Are you comparing 40years of graphical environment stability and global use with something that has been broken for more than a decade and now all of a sudden is portrayed as secure?
I want to start applications as another user in my own environment and my own system and wayland prevents me, while x11 allows me (together with many forms of sandboxing and containerization).
I have asked this question to all pretend to be experts of wayland and I have 0 responses.
Non-sense, any linux, even the most wasteful in resources, ubuntu, mint, manjaro, debian, fedora, gnome plasma DE, uses a fraction of resources to start and execute whatever. I have 2-3 friends running daily on early/mid 2core intel/amd machines where w10/11 wouldn't even boot!
Many unions collect fees, for operational costs, publications, transportation costs, etc.
Especially they collect funds to support those who have been unjustifiably laid-off, or during strikes to have emergency pay so they can refuse to return due to fin.pressure. Families of disabled or killed at work members...
The thing here is you have for profit corporations producing code as well as executives, and unemployed privateers. Who gets what?
Just last week I was arguing with a bunch of #ubuntu fan boys here about how that system prevents you from learning, how Debian is a tiny bit better, but with arch/based systems you both have a reliable daily runner and be able to learn as much as you can take.
The more you learn the more aggravating debians (mint-ubuntus) become, forcing their choices on you. Arch respects and rewards people who want to do it their way. They provide the blocks, you build your system.
You can run 3 vm instances, 1 win10, 1 android, 1 ios, and within them you can run native whatevers.
Why would you want to run crap in your nice clean **nix environment is beyond me. And nothing will ever improve with this kind of mentality.
Again, free software stands for freedom, not cheap or of 0 exchange value.
Sometimes the code to make a mouse or any pointing device (TS included) work with a cli can be 15 times more than the cli itself. Cheap low powered devices for the masses (globally) would perform competitively if it wasn't for all the heavy gui work they have to do.
Have you made a single AUR pkg, or are you just criticizing thousands for their work without any evidence from your armchair?
Energy is never generated, power is, from energy conversion.
Also "energy" and "sustainable" intersect with a word called entropy.
It would take years for MS to catch up to the hw covered by linux, some of it not even released in a market.
If you are talking about specific MS licensed hw with unpublished non-open non-free-firmware that MS orders to cut off other OSs then I can see this being true.
If you are falling for the Nvidia trap, I feel sorry for you.
First of all generalizing about this is totally wrong, depending on what software/libraries a program depends on for build makes a huge difference. If it is good old C that is backwards compatible (hence the size of glibc) it will work all the time. Show me one debian or arch official package that is written in C and says for glibc >=2.35
On other software proposing a library to be >=ver-xxx means the packager speculates that future editions will NOT break the build.
I don''t use systemd or logind so I don't have to worry about such magic security violations this bogus pile of crap creates. I have more control of processes and don't allow some "automated" service to be loging-in-out system users 2000 times a nanosecond as logind does.
It only happens when I want it to happen, not uncontrollably.
KISS is the best security measure.
@Ullebe1