People like his technical opinion because they like his politics. That’s the whole grift-influencer economy. If someone is good at one thing (and validates some of my views), then obviously he’s right about everything.
When people feel underrepresented to the point of being bullied they turn to any voice which seems to reflect even a tiny fraction of their frustrations.
There's a real mean spirit in open source lately and a lot of it seems to revolve around political views. There's become this idea that if you and I disagree on politics then it would be impossible for us to write quality software together. It's damaged a lot of good will and cohesion that used to exist within the open source software community.
This used to be about making free software to people so that they weren't abused by corporations. Now it's about pushing agendas and creating exclusion criteria. There's only one group in this scenario that benefits from this outcome.
If you don't like Lunduke then you should recognize the factors that give rise to people like him. Unless your solution is to completely eliminate anyone who disagrees with you then your apparent mindset only furthers the problem.
I wish we could put all this aside and just enjoy open source again.
My existence is not political. If someone doesn't think I should have rights and/or exist and/or thinks I am inferior because of who I am, then no, we cannot write quality software together.
If someone disagrees with me on tax, foreign relations, government services, defense, etc policy, sure, we can disagree and still work together.
What gives rise to people like Lunduke is not a simple thing, and something I don't think society fully understands.
In a way, "someone doesn't think I should have rights and/or exist and/or thinks I am inferior because of who I am" is pretty much the definition of (some kind of) politics. All sides play this game, e.g. many extremists these days argue that the "intolerant" shouldn't have rights or even exist by definition, but then the political football becomes who gets labeled as "intolerant" to begin with.
(And maybe it's true that those on opposite sides cannot work together on good software, but that's easily addressed since all FLOSS licenses include the right to fork and merge changes.)
Not agreeing with a particular description or categorization of you is not the same as thinking that you don't exist and not agreeing that you should have certain non-universal rights based on that categorization or that you should be able to force others in agreeing with your views isn't the same as thinking that you shouldn't have rights period.
When people believe "they are product", bully Open Source developers for not following their demands and got expected response than entities appear that validate their wrongs for views (money).
Lunduke spreads misinformation. That's anti Open Source, anti community.
You can use Xephyr or Xnest to sandbox an untrusted or insecure application within its own X11 instance. This gives you the exact same kind of security property that Wayland happens to enforce out of the box for its clients, except that it need not apply to basic desktop components such as the window manager or the desktop panel. You don't even need Xlibre or anything, this stuff has been around for ages. It's not rocket surgery!
Xephyr or Xnest sandbox break screensharing, global shortkeys.
You've just confirmed obvious. No way to improve security without breaking changes. And you demand mostly nontechnical users to blacklist applications. That's a recipe for disaster.
> Once you enable XLibre namespaces filtering it breaks screensharing, global hotkeys. Obviously. It is breaking change.
Ah, the classic moving of goalposts.
I'll bite: It is far from impossible, and already solved elsewhere: Most applications do not need such functionality.
For those that do, provide mechanisms to request and facilitate access to such functionality when needed. Like portals do for other functionality. And a wrapper to request automatically for e.g. old binaries without source.
API is contract. API grants access to screen content, key presses. Users blame Wayland for breaking this contract. Both Wayland and XLibre namespaces brake it. Lunduke mob unable to reason, claims "moving goalposts". Lunduke mob claims improving security is not needed. Lunduke mod wants Linux desktop to be malware can. They claim security improvements for everyone (like defaults on Android) is corporations taking away their freedom. Lunduke mob unable to comprehend Wayland started by XOrg developers who knew X11 flaws. They unable to be thankful for people bringing security to modern expectations.
Dont present our hypothesis as a hard fact. I actually think it is completely false. Not only I was never interested in his political opinions, and followed him because of his humoristic takes "Linux sucks", and not about Rust or whatever; I actually never encountered a single video before joining his "lunduke journal" where his right-wing views would be visible.
He has made funny videos, it was fun to watch. Its kinda hard to enjoy them now after learning he s dumb as a rock and justifies killings if you are of tje wrong nationality
