Yeah, I mean Google caring about Linux isn't exactly breaking news. We knew that already. Android and ChromeOS both exist and as web company they kinda have to care about the OS that by and large runs the web. But this is Phoronix and they'll make articles about anything as long as they think as it'll get engagement. "Chromium" and "Wayland" are pretty good buzzwords as far as that goes, thus this article. My point is more so that maybe it isn't productive to have every acknowledgment of Chromium's continued existence be overwhelmingly negative regardless of context.

This isn't something to complain about, IMO. Chromium is a popular app and it is a good thing to see work on supporting FDO protocols and improving Wayland support. I prefer Firefox myself, but it's nice that Linux support isn't just an afterthought for Google either and more importantly it trickles down to the countless apps on Linux that depend on Chromium in some form (usually through Electron). I personally use several, including but not limited to Slack, Discord, r2modman and VSCodium.

Generations Vi, VII and VIII all had fewer than 100 new Pokemon.

Why do you believe a "nutrition brick" would be at all more appetizing than the things described in OP?

Esperanto has grammatical gender.

Do you... not know how multi-licensing works? You can use the project's code under the terms of whichever license you prefer, you don't use all three at once. Simply putting the AGPLv3 does remove unfair restrictions, because it means you don't have to use either of the proprietary licenses the project was previously only available under.

I don't follow. ElasticSearch was only available under proprietary source-available licenses. Now, it's also available under the AGPL, which is open source, meaning ElasticSearch is now open source software. What part of this is deceptive or contradictory?

Uh, Cinnamon does not need a compatibility app to run Qt apps. No desktop environment does. You mostly just need to be X11 or Wayland compliant. The same is true with GTK.

MV3 doesn't make adblockers impossible, only less effective. It's important to note that MV3 has changed a fair bit since the initial controversy and isn't quite as limiting as it used to be. The fact that adblockers will lose some functionality at all is still a dealbreaker for me and many others which I thankfully won't have to deal with as a Firefox user, but it isn't going to kill adblockers on Chrome and most users will probably just install an MV3-compatible adblocker and move on with their day.

uBlock Origin's developers don't seem to want to make a proper MV3 port, which is fair because they'd probably have to rewrite most of the extension, but they did create the far more minimal uBlock Orgin Lite, which a lot of people have taken to be an attempt at porting uBlock Origin to MV3. It isn't that. On top of MV3's limitations, it also makes the decision to work within these self-imposed restrictions:

• No broad host permissions at install time -- extended permissions are granted explicitly by the user on a per-site basis.

• Entirely declarative for reliability and CPU/memory efficiency.

These aren't MV3 limitations, just a thing Gorhill decided to do. See the FAQ. You can get much closer to uBlock Origin within MV3's constraints than uBlock Origin Lite does. Right now, the best option appears to be AdGuard, which has been making a true best-effort attempt at porting their adblocker to MV3 pretty much since the announcement.

itch.io also has a Linux app

So... why are people upset about this? I'd say it's about damn time. Having two settings apps is pretty ridiculous and it's honestly crazy it's taken them this long to ditch the control panel. I still remember people making fun of Microsoft's inability to drop control panel in the Windows 10 era. Is there anything special about the control panel or uniquely terrible about the settings app that would warrant this kind of negative reaction? Is it because of the settings that aren't available in settings? If they're preparing to drop control panel that probably means they're going to add whatever settings are still stranded on it to the new settings app, unless there's evidence that they won't do that.

Dunno. Regardless of the method used by the extension, I think any extension called "Bypass Paywalls" that does what it says on the tin can pretty unambiguously be said to be designed to circumvent "technological protection measures". In this case, it circumvents the need to login entirely and obviously it circumvents the paywall.

Though as you said, these guys should probably be sending DMCAs to the Internet Archive if they actually want to stop their paywalls from being bypassed. I know they do honor takedown requests. Maybe archive.today is the problem? Maybe they don't honor DMCA requests. I very often see them used on Hacker News whenever someone wants share a paywall-free link to an article.