4 ms·

> Replying to some sibling comments asking why anyone wouldn't want to use systemd. I get why some people don't want to use systemd. That's fine. I really don

by growse 1y ago

> Replying to some sibling comments asking why anyone wouldn't want to use systemd. I get why some people don't want to use systemd. That's fine. I really don't understand why this group of people are so passionate about broadcasting this opinion to anyone within earshot. They don't like a piece of software, great! They've got different values! Use something else!

pona-a 1y ago
I think you're missing the point. This is a thread about GNOME, a major desktop environment, declaring systemd-userdb as a necessary requirement for its future version, asking the non-systemd community to provide an API-compatible implementation if they want to keep using GNOME. I personally do not use GNOME, nor am I running a non-systemd system at the moment. This is the first time I wrote a single word about systemd vs other inits on the internet, explicitly because it couldn't be more on-topic. It's a common false compromise to say you now depend on a component but welcome alternative implementations. In reality, this quickly becomes treadmill for their maintainers, forced to adapt to its quirks so the dependent software even has a chance of working. You can read more about eudev as a more notable example of that dynamic. Projects like Wayland avoid it by having a committee of major implementations vote on proposed specs.
- rbanffy 1y ago
  > if they want to keep using GNOME It's fine if they don't. Other users of GNOME will want to push back on API changes and deprecation. This is normal in software.
- const_cast 1y ago
  Well GNOME is a bit of an oddball in the Linux userland world and everyone knows it. They have a "my way or the highway" type attitude to everything they do, and all the pros and cons that come with that. On one hand, they're able to achieve a development velocity and quality that a lot of other full-featured desktop environments cannot. On the other hand, users can perceive regressions in features and choice. I think, if this is a surprise to anyone, they're not really paying attention. If you want GNOME you go along for the ride, and that's the message we've all gotten for the past 10 years. This same conversation keeps coming back up. Just use KDE or something else if that's not an experience you, or other's, want. Personally, I despise GNOME, so problem solved for me. But, we have these conflicting takes where people will complain about fragmentation on Linux and then also complain about monocultures like GNOME. That's the experience GNOME very clearly wants to give, so if that's bad to you, then don't use it. And, on a distro level, maintainers can decide if they want to ship GNOME or if they want to make it the default.

by growse 1y ago

pona-a 1y ago

I think you're missing the point. This is a thread about GNOME, a major desktop environment, declaring systemd-userdb as a necessary requirement for its future version, asking the non-systemd community to provide an API-compatible implementation if they want to keep using GNOME. I personally do not use GNOME, nor am I running a non-systemd system at the moment. This is the first time I wrote a single word about systemd vs other inits on the internet, explicitly because it couldn't be more on-topic. It's a common false compromise to say you now depend on a component but welcome alternative implementations. In reality, this quickly becomes treadmill for their maintainers, forced to adapt to its quirks so the dependent software even has a chance of working. You can read more about eudev as a more notable example of that dynamic. Projects like Wayland avoid it by having a committee of major implementations vote on proposed specs.

rbanffy 1y ago
> if they want to keep using GNOME It's fine if they don't. Other users of GNOME will want to push back on API changes and deprecation. This is normal in software.
const_cast 1y ago
Well GNOME is a bit of an oddball in the Linux userland world and everyone knows it. They have a "my way or the highway" type attitude to everything they do, and all the pros and cons that come with that. On one hand, they're able to achieve a development velocity and quality that a lot of other full-featured desktop environments cannot. On the other hand, users can perceive regressions in features and choice. I think, if this is a surprise to anyone, they're not really paying attention. If you want GNOME you go along for the ride, and that's the message we've all gotten for the past 10 years. This same conversation keeps coming back up. Just use KDE or something else if that's not an experience you, or other's, want. Personally, I despise GNOME, so problem solved for me. But, we have these conflicting takes where people will complain about fragmentation on Linux and then also complain about monocultures like GNOME. That's the experience GNOME very clearly wants to give, so if that's bad to you, then don't use it. And, on a distro level, maintainers can decide if they want to ship GNOME or if they want to make it the default.