3 ms·

Essentially path dependency. It would be almost impossible to change how it works now.

• vlovich123 3y ago
  I don't think this stuff is as hard as you make it out to be. Consider that companies like Apple regularly change how things are done successfully. It just requires a good plan, time, & budget. Wayland is one example of what that looks like & it's not a good story. Pulse audio followed by pipewire is another example of migrations happening. I suspect this would probably be slightly worse than Wayland unless some kind of transparent shim could be written for each boundary so that it can be slotted in transparently.
  • Analemma_ 3y ago
    Apple can regularly change how things are done because they have absolute control over their platform and use an "our way or the highway" approach to breaking changes, where developers have to go along or lose access to a lucrative market. This approach really really would not work on Linux: consider that the rollout of systemd was one-tenth as dictatorial as is SOP for changes from Apple, and it caused legions of Linux users to scream for Poettering's head on a stick.
    • vlovich123 3y ago
      That's not a path dependency though. That's just a critique of the bazaar development model. And honestly I think if the big distros got together and agreed this would be a significant security improvement, they could drag the community kicking & screaming just like they did with systemd (people hated systemd so much at first that they tried to get other init systems to not suck but over time persistent effort wins out).