LeFantome

Change Canada to what?

Until X11 has all the features that Wayland has, X11 people should stop bragging about it.

You are the one preaching and yelling.

Stay on X if you want. As you say, that is the freedom Open Source provides. I use ancient hardware. To each their own. If I was still using XFCE, I would still be using X myself*.

But if you are going to voluntarily stay behind, stop complaining that the bus left without you.

Wayland users are in the majority. By the time Mint (Cinnamon) flips to Wayland (2026?) and GTK5 is released (2028?) it will be over 90%. Almost all GNOME and Plasma users are Wayland now and that must be 60% already (without even counting Hyprland, Sway, COSMIC, or Niri).

We already have Wayland only distros (eg. RHEL10). GNOME will not even be the first Wayland only DE (COSMIC). The ship has sailed.

• I have one box that uses XFCE on Wayland but if I wanted to use XFCE as my main desktop, I would probably use X. My daily drivers are Niri and Plasma Wayland.

It is pretty hard to improve if you are not allowed to change anything.

Yes, the design of Wayland means that some of the techniques that work on X will not work on Wayland (on purpose). So yes, some apps have to be adapted to use the techniques that do work on Wayland. And no, changing Wayland to support the old ways is not the answer (because they were changed on purpose).

Wayland has been criticized for taking away previous capabilities before providing new ways to do things. That is a fair critique, though somewhat par for the course when replacing old tech. But at this point, almost everything necessary is possible and Wayland users are in the majority (the massive majority soon).

At this point, it really is the apps developers responsibility to support Wayland properly. I mean, they do not have to of course but that means their app will be broken for 80% of Linux users on two years (and more than half today).

Hilarious. With confidence, I will let people read both our posts and draw their own conclusions.

“Putting words in my mouth. I didn't say monopolies are illegal, you just made that up to be snarky.”

The person you responded to said that a majority preferring one option out of many was not monopolistic behaviour. Your “snarky” answer was “you’re wrong”. (Spoiler: he wasn’t). That you want to go from that to whining about me is cute.

For the benefit of any thinking people reading this far, antitrust laws make the abusive application of market power an illegal behaviour. They do not outlaw market success. Being unpopular with @entwine is not illegal either.

If you are going to invoke “antitrust laws” to whip out “you’re wrong”, you should make sure you know what you are talking about.

First, let’s assume we are taking about the USA to make this manageable.

Let’s start with a baseline: monopolies are not illegal. Let’s say that again: monopolies are not illegal. If that is your point, “you’re wrong”.

There are many legal monopolies. The government even runs or “licenses” some of them. The US postal service comes to mind.

Second, let’s define monopoly. The word literally means “single seller”. It is only accurate to use it when consumers only have a single choice or where their choices are so constrained that (as a grouo) they effectively have only one viable choice.

Legally, a monopoly is not really an expression of market share but of market power. When we are effectively forced to buy from “one seller”, there is an illegal monopoly.

So, before go further, let’s acknowledge that Valve has competition. Consumers are not “forced” to buy from Valve. They “choose” to buy from Valve as a “preference”. Very, very different.

Now to antitrust laws. Antitrust means anticompetitive practice. This is what the law actually cares about. These laws are intended to prevent “abuse of power” that protects a monopoly from completion. That is what makes a monopoly (legal by default) an “illegal monopoly”.

In fact, the law does not define “monopoly” at all but rather “monopolization”. Monopolization exists when an entity acts to ensure that there are no viable substitutes available that the consumer can choose instead.

If you want to invoke “antitrust laws”, you have to expose the anticompetitive practice and illegal “monopolization” activity. You have not done that. The fact that Valve is winning in the market is not enough for you to dismiss everybody else as wrong.

I am “pretty sure” that the “pretty sure” guy is correct. What does that make you?

Market dominance is a bad thing. No question.

That said, there is a very big difference between a company illegally creating or protecting a monopoly and a company naturally dominating an industry through consumer preference.

I do not use Chrome because I agrees with your thoughts on market dominance. And, despite recent legal opinions, Google does abuse their position somewhat with search deals and the like. But, at its heart, the issue is that the vast majority of people prefer Chrome and choose it for that reason.

If consumers create (and maintain) a monopoly through preference, it is not up to the government to fix it. There are many viable browser choices that are all able to effectively get to market. People choose Chrome. I do not like it but I do not blame Google for making a browser people like.

Steam is in much the same boat. As a consumer, I have many choices. Most consumers choose Valve. Again, I cannot really be mad at them for being better.

Sometimes, it is up to us.

They are not saying you cannot list elsewhere. They are just saying they have to get your best price.

If Walmart says you can only sell pickles on their shelves if you sell them pickles at your best price, is that anti-competitive?

Valve is a “natural monopoly”.

I agree in principle but all the world is grey and “enemy of my enemy” and all that.

The actual monopoly posing the most threat is Microsoft and Windows. Valve knows that they are the underdog. So Valve supports Linux and Open Source and supports it like a non-monopolist would (because they are fighting the Windows monopoly). We all benefit from their efforts.

Zooming in, we benefit from a strong Valve because their strength becomes our strength (for now).

Zooming out, I agree that Valve’s position as the de facto App Store for games makes them dangerous. At some point, they may become a bigger problem than Microsoft. That is not today, in my view, but we need to be mindful. Valve is not our friend. But Valve is a better friend than Microsoft.

Because CEOs in general lean pretty right?

Always remember: Linux is about choice

That is one of the advantages of Linux. Let’s not let it be a liability.

When coming to Linux, it is about “taking that first step”. If you are coming from something else, any distro is a positive move and they are much more alike than they are different (compared to the OS you are coming from). So, start with something safe. I do not use Mint but it is an awesome choice.

Once you learn more about Linux and about what you like, you will learn that you have 1000 choices. Once you know the difference and know which once suits you, you can switch. At that point, you will find switching easy.

The idea that people “have to choose” at the beginning holds many people back.

Any of Mint, PopOS, Fedora, or Ubuntu would serve a new user just fine. I recommend Mint because the UX is familiar to Windows users, it is “batteries included”, and it is conservative (stable). But the others are great too.