Well, I didn't know about this, clearly written by an accessibility user:
This is a good balanced article. Let's hope Wayland Devs don't give up fine-tuning for Accessibility options, due to a coding hurdle, and that they don't use A.I. to jump any hurdles that might present.
This article states a large number of complete falsehoods.
For example:
Security represents perhaps Waylandâs most compelling advantage. The Wayland input stack fundamentally prevents malicious applications from compromising other programs.
X11 lacks these protections entirely. Any X11 application can keylog the entire system, capture screenshots of all windows, and inject synthetic input events.
This statement is completely false.
Xauth - something many of us come across and has been around for decades is an example of just one of those protections.
X11 run applications do not have unrestricted access to everything as this article implies. MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE authentication, host-based access control, are further examples of the non lacking protections. These determine which clients can connect to the X server and what access they can get.
There are many other extremely misleading claims, utter falsehoods and fallacies throughout this article. It makes leaps that are not causally connected, and uses examples or claims that are either exaggerated or just - not true to reality.
I won't list them all or this would become a three page post. Suffice to say, this particular article is far more "lead the reader to the conclusion I want them to have" than anything even remotely factual.
The biggest issue with Wayland protocol is that it is largely incomplete to this day my guess is due to them always blaming issues on software developers like Kicad who have been unable to code their product to work properly under Wayland due to missing functionality that X ORG display server had.
I think the people pushing Wayland are looking to push it for the Corporate Desktop. I also have learned that Xorg devs are also contributing to Wayland which might explain why little work is being unfertaken on maintaining X.
I think what I could not accept is a forced push to accept Wayland and remove X11 as an option on newer distribution releases.
I am also concerned that while a small amount of A.I. code has been used in the release of version 7 of the kernel, how long before it becomes an integral part of future releases? Let us also remember MS also contributes code to the Linux Kernel and how do we know if A.I. has ever been tasked with, "How to kill the Linux kernel with code submissions"?
As Lunduke posted on this topic, the expectation is for Linux kernel contributors to declare voluntarily if they have used any A.I. code. How can that possibly be policed?
It is interesting that a number of GNU/Linux distributions, as well as FreeBSD, to reject any A.I. coding.
The exception being upstream i.e., the Linux kernel which has already made partial use of A.I.
If things degenerate into A.I. Data Centres being more important than anything else, I will migrate to BSD.
The downside will be not being able to use SoftMaker Office. Guess I would need to use it on an old OS offline.
It is already because People use it already. Torvalds doesn't block it because he knows that People would use it anyway.
And how should that be policed when there would be a No to AI?
There is AI Integration, too. ChatGPT is built-in I saw:
True but I never use it (SoftMaker Office). A.I. is dependent on the construction of A.I. Data Centres which are bad for the environment, people and animals. I use SoftMaker Office as is. It is just sad that the A.I. element cannot be turned off. I still do voluntary book modifications for students with low vision, so I need to use SoftMaker for MS Word compatibility.
The argument about not blocking its use because knowing people use it anyway, is a poor excuse. People use A.I. blindly because the underlying resource cost is/has never been fully addressed by those promoting it.
The other false factor, even given by politicians like our current leader promoting A.I. for students in secondary education as a future career is a falsehood as it is used to reduce the need for a workforce.
It's the usual case of "out of sight, out of mind". It's also creating a generation of zombie thinkers, "let's keep the single brain cell populous at just that".
