> If a security vulnerability is reported by someone who is also violating the CoC, what do you do? Do you ignore it? Fix it silently?
Is this even a question? You triage and fix the vulnerability just like any other one. Are truths spoken by folks one dislikes — even for perfectly valid reasons — any less true?
The only way I can imagine this somehow applying is if someone has a habit of reporting vulnerabilities which do not exist, or of exaggerating their severity. Is crying wolf a CoC violation? If so, then I can imagine that particular sort of bad behaviour justifying some consideration before acting on a report.
> Imagine world where there is no Wayland, how is it better? I fail to understand who forces you.
You answered your own question. It starts with distros defaulting to Wayland, despite it completely missing features I currently rely on in X11. No big deal, I can always manually switch to X. It's only a small pain! Then more and more software starts being Wayland-only, because most people are using it by default. Not a huge deal, I can stick to older versions of software. Then drivers are only released for Wayland, because at this point the only people left running X are me and a few other folks like me. Meanwhile, the features I consider absolutely necessary are still missing, because the primary source of funding is no longer hobbyists but corporate vendors.
I have seen it happen before, with GNOME. A decade or more after the cascade of attention-deficit teenagers started stripping out features it is still missing plenty.
> People created Duvian. If systemd is such an awful choice it should be amazingly popular.
You miss the corrupting influence of money. Money means resources, and resources mean being able to extend tentacles into every project. Resources mean being able to present an offer to other projects that they can't refuse: patches that implement needed functionality and, oh yeah, also mandate systemWaylanD.
It's not fear, it's resentment: the old ways worked, and often worked quite well, and everyone has mostly settled on reasonable ways to work around where the old ways were broken; the new ways quite simply don't work in ways that the old ones continue to work just fine, and we resent being forced to lose functionality we appreciate having.
Systemd does offer some nice functionality, but in return it makes certain unreasonable demands (.ini files everywhere, binary logs, systemd-{resolved,homedir,consoled,all-the-things}. Wayland does offer some nice functionality, but it is not ready for prime time yet. It is nowhere near ready for prime time yet. It cannot replace X11, because it utterly fails to replace key X11 functionality today.
Next year, or the year after, it might be different. It probably will be. I genuinely look forward to adopting Wayland when it upgrades X11. But I would utterly resent being forced to use it today, and I am very worried that I may soon be.
A lot of really good stuff in here. I have a few questions & quibbles though.
> You’re probably all Macbooks.
What if we're not? Are there any good MDM solutions for Linux? I would prefer not to force macOS on folks who don't want it.
> Another bonus point: standardize everyone on Chrome.
Why not stick with Firefox? It has the advantage of at least trying to keep user information secure.
There's a lot exciting in here, though. I would love to transition to SSH certificates issues by some fancy OAuth2 service. I imagine one could use a named pipe to request them on-demand, so one could just issue 'ssh foo' and everything would Just Work.
> At some points they use JSON (a data format) to describe procedures... like a programming language written in JSON. It feels a bit like using a screwdriver handle as a hammer.
And folks laugh at me for suggesting S-expressions until I'm blue in the face!
Is this even a question? You triage and fix the vulnerability just like any other one. Are truths spoken by folks one dislikes — even for perfectly valid reasons — any less true?
The only way I can imagine this somehow applying is if someone has a habit of reporting vulnerabilities which do not exist, or of exaggerating their severity. Is crying wolf a CoC violation? If so, then I can imagine that particular sort of bad behaviour justifying some consideration before acting on a report.