having had to update the kernel for elderly people, I understand why they wouldn't, it's sometimes a cycle where i'd have to remove it with pacman -Rdd, things normal people would never think of, all because they let the updates run but don't manually switch out the kernel and years of that messes things up.
The fact that they're incapable of doing the kernel updates without you walking them through it proves the complexity and absurdity of manjaros system, the kernel should update along with everything else, as it does on arch, especially when certain packages depend on certain versions of the kernel, this is an especially big problem with nvidia GPU's.
the arch zfs setup is identical to the manjaro one.
Updating/installing software is not most things, and you can just install octopi or buah for that, although you're right it should ship with something graphical for that, but not packagekit, which inevitably breaks things.
I used to install Manjaro on other people's computers, it breaks FAR more often than arch. It's not even close. You'll waste far more time fixing things on Manjaro than arch, and all the things that work well are because of arch.
No it is not, the simple fact that it updates the kernel with different version numbers means eventually you'll have to manually intervene to update the kernel, this has happened MANY times to the elderly people I used to give it. And that's just one of many things that manjaro has fucked up.
Just use endeavoros for that usecase. There is never a good reason to use manjaro.
Well, that's not entirely fair, the gnome developers are pushing the issue upstream to the people who can cure colorblindness, because honestly, isn't curing colorblindness the proper solution even if it takes longer?
From a socialist perspective, the concept of workers receiving the full value of their labor is about creating a fair and equitable economic system that minimizes exploitation and inequality. Let's address your points one by one:
Concurrent Workers and Wage Competition:
Socialism aims to prevent workers from competing against each other for wages by promoting cooperation and solidarity. It advocates for collective ownership of the means of production, where workers collectively make decisions about their work conditions and compensation. The goal is to ensure that workers' wages are determined democratically, rather than through cutthroat competition.
Specialists and High Wages:
In a socialist system, the value of specialized work is indeed recognized. Socialists typically argue for a wage structure that takes into account factors like skill, effort, and time spent on a task. Specialists may receive higher compensation, but it would be subject to democratic decision-making and not driven solely by profit motives. The goal is to ensure that everyone's work is fairly rewarded based on the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
CEOs and Owners:
In socialism, the compensation of CEOs and owners is subject to scrutiny. Socialists often advocate for limiting excessive income disparities and ensuring that wealth is distributed more equitably. Compensation for CEOs and owners may be determined democratically, and mechanisms would be in place to prevent exploitation and wealth accumulation at the expense of workers.
Measuring "Full Value":
The measurement of "full value" can take into account various factors, including labor hours, labor effort, and the effect of one's work. It is not just about the abstract value of a product, but also the social and human elements involved in its creation. Socialists typically support systems where these factors are collectively assessed and where decisions on compensation are made democratically to ensure fairness.
Value in Doing Nothing:
Socialists recognize that there are cases where strategic inaction or delayed action can create value, such as optimizing logistics. In a socialist system, these decisions would be made collectively, taking into account the best interests of society as a whole, rather than being driven solely by profit motives. The goal is to prioritize the common good over individual profit.
In summary, the socialist ideal of workers receiving the full value of their labor is rooted in principles of fairness, cooperation, and democratic decision-making. It seeks to create an economic system where wealth and value are distributed more equitably, and where decisions about compensation and resource allocation are made with the well-being of all members of society in mind.
You do realize you're comparing wayland to a protocol that doesn't even make an attempt at stopping keylogging, screengrabbing, or really implements any form of security whatsoever, right? I could make a list but it'd be effort, you should really research this stuff before you spread FUD on accident.
I'm just going to point out that there's a reason EVERY SINGLE PERSON who worked on X11 has moved onto wayland. Imagine how hard of a sell it'd be for most people to move on from a project that has THIRTY YEARS of work, to redoing everything from scratch, how many people in any other situation would ALL choose rewriting from scratch.
They learned from their mistakes, and that's why they restarted from scratch.
No, it sounds like compositors will use a library so that they don't have to do a shitload of work that they'd have to do otherwise.
...this is already how x.org works. You have to implement the x.org server, or create your own implementation of X11.
The only reason you think your criticism doesn't apply to X.org is because nobody updates X.org anymore... There's no more breaking changes to be made because it's a fundamentally broken, shitty protocol.
These are arguments that should happen, they ensure that things in the protocol are done the right way, else there will be a massive duplication of effort as the protocol changes to something better.
But wayland is actually getting development and security updates and every single X11 dev moved onto it... that's like saying we should drop electric cars for gas because there's more gas stations right now.
every compositor needs to essentially implement the whole protocol itself
This is also how X11 works if you choose not to use x.org... wayland is a protocol, the equivalent you're looking for is wlroots.
If you use wlroots, you don't have to do any of that.
As for why kde/wlroots/gnome are separate... x.org used to have multiple implementations too, until one took over and became used everywhere. Wlroots is the equivalent to x.org, and shares many implementation details with kde, gnome is the only odd one out, and both kde and gnomes implementations only exist because they came before wlroots.
Communist @ Communist @lemmy.ml Posts 8Comments 335Joined 6 yr. ago
having had to update the kernel for elderly people, I understand why they wouldn't, it's sometimes a cycle where i'd have to remove it with pacman -Rdd, things normal people would never think of, all because they let the updates run but don't manually switch out the kernel and years of that messes things up.
And for what benefit?