> I would love something like that too use as a macro pad: keys that have arbitrary meaning you can reference. Keys that behave differently depending on context, and show you the context in real-time. That would be incredibly useful.
You might want to have a look at Elgato's Stream Decks.
I think it's fair, since every one of those distros ships an X11 fallback. I desperately want Wayland to succeed but exaggerating its current wins won't get us there.
I don't want this post to focus on the negative, though, so I'll suggest a more positive argument: the people who would have been responsible for a hypothetical X12 instead decided to make Wayland. I can't think of a body of experts more likely to make a correct decision, so I have confidence in Wayland as the path forward.
Fair. I'll admit there are a few rough edges, mainly caused by some apps (Slack) having older versions of certain libraries that makes some functionality (like screen sharing) break.
Dudemanguy wrote about its deficiencies 2022-06-11 [0], ex lack of feature parity with X11 and self imposed limitations like only allowing integer scaling (ie to get 1.5 scaling, it uses x3/x2 scaling). For some perspective, consider checking other hn reader reactions to this post [1].
To be fair, I'm on an five-year old laptop with NVIDIA and since last year it almost works well enough to be a daily driver. For some weird reason Chromium doesn't render at all, even though Chrome does. That's the only remaining bug of significance.
Whereas when I tried a year before I had to bail after an hour because many applications would just have a black screen.
It kind of feels like it will take only one more year for this to work well enough (except then the laptop might be so old hardware support ends up lacking)
I have to disable hardware compositing on X11 to get a reliable desktop (and HW rendering in individual apps like firefox). I'm not sure if something similar is possible on Wayland.
Obviously it doesn't work if your workaround is disabling it. It is either bad hardware, or buggy driver. For the latter, it has to be some obscure hardware; popular hardware would have it fixed.
I have been using linux for over 20 years and reliable hardware acceleration has always been more "miss" than "hit." This goes all the way back to having to disable hardware cursors on my very first linux setup. I hear the amdgpu driver is pretty solid, and the i915 driver I use on my laptop is great. Nvidia is just a mess (nouveau and the nvidia binary drivers are differently buggy) and the radeon driver is complete garbage.
My first linux machine was 386 with Trident 9000, running Slackware, so I'm pretty aware how linux hardware support developed over time. Maybe I was lucky in picking my hardware, but buggy basic functionality was a big exception (minor bugs were there, like in amdgpu cursor not picking the same LUT as the framebuffer, and being jarring white compared to redshifted desktop; incidentally, windows driver had the same issue at the same time).
Not implemented functionality - sure. I've never got TV out running on Radeon 7500 (RV200) during early 2000s, for example. But basic functionality (today), like freezing texture mapping on a hardware, that has 3d driver implemented and that driver comes with distro, no. But then again, maybe I was lucky in my picks.
Looks like it started in 2007 [0], though the content was pretty different, there were some updates over the years, and the current version is indeed from 2013 [1]
Your "different approach" sounds almost exactly like the approach proposed in the fine article for the "ESP too small" case (a case which you assume as a given).
Of course! I think you just should (or at least that it makes full sense to ask).
I remember - to the best of my memory, it was probably well over five years ago when I read the articles - it was the geopolitics course at Uni Moscow; the professor is/was an ideologist influential in the circle of the core decision makers. The list included a pretty large number of objectives, of which the current topic is just a line.
When, after the war really started¹ and of course you think of the tick-mark in the list, I looked for the original article, I found it definitely not the most immediate needle in the haystack. A few weeks later, though, as the ideologists started to present their point of view to the western public, one interview emerged which I have good reasons to believe was from the above said professor.
I will check for you later when I will have some contiguous time: the name of that interviewed professor (easier to find: I have it in my RSS harvest) should be a better lead to retrieve the articles about his course about the national geopolitical objectives.
¹With reference to those commentators which gave it for a fact well before the actual border trespassing - e.g. Niall Ferguson.
Correctly, as I remembered, he was one of the voices that gave interviews to spread the "creed" in the past weeks - I recognized the name. And he stated in the interviews: "We will get hurt immensely, but we will reach the goal" - this shall be an intellectual warning to the adopters of naïve rational-agentism ("homo oeconomicus would never").
I see that I remembered the wrong faculty: he worked at the Department of Sociology (I probably confused the book name with the department). And I see that the use as textbook has been sparse - adopted and celebrated here and there.
I must recommend that readers go through that list: it is "quite strong". The presence of the UK in the list as an entity that should be separated from Europe is what woke up some commentators after Brexit, with the question "Could they have helped it - surely they expressed they wanted it".
Reported words of that author, that may give a sketchy profile:
> I think that Internet as such, as a phenomenon is worth prohibiting because it gives nobody anything good
> If we want to liberate ourselves from the West, it is needed to liberate ourselves from textbooks on physics and chemistry
...And those lines should again be flashing hints to those who like to consider the players at the chessboard agents following a common rational framework.
i regularly use K (an APL descendant) as "pseudo-code".
in fact, i regularly _think_ about problems in an array-programming fashion, heavily inspired by K. when jotting them down, i often use K. when turning them into actual code to run, it's mostly immaterial if i then use K, J, numpy, julia, etc. the general approach translates well into a multitude of array programming varieties.
as such, i don't believe your point 5 holds. this way of thinking is certainly off mainstream, as is, e.g constraint programming, but there are niches where people use it highly productively. you won't necessarily glean that from the output coming from those niches, though.
You might want to have a look at Elgato's Stream Decks.