Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland (Read 7192 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 29 Guests are viewing this topic.

Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

I'll make this brief, both Systemd and Wayland are Linux-centric software and have little regard for other systems. There's this negative reception towards people who promote alternatives, depicting them as unfounded. I find this strange, Linux users, who are supposed to understand the value of options and alternatives, and the existence of this "marginalization" are the ones having the initiative of mocking other users. To be fair, I'm mostly talking about certain people who have strong voices, but still, am I missing something? What's the motivation behind that?

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #1 –
Non-Systemd and to a lesser degree Linux in general probably lack a sufficient marketing team as much as anything, despite having a great deal of technical ability. A commercial company like RedHat will naturally have a sales team, they want their free software to be used widely to create interest in their other paid products, but who is promoting and encouraging the use of OpenRC, Runit, Dinit and so on? The people who are good at this kind of thing are typically not software developers as well.

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #2 –
From a birds-eye view:
Having, maintaining, and thriving in control/power is what it all boils down to.

AstroTurf, erosion, and being a parasite are the tools of the trade.

The so called "strong voices" you speak of are only useful idiots. They're soulless Bugmen waiting for new orders of what idea to proselytize next. Remove them from the chessboard and nothing will change. Except maybe a different type of useful idiot.

Best to ignore them unless you have leverage, resources, or an actionable plan to go against their masters. Helping out on those who can is viable as well.

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #3 –
SystemD and Wayland proponents are in the "New Thing Good/Old Thing Bad" seat, while those who aren't can sometimes be the inverse, I've seen (and experienced) examples where that's justified. Try using new tools because they're pretty and are packed with features and segmentation faults, while the old stuff is ugly and isn't getting inundated with new breakages. Emphasis being new.

I'd rather old and ugly tools that get the job done than newer, "visually elegant", and less legacy-compatible tools.

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #4 –
Agreeing with much of what's said above, I add that historically there has been much ignorance among the developers of all this "new" stuff. They might, for example, come from the M$ Windows desktop world of the early 2000s, and entering a UNIX environment find something "missing", when in actuality it is only designed better in UNIX, and so they need to implement the thing that is "missing". They are programmers, software engineers, so they want to create instead of learn. They are mediocre programmers, so their implementation is sub-par in comparison to UNIX tradition. Eventually they kind of realize their error, and because of the size of their ego and perhaps some financial pushes, they find themselves reimplementing something that has existed in UNIX since the 1970s, and of course they have to wrap it up as "new, up-to-date features".

The above is but one aspect of the matter. The monster has many sides and crevices.

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #5 –
For a more substantial take on both SystemD and Wayland...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, without hyperbole, that SystemD is not an init system going by size and scope, it's an administrative framework. The most basic example of an init system is so boring it would make prospective new users scratch their heads about problems they've encountered using it, and wonder why SystemD touches things like session management and your HOME partition. The Busybox version of Runit only branches out of the low-level utilities if you explicitly set it up to do so (think: OpenRC User-Services), with SystemD it's just a matter of fact regardless of any negative implications. Service "supervisor" shouldn't mean "greatly altering the behavior of /etc", that's not singular supervision, that's textbook wholesale administration of a crucial directory.

Wayland to this very day is only selling on looks and "security", the latter having its place on the horseshoe theory of security. If Xorg is a backdoor nightmare, then Wayland and its myriad of rigid protocols are going to be a massive brain fuck to circumnavigate once a CVE is inevitably brought up. Imagine fixing one Wayland protocol only for the solution to be heretical to another protocol and everything just falls apart like a house of cards. FreeDesktop took such an extreme approach to "security" that drawing window icons needs its own unique XDG protocol! Why the fuck is rendering an icon in the window decorations more complicated than providing a desktop manager with icons you can drag-and-drop? Wasting time on such frivolous engineering gospel is why Wayland is decades behind Xorg (Xlibre).

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #6 –
Quote from: m4rtin23 – on
I'll make this brief, ( ... ) To be fair, I'm mostly talking about certain people who have strong voices, but still, am I missing something? What's the motivation behind that?

You haven't really understood the principle of open source.

"Wer alles kann, macht nichts richtig"

Artix USE="runit openrc slim openbox lxde gtk2 qt4 qt5 qt6 conky
-gtk3 -gtk4 -adwaita{cursors,themes,icons,fonts} -gnome3 -kde -plasma -wayland "

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #7 –
Quote
You haven't really understood the principle of open source.
And you like to make bold statements without providing any reasoning whatsoever.

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #8 –
Quote from: K0rpZ0uth – on
For a more substantial take on both SystemD and Wayland...
I wasn't taking about Wayland and Systemd per se, but thanks, I guess...

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #9 –
Quote from: ####### – on
Non-Systemd and to a lesser degree Linux in general probably lack a sufficient marketing team as much as anything, despite having a great deal of technical ability.
While that might be generally true, it doesn't explain the behavior of certain people of criticizing the options others choose.

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #10 –
Quote from: clappingsnowdrop – on
The so called "strong voices" you speak of are only useful idiots. They're soulless Bugmen waiting for new orders of what idea to proselytize next. Remove them from the chessboard and nothing will change. Except maybe a different type of useful idiot.
Despite being hard to believe, I think that's probably the most feasible explanation.

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #11 –
Quote from: K0rpZ0uth – on
SystemD and Wayland proponents are in the "New Thing Good/Old Thing Bad" seat, while those who aren't can sometimes be the inverse, I've seen (and experienced) examples where that's justified. Try using new tools because they're pretty and are packed with features and segmentation faults, while the old stuff is ugly and isn't getting inundated with new breakages. Emphasis being new.

I'd rather old and ugly tools that get the job done than newer, "visually elegant", and less legacy-compatible tools.
Yeah, that also explains a lot of things. But, dinit, for example, is new and it doesn't receive a lot of attention; same with Xlibre (I understand that a counter argument could be that Xorg is an old protocol and having "barebones"  init systems is an "old practice"). I think not picking the most widely used thing is the main contributor.

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #12 –
Quote from: lotuskip – on
Agreeing with much of what's said above, I add that historically there has been much ignorance among the developers of all this "new" stuff. They might, for example, come from the M$ Windows desktop world of the early 2000s, and entering a UNIX environment find something "missing", when in actuality it is only designed better in UNIX, and so they need to implement the thing that is "missing". They are programmers, software engineers, so they want to create instead of learn. They are mediocre programmers, so their implementation is sub-par in comparison to UNIX tradition. Eventually they kind of realize their error, and because of the size of their ego and perhaps some financial pushes, they find themselves reimplementing something that has existed in UNIX since the 1970s, and of course they have to wrap it up as "new, up-to-date features".

The above is but one aspect of the matter. The monster has many sides and crevices.
That's actually an interesting phenomenon, mind to share a concrete example?

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #13 –
"While that might be generally true, it doesn't explain the behavior of certain people of criticizing the options others choose."
I'm not sure of the psychological term but it seems a common flaw for humans to confuse personal choice with absolute truth then impose this on others because they have decided it's the best, when it really only applies to themselves. Think of children declaring my favorite toy / team or whatever is better than yours. It appears time and again in politics too, adults can also be affected if they don't attempt to avoid falling into this way of thinking.

Re: Thoughts pertaining Systemd and Wayland

Reply #14 –
Good wine needs no bush. *

* À bon vin point d'enseigne (In French).