I enjoy reading the whinging around Wayland by people who feel so entitled and so outraged. Every time they never fail to remind me of a previous coworker who was always using the same tactics: « this breaks my existing workflow, I will not adapt, I am all for trying new things but only if they are very exactly equal to what I already know and then what's the point, this is not how I have always worked the past ten years and I will not bulge ».
Not talking about the technical points of the whole X/Wayland considerations here, but a group of people in such debate is always as vocal as they'll do nothing and put unreasonably high expectations on other people to listen to them and have no choice but to agree. The fact that X.org's core team initiated Wayland and stopped X.org development is disregarded: these people Will Be Right against literally everything, they can't be reasoned.
My previous coworker was fired for gross incompetence in the end yet he never acknowledged anything wrong. He always knew better than literally the whole world that bash scripts run manually where superior to Terraform for the whole company's infrastructure. Yes, he was that stupid. I guess this is why he ended lying like hell on his LinkedIn profile, concealing he had had four employers in four years.
Seeing technical debates with such poor quality is worrying. If people with quantitative minds fail to entertain a fact-based discussion, how can we expect our political life to acknowledge there is only one reality and stop lying?
Before you voice your outrage, here are some facts that won't dis-exist just because you disagree with them:
- Business impact: always a business case to improve things with lower latency, higher availability, better scalability, lower operational costs. What some businesses really need is just a static webpage in Cloudfront: I want more.
- Corporate structure: a result-driven company that welcomes innovation. I'm happy with either large enterprises that move slowly or small nimble start-up, each has different strengths :-)
- Technical mindset: bottom-up tech design, right tool for the right job. Client-oriented design. Revenue-oriented & business-focused, it should matter from day 0. No abstraction is better than bad abstraction. Let free patterns emerge from organic growth.
- Technical landscape: data-intensive systems that can be relied upon, with strong business-relevant needs for performance, reliability, durability, and resilience.
- Team dynamics: engineers have and share areas of responsibility. No echo chamber or ivory-tower architect. All of us are collectively accountable for systems maintenance and architecture.
I appreciate your perspective, which brings up an interesting point for discussion. It's not uncommon for individuals to have strong opinions, and it's equally important to consider alternative viewpoints. While the author's critique may seem overly assertive, it could also serve as a catalyst for evaluating our processes more critically.
In our collaborative environment, it's valuable to maintain a level of respect for diverse perspectives, even if they initially appear confrontational. Instead of dismissing the author's stance outright, we might benefit from conducting a thorough assessment of our current procedures and identifying areas for potential improvement.
Engaging in constructive dialogue allows us to pinpoint inefficiencies and work collectively towards solutions that benefit our organisation. Ultimately, it's our ability to learn from each other and adapt that will contribute to our long-term success.
- Business impact: always a business case to improve things with lower latency, higher availability, better scalability, lower operational costs. What some businesses really need is just a static webpage in Cloudfront: I want more.
- Corporate structure: a result-driven company that welcomes innovation. I'm happy with either large enterprises that move slowly or small nimble start-up, each has different strengths :-)
- Technical mindset: bottom-up tech design, right tool for the right job. Client-oriented design. Revenue-oriented & business-focused, it should matter from day 0. No abstraction is better than bad abstraction. Let free patterns emerge from organic growth.
- Technical landscape: data-intensive systems that can be relied upon, with strong business-relevant needs for performance, reliability, durability, and resilience.
- Team dynamics: engineers have and share areas of responsibility. No echo chamber or ivory-tower architect. All of us are collectively accountable for systems maintenance and architecture.
- Business impact: always a business case to improve things with lower latency, higher availability, better scalability, lower operational costs. What some businesses really need is just a static webpage in Cloudfront: I want more.
- Corporate structure: a result-driven company that welcomes innovation.
- Technical mindset: bottom-up tech design, right tool for the right job. Client-oriented design. Revenue-oriented, it should matter from day 0. No abstraction is better than bad abstraction. Let free patterns emerge from organic growth.
- Technical landscape: data-intensive systems that can be relied upon, with strong business-relevant needs for performance, reliability, durability, and resilience.
- Team dynamics: engineers have and share areas of responsibility. No echo chamber or ivory-tower architect. We should all be collectively accountable for systems architecture.
- Business impact: I'd still love to change the world and save lives but I'll be content enough if our work is client-facing, and directly makes clients' lives / jobs easier.
- Corporate structure: a result-driven company that welcomes innovation.
- Technical mindset: no top-down but bottom-up tech design. Client-oriented design. Revenue-oriented, it should matter from day 0. No abstraction is better than bad abstraction. Let free patterns emerge from organic growth.
- Technical landscape: data-intensive systems that can be relied upon, with strong business-relevant needs for performance, reliability, durability, and resilience.
- Team dynamics: engineers have and share areas of responsibility. No echo chamber or ivory-tower architect. We should all be collectively accountable for systems architecture.
Not talking about the technical points of the whole X/Wayland considerations here, but a group of people in such debate is always as vocal as they'll do nothing and put unreasonably high expectations on other people to listen to them and have no choice but to agree. The fact that X.org's core team initiated Wayland and stopped X.org development is disregarded: these people Will Be Right against literally everything, they can't be reasoned.
My previous coworker was fired for gross incompetence in the end yet he never acknowledged anything wrong. He always knew better than literally the whole world that bash scripts run manually where superior to Terraform for the whole company's infrastructure. Yes, he was that stupid. I guess this is why he ended lying like hell on his LinkedIn profile, concealing he had had four employers in four years.
Seeing technical debates with such poor quality is worrying. If people with quantitative minds fail to entertain a fact-based discussion, how can we expect our political life to acknowledge there is only one reality and stop lying?
Before you voice your outrage, here are some facts that won't dis-exist just because you disagree with them:
- https://www.phoronix.com/review/x_wayland_situation
- https://ajaxnwnk.blogspot.com/2020/10/on-abandoning-x-server...
reply