Yep, I really hope a future will become reality where Adobe has some competition and/or an incentive to port the suite to Linux. I just can’t help but cheer on the sounds against Stockholm syndrome. So much of these “it doesn’t work on Linux” is just the company intentionally trying to prohibit integration with open systems (looking at you HDMI forum). In the end I agree, though, when giving advice, it’s best not to assume the “only gaming” use case.
From my experience it’s still a common misconception and I think it’s the largest potential group that can switch. Sucks that your usecase is unsupported, though. Just out of interest, what software can you still not run?
It’s been a while since I’ve watched it myself, but remember them going into the ownership structure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNZy603as5w
There’s basically no way for them to not make it a subscription model.
Thanks, that was an interesting read! I always felt IPFS wasn’t ready yet, but the value it tries to provide of being a file system, I’ve found no real alternative to. Very good to read that iroh is willing to look beyond the IPFS spec to provide its values with better performance. I hope it works out.
Ever heard of IPFS? I really hope that will take off some time.
Been running Wayland for 5 years on my development laptop (sway, Intel GPU, blacklisted the nvidia gpu). At the start I’ve had a couple of issues, nothing too bad. Haven’t had any issues for over 2 years. Switched to Linux on my gaming PC about a year ago, KDE plasma on Wayland but do most of my gaming from a steam gamescope session. Very happy overall with Wayland, glad it exists. Sharp text on a fractionally scaled display for reading code was just too compelling at the time and it only improved.
Maybe Firefox, Thunderbird or Steam are running in XWayland and that causes different behaviour between them. Just guessing.
I think the argument is pretty solid as an alternative to writing PKGBUILDs yourself. Sure it doesn’t hold up for people unfamiliar, but Arch is build on the idea of getting yourself familiar with it.
Explained by someone that doesn’t know the technical side super well.
1: It’s a new protocol for displaying. The main difference from X11, as I understand it, is a simplification of the stack. Eliminating the need for a display server, or merging the display server and compositor.
2: Some things impossible (or difficult) with X11 are much better supported in Wayland. Their not necessarily available, as the Wayland protocol is quite generic and needs additional protocols for further negotiation. Examples are fractional scaling & multiple displays with differing refresh rates.
Security is also improved. X11 did not make some security considerations (as it is quite old, maybe justifiably so). In X11 it’s possible for any application to “look” at the entire display. In Wayland they receive a specific section that they can draw into and use. (This has the side-effect of complicating stuff like redshifting the screen at night, but in my experience that has fully caught up).
3: If you’re interested, are in desktop application development (but I have no experience in that regard) or have a specific need for Wayland.
4: I think X won’t die for a long long time if “ever”. I’m not super familiar with desktop app development, but I don’t think it requires more work to keep supporting X.
On the other hand, most of the complaints about Wayland I’ve heard were ultimately about support. At some point, when you’re a normal user, the distro maintainer should be able to decide to move to Wayland without you noticing, apart from the blurriness being gone with fractional scaling.
Yeah, I fear we might have to go for something like that in the long run as well. Feels bad when the browser is capable enough to handle it but is just missing the interfaces.
Haskell