3 ms·

> Seeing as people hated what systemd did and wanted to preserve "choice" in the Linux world, you'd expect that people would like what Wayland did, but instead

> Seeing as people hated what systemd did and wanted to preserve "choice" in the Linux world, you'd expect that people would like what Wayland did, but instead everyone is just pissed about fragmentation now. As a mere Linux user, who's occasionally been annoyed at systemd and as mentioned have had poor experiences with Wayland implementations, I've been wondering about the alternate timeline where systemd and Wayland swapped approaches. That is, systemd was just a set of protocols along with reference implementations, so people could say swap out journald to something that logged to text instead of a binary database etc. And Wayland instead just did the whole kitchen sink, becoming the basis for the Linux desktop of the future, instead of fragmenting the existing ecosystem even more. Probably a lot of good reasons why it wouldn't have been better, but it would be interesting to see what might have been.

eliaspro 1y ago
Well, with systems that's actually the case. It's suite of mostly loosely coupled tools and services and you totally can swap out or disable many of the components however you like. They mostly just use DBus and/or Varlink for IPC and use some common shared libraries to prevent code duplication across the whole project.
- mqus 1y ago
  well, no? Systemd actually also delivered all of the implementations of those protocols and barely no one cared to fit their previous solution to their standards? Rather, it was the opposite, systemd could also run your usual service shell scripts for a while. Sure, there are similarities in the sense that you started out with 0 service files at the beginning and no GUI toolkit implemented the Wayland protocol from the start, but the thing itself is pretty different. Systemd wasn't designed by committee (and many people still have gripes about this). Wayland kinda is.

eliaspro 1y ago

Well, with systems that's actually the case. It's suite of mostly loosely coupled tools and services and you totally can swap out or disable many of the components however you like. They mostly just use DBus and/or Varlink for IPC and use some common shared libraries to prevent code duplication across the whole project.

mqus 1y ago
well, no? Systemd actually also delivered all of the implementations of those protocols and barely no one cared to fit their previous solution to their standards? Rather, it was the opposite, systemd could also run your usual service shell scripts for a while. Sure, there are similarities in the sense that you started out with 0 service files at the beginning and no GUI toolkit implemented the Wayland protocol from the start, but the thing itself is pretty different. Systemd wasn't designed by committee (and many people still have gripes about this). Wayland kinda is.