I see the point and I find the article honest in exposing its authors views.
But honestly Wayland is better than X in most ways and while it’s taking time to grow and replace X fully, well, on 10 years from now X will be rightfully forgotten.
This is not a systemd/sysinit issue. Wayland actually fix issues, deep issues, in an old outdated and broken also mostly unmaintained stack of tech that didn’t age well.
I did not yet switched to Wayland everywhere for various reasons, but the fact that where I did it worked very well and didn’t even noticed the transition is proof that Wayland is the wayforward.
Fegmentation is bad? Well, it’s the core of Linux, so get used to it and let everybody pick what they prefer…
To be fair, systemd also fixed a bunch of issues (by making the boot sequence declarative and also consolidating a bunch of previously disparate services into a cohesive ecosystem); it also introduced new ones which are now difficult to fix due to compatibility. I still prefer it.
I see the point and I find the article honest in exposing its authors views.
But honestly Wayland is better than X in most ways and while it’s taking time to grow and replace X fully, well, on 10 years from now X will be rightfully forgotten.
This is not a systemd/sysinit issue. Wayland actually fix issues, deep issues, in an old outdated and broken also mostly unmaintained stack of tech that didn’t age well.
I did not yet switched to Wayland everywhere for various reasons, but the fact that where I did it worked very well and didn’t even noticed the transition is proof that Wayland is the wayforward.
Fegmentation is bad? Well, it’s the core of Linux, so get used to it and let everybody pick what they prefer…
To be fair, systemd also fixed a bunch of issues (by making the boot sequence declarative and also consolidating a bunch of previously disparate services into a cohesive ecosystem); it also introduced new ones which are now difficult to fix due to compatibility. I still prefer it.