Yeah, not sure why people have objection to this. It's not like they are affected. Sure, it reveals a motivation that otherwise might not be there, but everyone has hidden motivations.
I don't think that sounds unreasonable at all. I think most people that dislike that do out of implementation concerns, not because they are actually opposed.
There are 2 distinct angry mobs now. I haven't counted the responses, but it looks to me like the great majority of people who responded to this here on HN, reddit and on twitter are against it and/or are questioning the value of making such a costly change.
There are reasons, many times those reasons are obvious to whomever is actually implimenting the changes but not to others outside of it. The reasons have been highlighted hundreds of times and unless there's actual arguments against those reasons the discussion of "I don't like wayland" is a distractive circle that ignores the content of the original post.
Yes, they are. The point is that this change make this hypothetical too close to being true so the change should be abandoned. It skews the power balance too much into the hands of a small number of unknown people so the rest are protesting.
Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. I think the community benefits from people expressing counter-arguments far more than grey-ing out minority opinion.
I'd hope a majority of users here feel the same way and act accordingly - pg's comments not withstanding.
Person wasn't neccesarily advocating for the change, just wondering why it is the way it is. I don't think its an unreasonable thought and the naming of things and the history thereof can certainly be interesting discussion points.
I think what those people mean when they say that is that it hasn't materially changed anything for most people, unlike what some reforms (or revolution) could do for people. They see it as a form of tokenism which they think historically hasn't helped much.
Personally, I see both sides. I think this is actual progress that will indirectly have positive material benefits while also recognizing we can obviously do better than this.
reply