KDE KWin Introducing Item-Based Scenes For Improved Wayland Support

[oiaohm]

No doubt about that, but until everything works flawlessly features are more important than security.
And if security is paramount, probably you shouldn't be sharing your desktop anyway

That depends on what markets you are selling into. Lot of the markets for RHEL security is more important that having perfect features. Yes the security focus means that sharing desktop working was a lower end feature to be implemented.

Like it or not people who want the features over security are not funding the development in direct enough way.

[JackLilhammers]

That depends on what markets you are selling into. Lot of the markets for RHEL security is more important that having perfect features. Yes the security focus means that sharing desktop working was a lower end feature to be implemented.

Like it or not people who want the features over security are not funding the development in direct enough way.

Yeah, because we've seen with CentOS how much RH listens to its users.
By the way, I think those more interested in security rather than features just use better desktop operating systems...

[oiaohm]

Yeah, because we've seen with CentOS how much RH listens to its users.
By the way, I think those more interested in security rather than features just use better desktop operating systems...

Are CentOS users RHEL users? Really properly answer that question the answer is no. They are not paying Redhat/IBM money. CentOS users really have been freeloaders not putting the money into major development projects.

Like it or not JackLilhammers the saying "show me the money" is really true. Without money to fund Redhat operations or are causing Redhat saving in development costs why should Redhat listen? Yes CentOS usage is normal users using RHEL that redhat has already spent time certifying and validating so very little engineering assistance.

Redhat should listen to fedora users more because they are beta testing for them so providing engineering assistance.

[oiaohm]

oiaohm It’s a bit more complicated than saying RHEL users are not CentOS users. The reason why Red Hat changed their CentOS offering was due changes in customer behavior. Many customers figured out they could just settle on a smaller RHEL subscription and move production units to CentOS. Support for all machines then went through the smaller subscription.

That is still not paying for the support they are getting. Customers believed they could freeload and Redhat would not notice.

[JackLilhammers]

Anyway my comment was really directed towards Jack’s stupid troll narrative about “[someone] not listening”. Obviously they listen but at some point they stop.

I was very direct and explicit. Being generic while implying very specific subjects is usually your modus operandi

That said I don't think it's troll narrative at all. Red Hat pulled exactly the same sh*tty move that Qt pulled last year.
The only difference is that you cheer Red Hat and can't stand Qt.

By the way, I imagine that now many customers will figure out they can just settle on a smaller RHEL subscription and move production units to [RockyLinux/AlmaLinux]

[oiaohm]

I was very direct and explicit. Being generic while implying very specific subjects is usually your modus operandi

That said I don't think it's troll narrative at all. Red Hat pulled exactly the same sh*tty move that Qt pulled last year.
The only difference is that you cheer Red Hat and can't stand Qt.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/where-fedora-fits-in-the-new-red-hat-centos-stream-linux-world/

You need to read what Redhat did to CentOS users. Centos users are still getting all the security updates now ahead of the RHEL users with the change to Centos Streams they also get the beta tester for those who are using RHEL and are paying Redhat.

The change redhat does is no more free lunch. There was a horrible problem where CentOS was more stable than RHEL that is not good for Redhat profitablity. Why more stable is that RHEL users would get a update if it had a bug then CentOS users would not get it. CentOS changing to CentOS stream basically flips stability order to what it really should have been. If you freeloading you should be getting the beta tester grade product if you are paying you should be getting the nice validated stable product.


This is very different to Qt where you no longer get the security updates or new features if you don't pay. Qt move is way more sh*tty. Redhat move did put the freeloaders noses out of joint but it was not cutting them off from features and security patches.

[Nth_man]

This is very different to Qt where you no longer get the security updates or new features if you don't pay.

As usual, oiaohm, there will be someone who will "inform" you that way. But past branches of Qt will get security fixes from the Qt Company and can get other fixes from e.g. Qt5PatchCollection. The latest version of Qt gets all the fixes.

[oiaohm]

As usual, oiaohm, there will be someone who will "inform" you that way. But past branches of Qt will get security fixes from the Qt Company and can get other fixes from e.g. Qt5PatchCollection. The latest version of Qt gets all the fixes.

Qt5PatchCollection does not contain all the patches Qt Company has applied.
https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-c...tml?print=cGh4

Yes Nth_man would have paid to have read. The latest version of Qt under what the Qt Company proposed would only be for those who have paid for 12 months. This means a know security fault fix that the Qt Company knows about could be delayed for 12 months this well and truly exceed the recommend under 90 days.

The change that caused the uproar was to be applied to all past and current branches. Really Nth_man its not me who not informed in this case its you.

[Nth_man]

Qt5PatchCollection does not contain all the patches Qt Company has applied.
https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-c...tml?print=cGh4

Yes Nth_man would have paid to have read. The latest version of Qt under what the Qt Company proposed would only be for those who have paid for 12 months. This means a know security fault fix that the Qt Company knows about could be delayed for 12 months this well and truly exceed the recommend under 90 days.

The change that caused the uproar was to be applied to all past and current branches. Really Nth_man its not me who not informed in this case its you.

> Qt5PatchCollection does not contain all the patches Qt Company has applied. [...]

I didn't say otherwise.

> The latest version of Qt under what the Qt Company proposed would only be for those who have paid for 12 months.

Again, the latest version of Qt receives all the patches, without that 12 months delay that you say. And the past branches of Qt will get security fixes from the Qt Company, without that 12 months delay that you say.

You said "This is very different to Qt where you no longer get the security updates or new features if you don't pay", maybe you have heard it from what some other people say, and it's false.

[oiaohm]

> Qt5PatchCollection does not contain all the patches Qt Company has applied. [...]

I didn't say otherwise.

> The latest version of Qt under what the Qt Company proposed would only be for those who have paid for 12 months.

Again, the latest version of Qt receives all the patches, without that 12 months delay that you say. And the past branches of Qt will get security fixes from the Qt Company, without that 12 months delay that you say.

You said "This is very different to Qt where you no longer get the security updates or new features if you don't pay", maybe you have heard it from what some other people say, and it's false.

I should have been more correct what I wrote there was why people got so upset with the Qt proposed change and was out for Qt Company blood. That is a very different thing to the Redhat changing Centos to Centos Streams.

The Qt latest version and past branches the fact security fixed will not be delayed now is due to the uproar that Qt Company basically got told that move was totally not acceptable. Those who were upset with the first Qt Company proposal was very correct to be upset with it.

There is a difference between what Qt Company said they were going to-do before the uproar and what they have done after I will agree on that. But if you are asking why people were well and truly upset with the proposed Qt change you need to look at what was first proposed not what they have done now. Do note most of that uproar has basically stopped now that Qt Company changed their plan.