1 |
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Dominique Michel wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Each software you are talking about here is a particular case. *kit is |
4 |
> a mandatory dependency of gnome and a few other desktops/window |
5 |
> managers. I just don't install them, so I don't have *kit into my |
6 |
> system. You can do that even on Debian. |
7 |
|
8 |
For now, you can still fight it, but I have a feeling it's going to be |
9 |
like DBus (which I don't hate, but it still makes a good example for |
10 |
this): It will become so integrated into the way Linux works that |
11 |
eventually, you just won't be able to live without it. Most things like |
12 |
that I don't fight because I know you can only do it for so long. |
13 |
|
14 |
> udev have much to do with the kernel. It is still possible to make an |
15 |
> udev free system and manage a static /dev, and I know at least 1 user |
16 |
> that managed to do that on a desktop PC. Also, an udev free system |
17 |
> must be the way to go for many simple embedded systems, but that's |
18 |
> another subject. |
19 |
|
20 |
You can fight it, but is it worth it? My main annoyance with udev is |
21 |
that it makes copying the image of an installed Linux machine to another |
22 |
machine more complicated than it really needs to be, due to the way it |
23 |
retains and depends on information about a particular PC's hardware that |
24 |
get configured at install time. I've learned to work around it, but |
25 |
it's annoying. Still...you can't fight upstream. |
26 |
|
27 |
> Wayland is another issue. Due to the complexity of X and of all its |
28 |
> extensions, wayland's compatibility layer will be a never finished |
29 |
> job, which will break hundreds of good working software. Because of |
30 |
> that, I think wayland may be a good move for the mobile or game |
31 |
> market, but than for the desktop, X will remain in use for a long |
32 |
> time, at least by experienced users. Or many of these experienced |
33 |
> users will be looking for alternatives. Some already have done it, or |
34 |
> are in the process to do it. |
35 |
|
36 |
Just having big distros like Fedora and Ubuntu pushing it will fracture |
37 |
the Linux platform even more than it already is. It's true that there |
38 |
will still be X and users who use it, but everyone will have to deal |
39 |
with a world where the first question about your Linux install will be, |
40 |
"Do you run X or Wayland?" And from there, the fun begins... |
41 |
|
42 |
> Another concern with wayland is windows managers. Most of them will |
43 |
> just stop to work with wayland, and this is not an incomplete |
44 |
> compatibility layer that will make them to work. My main concern here |
45 |
> is fvwm, which is not only a wm, but also a tool-kit for the Xlib |
46 |
> which let its users do whatever they can think about with it. I don't |
47 |
> see anything like that coming with wayland. So for me, wayland is just |
48 |
> not a viable alternative, and I am not the only one in that case. |
49 |
|
50 |
Totally agree. I love FVWM (and WindowMaker), and I think the ability |
51 |
to change to a whole different kind of desktop if you want is one of the |
52 |
greatest features of X. I have a feeling Wayland users are going to end |
53 |
up with a desktop that's theme-able (in the way you can theme a Windows |
54 |
desktop), but not completely replaceable with any of twenty wholly |
55 |
different desktop/window managers. Some people will say that's an |
56 |
improvement, since I've been hearing for years that Linux should have |
57 |
only one desktop, but the problem with those arguments is that everyone |
58 |
making it thinks their favorite window manager should be the one. |
59 |
Choice is good as long as it doesn't break things that used to work, so |
60 |
I think having a choice of lots of desktops is a great thing. |
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
+ Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys |
64 |
+ Sr. UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will |
65 |
+ University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of |
66 |
+ James Franck Institute + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, |
67 |
+ Materials Research Ctr + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky |