All of the technically-minded posts I’ve read about systemd have been positive. The only detractors seem to be the ones with less technical knowledge, complaining about “the Unix philosophy” and parroting half-understood ideas, or worse, claiming that it’s bad because they have to learn it.
I know xorg has problems, but it was good to get some insight into why Wayland is falling short. Every argument I’ve seen in favor of Wayland has been “xorg bad”.
X code is convoluted, so much so that the maintainers didn’t want to continue. AFAIK, no commercial entity has put any significant money behind Xorg and friends. Potentially unmaintained code with known bugs, unknown CVEs and demands for permission system for privacy made continuing with Xorg a near impossibility.
If you don’t want new features and don’t care about CVEs that will be discovered in future as well as the bugs (present and future), then you can continue using Xorg, and ignore all this. If not, then you need to find an alternative, which doesn’t need to be Wayland
Oh, and you might need to manage Xorg while other people and software including your distro move onto something else.
So yeah, “xorg bad” is literally the short summary for creating Mir and Wayland
To be honest, systemd does treat its own services specially when I don’t think there’s a good reason for it. Systemd as a whole is a huge improvement over the old bash script mess, but there is something to the “Unix philosophy” take.
The solution isn’t “switch back to writing hundreds of sh scripts”, though, it’s “improve systemd”.
As for the X11 vs Wayland topic: there’s still tooling missing for some use cases. X11 forwarding over SSH doesn’t work as well even with Waypipe. Just yesterday I encountered a bug that caused any attempt to run Waypipe to freeze the entire display.
Again, the solution is to fix Way land’s tooling, not to abandon it for X11 because change is scary.
All of the technically-minded posts I’ve read about systemd have been positive. The only detractors seem to be the ones with less technical knowledge, complaining about “the Unix philosophy” and parroting half-understood ideas, or worse, claiming that it’s bad because they have to learn it.
I know xorg has problems, but it was good to get some insight into why Wayland is falling short. Every argument I’ve seen in favor of Wayland has been “xorg bad”.
X code is convoluted, so much so that the maintainers didn’t want to continue. AFAIK, no commercial entity has put any significant money behind Xorg and friends. Potentially unmaintained code with known bugs, unknown CVEs and demands for permission system for privacy made continuing with Xorg a near impossibility.
If you don’t want new features and don’t care about CVEs that will be discovered in future as well as the bugs (present and future), then you can continue using Xorg, and ignore all this. If not, then you need to find an alternative, which doesn’t need to be Wayland
Oh, and you might need to manage Xorg while other people and software including your distro move onto something else.
So yeah, “xorg bad” is literally the short summary for creating Mir and Wayland
I get it.
But as far as I can tell, there are just two xorgs now, one of them is just spelled “Wayland”.
To be honest, systemd does treat its own services specially when I don’t think there’s a good reason for it. Systemd as a whole is a huge improvement over the old bash script mess, but there is something to the “Unix philosophy” take.
The solution isn’t “switch back to writing hundreds of sh scripts”, though, it’s “improve systemd”.
As for the X11 vs Wayland topic: there’s still tooling missing for some use cases. X11 forwarding over SSH doesn’t work as well even with Waypipe. Just yesterday I encountered a bug that caused any attempt to run Waypipe to freeze the entire display.
Again, the solution is to fix Way land’s tooling, not to abandon it for X11 because change is scary.