4 ms·
Nobody needs to adopt the changes. Everybody did because it's better than the alternatives. There are still systemd-less distros if you like it.
by throwaway11460 2y ago
Nobody needs to adopt the changes. Everybody did because it's better than the alternatives. There are still systemd-less distros if you like it.
- superkuh 2y agoMy issue is not with systemd. My issue is with the argument that all development is good. In this example I am pointing out how Gtk3 has suffered from development attention from GNOME over the last decade and became worse. Maybe run0 is worse than sudo. Maybe not. I have no personal experience on that topic and I doubt anyone here does.
- throwaway11460 2y agoIt's the same thing though - nobody is forced to accept their changes, you can fork at any time. Or stop using it, keep using gtk2, etc.
- immibis 2y agoReality is more nuanced than that, because even if the newer software is worse, if it markets itself better it can persuade other projects to drop support for the old software.
- thecrash 2y agoYes, theoretically we could just stick with old software that was perfectly good at the time. The problem is that the ecosystem moves together - there's an emergent consensus about what is "current" (i.e. what's obligatory to support) across many different projects. So each component is interrelated, and holding one back means sacrificing compatibility with the new features (and security fixes!) of many other components. In this way we can find ourselves dragged into using software that is actually worse than it used to be. This is important to note because it means our use of a component is not proof that it's good. It just means that the ecosystem is good enough overall that it can force us to accept devolved versions of certain components. It makes sense to argue about what the consensus of the ecosystem should be even while recognizing that we will probably accept it regardless.