XFce is using GTK3 currently and the change is in GTK5. Hopefully, as more users have the sad realization about Wayland, GTK5 will be end of the line for GTK.

GTK's decision isn't that surprising, they've been part of freedesktop for some time, so they've bought in on the plan to cram Wayland down people's throat with a stick if necessary, much like RedHat in general.

You do realize that defunding an already underfunded program is objectively worse than not increasing the funding, don't you?

You might be tempted to mail these company execs something to express your displeasure. Just remember this important phrase if police might question you:

"OOps, my bad, I must have mixed their address up with Cologuard when I was addressing my packages..."

BZZT. That's a dodge and I suspect you damned well know it. LIE LIE LIE. You did successfully repeat the big lie, I'll grant you that.

I am quite sure it was understood that the people complaining were referring to the simple act of forwarding the X server connection to the remote X server (display) either directly or through ssh. I was lied to directly after being quite specific that that was what I was talking about (that would be the calling out). It was even a shade worse than Clinton's "I didn't inhale" (because it was in brownies). Truly a mis-direction worthy of a politician. Also known as a lie.

I remember history quite well.

If it's within the magnetosphere, that's easy enough. But it wouldn't actually be reactionless.

As opposed to San Francisco where nobody takes anything stronger than an aspirin ever?

In the early days right here on /. and on wayland's project blogs.

The claim was that X11 doesn't support remote display. Then when the foolishness of that claim was loudly called out, it was "Well that isn't REALLY remote support". Then that was called out and the claim was "it'll be implemented any day now..."

That was enlarged that it would be through an external proxy. Then that external proxy would be 3rd party. Then it would be started any day now.

Lie after lie after lie. Not a good look for open software.

Wayland is much much worse. IPV6 actually can do anything IPV4 can do. Wayland is still lacking, it's just that the Wayland boosters will try their best to gaslight you into thinking X can't do those things either, even as you watch it do them.

I have to support Ubuntu for commercial reasons. I am relieved to note that Ubuntu is NOT Wayland only. It's just that the latest Gnome only supports Wayland. So all I have to do to keep X11 available is not use the desktop environment that I despise anyway.

Wayland and Gnome are now so far up their own backsides, they will disappear into a singularity any day now.

Never invite a vampire into your home.

You mis-spelled "goons".

Fair enough. Another poster had suggested shipping the EVs without the batteries, but I had pointed out that doesn't somehow avoid the need to ship the batteries so it's probably not worth it. As it stands, we don't know exactly how this particular fire started in the first place. Shipping EV batteries with low charge might make them less likely to spontaneously combust due to some defect, but certainly is not going to stop them from burning from an external source.

There's enough energy in a typical tank of gasoline to melt all of the steel in the car it comes in, so that's not especially alarming. Of course, in the typical ICE gas fire, a large amount of the heat from the burning gasoline doesn't end up going into the car body itself, but into the air in various ways. Not to mention that the steel is usually more likely to burn than to melt. In burning, fiery wreck terms I would say that EV is generally a better bet than ICE.

Of course, you can practically ship an ICE with no gas in the tank. Obviously not so easy for an EV. The really interesting question here is more a question of how the fire started. Was it a spontaneously combusting EV or EV battery, or did the fire start some other way and just spread to the EVs? It's possible we'll find out, but probably only if they had good video surveillance.

That plan doesn't really seem logical unless there's some specific reason to believe that the batteries are more at risk in the cars than out of them. Otherwise, the loss is going to be just as great if a shipload of EV batteries burns as if a shipload of full EVs burns. Maybe if the batteries were not such a significant part of the cost of the vehicle it would be different. When you consider amortized risk over time, the plan you're suggesting seems more expensive. A better fire suppression system (probably one that continuously dumps large amounts of seawater on any car that catches fire so that the fire eventually burns out without spreading) might be more cost effective. Don't forget, this is international shipping. Big cargo carriers, for example, are known for leaving port intentionally overloaded with the expectation that a certain percentage of the cargo containers will just fall overboard. It's all about bean counting.

Agreed. There have been some discoveries that were genuine security issues. MANY that are only real issues in multi-user systems (and I mean logged in users, not someone fetching a web page). And too many that are clever tricks but only work if the 'target' cooperates fully with the "attack" (but mysteriously doesn't just sudo). Those remind me of the videos of Rube Goldberg machines that take a month to shoot and run for 3 minutes, assuming they don't just use clever editing to depict something that never actually happened at all.