You know, I don’t even disagree with that sentiment in principle, but expecting people to suffer when they could benefit from a technology because they only see the threats and dangers makes them no different than antivaxxers.

It is possible and logically consistent to urge caution and condemn the worst abuses of technology without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But no… I guess because the awful aspects of the technology as far as IP theft are - rightfully - the biggest focus, sorry, poor people, you just have to keep sucking it up and powering through! You want empathy, fork over the $100 an hour!

Removed by mod

Look, if you can afford therapy, really, fantastic for you. But the fact is, it’s an extremely expensive luxury, even at poor quality, and sharing or unloading your mental strain with your friends or family, particularly when it is ongoing, is extremely taxing on relationships. Sure, your friends want to be there for you when they can, but it can put a major strain depending on how much support you need. If someone can alleviate that pressure and that stress even a little bit by talking to a machine, it’s in extremely poor taste and shortsighted to shame them for it. Yes, they’re willfully giving up their privacy, and yes, it’s awful that they have to do that, but this isn’t like sharing memes… in the hierarchy of needs, getting the pressure of those those pent up feelings out is important enough to possibly be worth the trade-off. Is it ideal? Absolutely not. Would it be better if these systems were anonymized? Absolutely. But humans are natural anthropomorphizers. They develop attachments and build relationships with inanimate objects all the time. And a really good therapist is more a reflection for you to work through things yourself anyway, mostly just guiding your thoughts towards better patterns of thinking. There’s no reason the machine can’t do that, and while it’s not as good as a human, it’s a HUGE improvement on average over nothing at all.

Haven’t you heard? In 2025 software isn’t ALLOWED to be complete. If you’re not constantly playing a cat and mouse game with someone’s pet ideological crusade in your dependencies, you’re an irrelevant dinosaur and can’t possibly be a critical or functional part of anybody’s workflow.

It means some of your old software will stop working and if you file a bug report they’ll tell you to contact the developers who either haven’t touched it in two decades or have since died.

In this case you happen to be right on both counts.

Separating the message from the messenger is a key skill. A right answer doesn’t become wrong because it comes from a jerk.

And can you not see how that’s a problem? Software that was written without using XDG portals shouldn’t have to be concerned about their existence. If it is required that existing, finished software has to adapt to a new paradigm, it is not a replacement - it’s new. And it’s intrusive. If you replace the water system for a house, that’s one thing. If you replace the water system in the house AND the new system requires the owner to buy and install all new fixtures on all the faucets, that’s an entirely different thing altogether.

Quite simply, you can draw and annotate the screen. I can circle things, draw attention to things, and highlight things on every window in the desktop environment without ANY consideration of what application is running - it’s completely agnostic. Wayland’s design doesn’t allow it.

Until this feature is present, Wayland is unusable for me.

This kind of thing is precisely why the overall decision to replace X by building something NEW was folly from the beginning - because you are ALWAYS going to be missing use cases. X should’ve been treated like an API and “completion” be measured directly and terms of how much of the functionality is implemented - not in terms of “how much, in fuzzy natural language terms, do we have that works equivalently”.

Also, and let’s be entirely clear about this… Open Board got here FIRST. It was FINISHED software. Developed, released, and doing its job. To come along, make a change to its dependencies, and then blame IT for doing something wrong? Is it the job of every single developer to update their software to match what Wayland wants? Thousands of projects over decades? What happens when the Wayland devs make another change and something else breaks? I’m getting flashbacks of Linus Torvalds RIGHTFULLY yelling at a developer blaming an application for not functioning after a kernel update. “WE DO NOT BREAK USER SPACE.”

Android forces developers to make these kinds of retroactive changes, and it’s why the ecosystem sucks and any stable, well-built software is a couple updates away from being useless. I don’t want my desktop OS to be more like that.

Here we are YEARS later and OpenBoard is STILL broken.

No, I don’t want a fully contained, separate whiteboard application - As a teacher, I need to be able to DIRECTLY DRAW ON THE DESKTOP. Until this is a fully supported feature that software can implement, Wayland is completely broken for me.