4 ms·
> The very same people that hate systemd for "being a monolith" and limiting choice are usually also love X and hate Wayland where they can manage to explain ho
by Izkata 4mo ago
> The very same people that hate systemd for "being a monolith" and limiting choice are usually also love X and hate Wayland where they can manage to explain how being a monolith is suddenly good.
Wayland is very much a monolith compared to X. I guess people never really realized how much desktop environments could be mix'n'matched under X, bringing window managers, system trays, hotkeys bindings, and a whole bunch of other things not designed together but that could still work together. Under Wayland it's all smushed together and you have to accept whatever your chosen desktop environment chose to implement. It's very similar to how systemd is going.
- gf000 4mo ago??? Wayland is a protocol, that sentence is in and of itself faulty. And there are multiple independent implementations of said protocol. Unlike in case of X, that has basically 1. With proprietary modules (that's how nvidia proprietary drivers work). With a goddamn printer inside. Don't mistake an X "window manager" which is basically just an extension on top of an X server with a whole display manager implementation of Wayland. Like an X window manager is more akin to a Gnome shell plugin that adds a dash to your screen.
- Izkata 4mo ago> Like an X window manager is more akin to a Gnome shell plugin that adds a dash to your screen. Yes, that's exactly my point - on the user's side, X was modular, not monolithic. Wayland is the monolithic one where everything is "batteries included" (except not always everything) with no ability to add/replace functionality. Please continue reading the remainder of the sentence from my first comment: > and you have to accept whatever your chosen desktop environment chose to implement.