2 ms·
1. Supporting it is not the same as mandating it (which it effectively has) 2. You're saying that Debian made this choice because of a choice by GNOME. But - w
by einpoklum 4y ago
1. Supporting it is not the same as mandating it (which it effectively has)
2. You're saying that Debian made this choice because of a choice by GNOME. But - was GNOME strong-armed by commercial interests?
3. AFAIK, The dependence of GNOME on systemd was broken quite easily (IIANM mostly by using a forked elogind).
- b112 4y agoGnome was at the time defacto controlled by redhat. Regardless of now, at the time, there was no alternative such as elogind.