't exist, if you say here Trump or "The project 2025 cabal" it's the same.
In the last years a market for "no code" software has sprawled, just etch the interface on a tables SPA, plug Okta, plug your backend or Firebase to their apis and you should be set.
You can also find dozens of drag n drop builders and block editors working for modern frontend dev, there are a lot for React for example, just vibe code the components.
I don't know about GTK (and frankly hope anything will be ported to something else and the whole GNOME project get nixed), about QT they recently implemented a QPA.
https://codeberg.org/vimpostor/qtarcan
That's a folk music wave, a conscious soul album, conflated with more pop social commentary. Not much protest songs. Products made out of popular discontent.
Now if you said Woody Guthrie... But in pre-war times was there a non-mainstream?
The only thing that this may say is that in USA the regime fights dissent in mainstream media. Like, if you want to catch signs of a product made out of popular discontent, you can't e.g. find in UK charts the Sleaford Mods or Kneecap?
If you say "shady" because CEO is a Russian in Dubai and for years nobody really knew how the hell could he sustain the company, yeah you're right.
About the FOSS alternatives you're right, but to use a closed source SaaS is just a choice people make because they are not confident in their own infra.
If it's "shady" because of cybercriminals, I insist in saying that it's the same than using Discord (pedophile rings) or Whatsapp/Meta messenger (extensive history of terrorists, gangs, traffickers of any kind).
In European nations who aren't English-first-language it's quite widespread around university students and people that outgrown Whatsapp, it isn't very much different than using a Discord groupchat (and you lose less important stuff in Telegram). Admittedly a bit is for network effect around "grindset" jocks but it isn't very much different than using discord or Meta messenger or Slack, just a freemium SaaS that the project doesn't support firsthand so if "our server" is down, "theirs" maybe is not.
I say they are all the same although Telegram's insecurity is proven, they still are the same overall for a FOSS project.
>You are responsible for testing the code you write, not the one that actually runs.
Hipp worked as a military contractor for battleships, furthermore years later SQLite was under contract under every proto-smartphone company in the USA. Under these constraints you maybe are not responsible to test what the compiler spits out across platforms and different compilers, but doing that makes the project a lot more reliable, makes it sexier for embedded and weapons.
Red Hat FOSS system software is imposing foss-ified client work to the general public. The cloud industry benefited greatly from their work, the other users are involved in a multi-decade flamewar.
It's probably the first time in 14 years of systemd I appreciate a technical choice coming from the systemd team.
It's a small format, it has limited pitfalls, it's fast to marshal and unmarshal (and with simd gets even more fast), it's deflate-friendly, would performance be an issue they can pack that through CBOR or msgpack or what-have-you.
Strangely enough, even in this video, everyone notice how you're taken to make tradeoffs between coherence and cleanliness vs performance-oriented code in langs like C++, while the Clean Code book was exemplified in Java (so most of performance is shoved in JVM code) and SICP was in Scheme (which is interpreted, or transpiled to C where you can optimize, or has a VM/JIT underneath).
I vaguely smell the language of choice has something to do with that, and C++ would benefit more from data-oriented design than from literate OOP or functional programming patterns took from very very different programming ethoses (the programming language is an interface to something else)