4 ms·

Can someone explain to me why Linux users seem to like arguing about purely technical pieces of their system like the init manager or the compositor as if it si

Can someone explain to me why Linux users seem to like arguing about purely technical pieces of their system like the init manager or the compositor as if it significantly affected them? It’s something I have always found strange.

bowsamic 4y ago
Because the draw of the system is the technical setup even more so than the end user experience. For a lot of Linux users, liking how the system is constructed technically is more important than actually doing stuff on it
- onli 4y ago
  Plus, it affects them significantly. The switch to pulseaudio meant the support forums were filled with people that had no sound. Because the newest ubuntu activated wayland, Teams could not share the desktop anymore, the web app. So it is necessary to know about the technical details to fix the problem (switch back to alsa and X, for example)
itvision 4y ago
It's far from purely technical. Wayland destroys backward compatibility, destroys everything we knew about the graphics subsystem, offers to work with graphics in a different totally new way which results in a ton of concessions. A lot of Linux users do not use either Gnome or KDE and outside these two DEs, Wayland is a total PITA to use. I'd say it's just broken.
- kaba0 4y ago
  This is the extremist take without any nuance that causes these flamewars without any good reason. Nothing factual, just hearsay dramatized to the max. Wayland is backwards compatible, it literally has XWayland which is a completely transparent way of running any X application (with the caveat that these X apps can see each other, so not all of the positives of wayland apply). Wtf, graphics subsystem? Wayland implementations use the standard kernel DRM interface - if anything xserver was always a red herring here with proprietary blobs for nvidia being part of the program itself, instead of being a separate driver.
magicalhippo 4y ago
Same reason petrolheads like to argue about purely technical pieces of their cars like the engine or transmission, as if it significantly affected them. It's not that strange really.

bowsamic 4y ago

Because the draw of the system is the technical setup even more so than the end user experience. For a lot of Linux users, liking how the system is constructed technically is more important than actually doing stuff on it

onli 4y ago
Plus, it affects them significantly. The switch to pulseaudio meant the support forums were filled with people that had no sound. Because the newest ubuntu activated wayland, Teams could not share the desktop anymore, the web app. So it is necessary to know about the technical details to fix the problem (switch back to alsa and X, for example)

itvision 4y ago

It's far from purely technical. Wayland destroys backward compatibility, destroys everything we knew about the graphics subsystem, offers to work with graphics in a different totally new way which results in a ton of concessions. A lot of Linux users do not use either Gnome or KDE and outside these two DEs, Wayland is a total PITA to use. I'd say it's just broken.

kaba0 4y ago
This is the extremist take without any nuance that causes these flamewars without any good reason. Nothing factual, just hearsay dramatized to the max. Wayland is backwards compatible, it literally has XWayland which is a completely transparent way of running any X application (with the caveat that these X apps can see each other, so not all of the positives of wayland apply). Wtf, graphics subsystem? Wayland implementations use the standard kernel DRM interface - if anything xserver was always a red herring here with proprietary blobs for nvidia being part of the program itself, instead of being a separate driver.

magicalhippo 4y ago

Same reason petrolheads like to argue about purely technical pieces of their cars like the engine or transmission, as if it significantly affected them. It's not that strange really.