You are in luck. COSMIC launches in 3 days.
I am also interested to see what kind of adoption COSMIC gets. From the comments I have seen, I looks like it may pull-away a fair number of GNOME users.
No sure that COSMIC calendar will have all the features you want. COSMIC is a pretty good base for GNOME apps though. It does not have to be either / or.
If you ever want to try Wayland, check out LabWC.
I am also loving Niri
Sort of.
Everything is Wayland compatible but there is no XFWM for Wayland. So, you use a Wayland compositor like LabWC with the rest of XFCE running on top of it. This is the default XFCE config on SUSE Leap for example.
XFCE is not quite as far along on portal support as GNOME or KDE though. Depending on your use case, you may still prefer running on Xorg.
You can run the XFCE apps on any Wayland desktop.
Hundreds of billions of years should be sufficient t
Having the original UNIX source code with fully preserved timestamps?
KHtml was massacred
KHTML was forked. And kept open source. And the fork was so successful that even KDE switched to it (voluntarily).
And Apple employed a bunch of the KHTML developers for years. They still do I assume.
Oh, and one of them is now creating what will probably be the most successful independent web browser project ever—Ladybird.
Solid example.
Android and Chromium. Is listing two projects that were created almost entirely by the same company and gifted to the Open Source world the best way to make your point? I mean, they sure are shafting us with Kubernetes too right?
I would say that Google is screwing us with Clang and LLVM except Apple and Microsoft contribute a lot to that too so they deserve some of the blame.
But, I mean clearly GCC is the better project. I mean sure LLVM resulted in Rust (corporate project), Swift (corporate project), and Zig but GCC is where the real innovation is. I mean GCC just added COBOL and Algol 68.
GPL code is code for the community by the community.
Lets list some GPL code developed on servers owned and operated by IBM (because they are the core developers):
Do you use any of those? About half of those projects were started by IBM. It was them that chose the GPL as a license. I wonder who forced them?
Who are the Top Contributors to the Linux kernel?
Ya, let’s keep those mega corps from using all that GPL code that YOU write.
FreeBSD just released a new version. It is entirely permissively licensed. It is clearly an anomaly that half the new features in this release have the names of companies that contributed them in the release notes. Who are these Netflix people?
I would say “how about gaming” but very little of that code is GPL. Any permissively licensed code used in gaming?
To your point, those projects must have been totally stolen by greedy mega corps right? I mean, X has been around for decades so there has been lots of time to push Xorg out of the market.
These Valve guys are big in gaming. Surely they must be stealing all our code and not giving back right? I mean, only the license would stop them (as you say). Obviously they took that MIT WINE thing and made Proton proprietary.
Right?
Awesome to see APK 3 finally ship. I have been using it on Chimera Linux for a couple years and love it.
100%.
There is a reason even the purists fall back on “hardware is out of scope”.
But calling firmware software drives worse outcomes. Will they do the same thing with RISC-V?
Is a RISC-V board better than an ARM board even if both have proprietary schematics and/or divers. In my view, clearly yes.
Every step towards open is positive.
The hypocrisy irks me somewhat as well. The FSF rather famously did not start by writing a kernel. It is why we have the GNU/Linux nonsense. The GNU utilities were first written to run on proprietary UNIX. And this made sense pragmatically as you have to start somewhere. But that was actually real “software” and yet RMS was ok with that. And today he tells people they cannot update the microcode in their Intel CPU.
According to his own definitions, the FSF should not have run a line of code on proprietary operating systems until the FSF had written its own kernel and drivers. But they enthusiastically did. Ok, so they did not write a kernel. How about the C library? Surely, they did not link to propriety C libraries. Or how about the compiler? Did they start with that? No, the first thing they wrote was a text editor (Emacs) and it was built with proprietary compilers, using proprietary C libraries, on proprietary operating systems. The C library came years later. Before that, all GNU software was linked with binary blobs (C library).
Fast-forward to today and you are supposed to condemn Debian for allowing binary blobs.
Not only dumb but massive hypocrisy.
“Where they say that?”
You have a hardware device that is fully proprietary and closed. The firmware cannot be programmed or upgraded.
The FSF is fine with this hardware. Stop me if you disagree.
Version two of the hardware above is released. The firmware can now be upgraded. The initial firmware available is closed source. It is actually the exact same firmware used in version one but it now ships as a binary blob. Since the hardware is programable, open source firmware could be written but none yet exists.
The FSF says that this hardware must be avoided. The binary blob cannot be handled or distributed. Version one of the hardware is still fine and is preferred. Again, stop me if I am wrong. Note, the firmware is the exact same.
Ok, now answer “where they say that?” for yourself.
If hardware is out of the scope of the FSF (totally reasonable) then firmware should also be outside of the scope of the FSF.
Because their stance today is that hardware that is more open is worse. Hardware can be as proprietary and closed as you like as long as you do not make it programmable. If you do, the FSF may have a problem. Insanity.
Free software is better than non-free software. The FSF and I agree.
Open firmware is better than closed firmware. This is my view but the FSF only has an opinion when the firmware is upgradable (as you state above). Silly.
Programmable hardware is always better than non-programmable hardware. That is my view, but the FSF disagrees when no open firmware exists. Dumb.
Exactly. It is about programmability. And that is dumb.
Imagine you have a piece of hardware that is not programmable. The FSF says that hardware is fine. Buy the shit out it and “be free” apparently.
Version 2 of that hardware is released with the new feature that the firmware is upgradable. Of course, only closed firmware updates are available initially. According to the FSF, this programmable hardware must now be avoided. Keep buying the original “more free” version that cannot be programmed.
And if you do have hardware version 2, the FSF says you should at least never update your firmware. Nevermind new features. Security fixes are to be avoided. Because the baked in firmware is more free than the firmware update. It is not that you are not using closed firmware. Of course you are. But you did not change it. So that is better?
It is total nonsense.
If there was a Free Hardware Foundation, a device whose hardware was programmable and whose firmware could be upgraded would clearly be seen as superior to one that was completely closed. It is definitely more open, “more free” hardware even if only closed firmware is available. The hardware is obviously more free. Self-evidently.
But the FSF position is that this “more free” hardware is less free than fully closed options when only closed firmware exists. There is no way for that to make sense unless you move “firmware” into the software bucket and completely ignore the concept of hardware all together. Sorry, but that is dumb.
It is also a good way to roadblock progress towards open hardware. Please stop.
Keep up the good fight Scoopia.
It is clear from the responses you get that people just do not understand what you are saying. But keep trying.
Imagine the FSF argument at the level of the whole computer. If the computer lets you run software, it has to be free software. But if the computer has all its software in hardware that cannot be programmed or updated, then it is not only totally fine but superior to a Windows computer because Windows is closed software even though the Windows computer let’s you run free software and the non-programmable one does not.
Running on Windows is evil because it is software. But running on closed non-updatable firmware baked into your closed, proprietary hardware is good. That is what the FSF has to say. Programmability bad.
There are two ways to fix the FSF position:
1 - they demand that everything be free including all hardware and all hardware running on it. But that means the purists have to stop using all the closed hardware they enjoy today.
2 - the FSF continues with the position that they are ok with closed hardware and defines “free software” to exclude firmware.
There are three words for a a reason, they are three different things: hardware, firmware, and software.
Defining firmware as software makes no more sense than defining it as hardware. In fact, the latter makes more sense to me and would fix the FSF silliness. But what makes the most sense is to acknowledge that they are all different.
Now that I type this, we need a Free Software Foundation, a Free Hardware Foundation, and Free Firmware Foundation.
The FSF mission makes sense if you exclude firmware. The FFF could preach that free firmware is superior to closed firmware. No argument there. The FHF can push for free hardware. That would be great and we could all push for it. But the FHF could also acknowledge that programmable hardware is superior to non-programmable hardware even when only closed firmware exists. The hardware itself is more open and more free. Basically both the FSF and the FHF could be more relaxed about the other. The FHF could be ok with closed software on open hardware just like the FSF is ok with running free software on closed hardware (their stance today).
Honestly, the above is maybe the only sane solution.
That would allow all of us to:
I bet every one of us would agree to the above. Or at least we could choose which of the three missions to endorse. At least they would all be sane and consistent.
Instead, we get the FSF telling us to ignore the closed hardware behind the curtain while choosing hardware that is more restrictive and less free in the name of avoiding binary blobs. We are being forced to fight a religious war and nobody ever wins those.
They’re not saying devices shouldn’t be programmable
That may not be their goal but that is what they are saying. The position of the FSF is that a device whose closed source firmware cannot be upgraded is superior to one that can be upgraded but for which only closed firmware exists. So, if you are buying proprietary hardware (and you are in 2025), you should prefer the closed hardware which is not programmable.
It is a stance that only makes sense if you care more about the simplicity of your message than the implications of your position.
They are directly creating demand for less open systems that provide less freedom. It is dumb.
The solution is simply to have a sane definition of “free software” that does not include firmware.
There should be a Free Hardware Foundation that calls for hardware to be free. They can demand that everything be completely open which most of us would support and may even be possible now that we have RISC-V. Their list of “approved” hardware could be essentially blank. That said they could participate in creating some. Of course, it would likely be worse at first. You know, like Free Software was bootstrapped.
The FHF could object to all non-free hardware while still acknowledging that programmability is a positive step that at least has the potential to be more open. The FHF could sponsor or endorse free firmware efforts.
That clarity would allow the rest of us, even the FSF fundamentalists, to make sane choices.
“I didn’t betray the client and get killed”
Betrayed the client and lived? /s
Almost all the changes are to ensure it still builds. This is purely a preservation effort.
That said, the move to make it compatible with systemd is interesting. Did not see that coming.
Based on tone, I doubt this is a real question but others may have the same one.
Moving to Linux can be difficult if Linux provides no viable alternative for software that you rely on.
Despite the availability of things like GIMP and Krita, Photoshop and other Adobe products are perhaps the most often cited software preventing user migration to Linux.
Affinity is the software most often cited as being a viable replacement for Adobe (on any platform). Currently, Affinity does not support Linux.
Therefore, the thesis here is that Affinity becoming available on Linux would make Linux a viable option for a material number of potential new users.
This would have implications for both the popularity of Linux as a desktop and Affinity as an alternative, weakening the hold Adobe has on professional media.
I think the significance is overstated. I do not believe the impact would be as spectacular as predicted here. But the basic argument is valid. It would be a positive development and everything that gets the ball rolling contributes to the eventual snowball.
Fair enough.
No argument from me that some of the Wayland devs have made the whole process a whole lot more painful than it needed to be.
Purposely not providing some path to doing what needs to be done is asinine.
That said, I get that there may be some things that will be possible that just are not yet. Very few at this point.
I also think it is reasonable to ask old apps to adapt when “compatibility” would mean an inability to improve the design.
You just cannot have apps reading keystrokes in other apps for example. The things that we are moving to portals now should have been portals even in X11.
The GNU projects that people actually use are primarily hosted, maintained, and developed by Red Hat (IBM). They are the primary code contributors. Not just GPL, GNU specifically.
This is just a fact.
https://sourceware.org/ (Previously known as sources.redhat.com)
There is more permissively licensed code in most Linux distributions than there is GPL code. Not only is that permissive code not being “stolen” by “mega corps” but the majority of it is corporately funded.
Again, just facts. All pretty easy to verify if facts matter at all to you.
What part did not make sense? Just that the facts do not agree with your opinion?
The comment I responded to was stating things that sounded like facts that are not at all supported by the evidence. And if I ask for some, I am pretty sure the cherry-picked examples will be mostly companies “stealing” projects that they wrote to begin with.
The thesis that permissive licenses result in less Open Source code is wrong. In fact, they lead to greater corporate participation and employees write more code than unsponsored individuals. That is what the evidence shows.
Use whatever licenses you want. Not wanting companies to use code you wrote is a totally valid choice. But you should not have to misrepresent reality to convince other people to do the same.