Tom H wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > I believe the point was that it should be "make before break". They > > should have allowed people to use systemd without preventing people > > from not using it. They didn't make a new system without breaking the > > old one. They broke the old one while trying to build the new one. > > That is the problem. You shouldn't burn down your old house while you > > are still designing and building your new house. > > Had Gnome not had to rely on systemd as pid 1, we might not have had a > CTTE bug, etc. But then the question becames did the GNOME 3 folks "had to rely" on systemd? Did they really have to do it? No. We have had a plethora of window managers and desktop systms for years and years and years without it. They didn't have to require it. I am not saying that there weren't corner cases with problems. I am saying that for all of those years we were apparently happy in spite of those corner case problems. Therefore I don't think GNOME 3 "had" to rely on systemd as pid 1. That is disproven by the last few decades without it. And somehow I think all of the happy *BSD users who don't have systemd will also disagree that it is a hard requirement. My point is that it would have been much easier if they had created a system that you could optionally migrate to without being *forced* onto it. Then if it turns out to be clearly superior people will desire to move to it. People would then move of their own volition because they would want to move to it. If they had done it that way it would have avoided much unpleasantness. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature