After more than forty years, everyone knows that it’s time to retire the X Window System – X11 for short – on account of it being old and decrepit. Or at least that’s what t…
I mean, at least systemd is one(-ish) program with one API that everyone can target like xorg. There’s so many different Wayland implementations that it gets rather mind-boggling.
Of course, I don’t hate Wayland - I just currently use XFCE. If XFCE ever switches, I’ll go along with it. If applications end xorg support before XFCe switches(or if XFCE becomes unmaintained), I’ll consider jumping ship to something that uses Wayland.
Yes. When will people realize that there should only be one HTML implementation. There are so many web browsers that it gets rather mind-boggling.
Same argument exactly.
You can use XFCE today by switching out xfwm for labwc (Wayland compositor). It works ok but, if you are an XFCE user,
the Xorg version is still a bit more polished. That has nothing to do with Wayland really. Even XFCE will be be Wayland first in a release or two. But all the XFCE apps, the panel, the launcher, etc all work great on Wayland already. You are just waiting for them to finish their own compositor.
True! I guess I don’t mean that many implementations are inherently bad.
I guess the web browser analogy brings up the point that even though there’s many major behavioral differences between Wayland implementations right now that can make life a bit miserable, there’s hope that standardization could improve and make it easier to make sure applications work anywhere. I’m just a little sad a lot of important thinks weren’t standardized from the beginning/
100% a system D like issue. And I get it. People tend to hate change. The old init scripts work okay back in the day. And if you’re familiar with them I can see why you wouldn’t want it to change. But system D really has brought something to the game. It’s so much easier to enable disable services. No having to dig through init scripts trying to find the one you’re looking for which might be called through a script of a script of a script.
And while I hate to see fragmentation between the Linux and BSD space. Part of that is on the BSD space. Reluctance to do anything different than the way it was always done can and will hold you back. Not that BSD has ever been fragment free on its own.
BSD just has 4 (or more?) main distributions (or operating systems, whatever). It is nothing like Linux.
Also I think BSD systems are much more integrated on how they work, because on any Linux distro there are hundreds of different packages that were built by hundreds of different people, and on *BSD all pieces fit together nicely, unless you install 3rd party packages that are entirely optional. (Although you won’t get any desktop environment if you do that, aside from default one on OpenBSD, which is modified X server+Fvwm AFAIK).
More for sure if you include Darwin. Linux and BSD were largely similar for a long time. The divergence only really started the last 15-20 years.
It’s interesting to imagine where BSD would be today without all the litigation on the 90s. Would BSD be where Linux is today? Or would it still be in a similar situation due to it’s reluctance to break with system V traditions.
The big reason I personally dislike Systemd is bloat. It takes me 6 seconds to boot a windows 11 VM, it takes 20+ with Systemd, and it takes 6 seconds with dinit. On real machines I frequently hit 40 seconds with systemd. Now is that enough of a problem that I am going to switch to Windows (ugh) or Chimera/Artix, probably no. I still find it very annoying.
I have tried. Nothing worked. I also experience the same slow booting on every machine+systemd, with the same resulting slow boot up. Even friends have mentioned to me the slow boot times compared to Windows.
I boot to login in probably under 5 seconds, so 30+ seconds seems like something is not configured correctly. And every Windows machine I’ve ever interacted with boots slow and updates even slower.
Idk what is wrong but every fresh install on any Systemd distro (Arch, Fedora, Debian, openSUSE) has the same slow boot on every device I have tried. I have never seen a 5 second boot on anything else but dinit.
Oh, and my disk is a modern M.2 SSD for my workstation.
I did a fresh install of fedora in a VM given 4 cores, 16gb ram, and storage on an NVME SSD. Finally I am getting a reasonable boot time of 6.5 seconds. But on bare metal I can’t get anywhere close to that. Firmware alone takes 15 seconds. Either way, now I know that it isn’t a “Systemd problem”, just that only Systemd gives me this problem.
If you actually want to fuss with it you could always try some of the stuff from the Holy Wiki and see if it makes a difference. Sometimes it’s just “gremlins” though.
I ironically had a similar issue with moving to Wayland from X. I did everything I saw documented to make it work and it just either flat out didn’t, or performance was ass. Then I think when I had read about Gnome’s future plans to drop X I figured I needed to give it another go. In the end I’m not sure what made the difference (update/config/etc.), but I’m using Wayland now and performance seems the same/better and all is good. My install is also probably close to a decade old (or more - I have moved it between at least 3 disks) at this point so I also have cruft out the ass lol.
Edit - Got curious and decided to look and this install is dated 2013-02-24, so longer than I thought.
I feel like this is just like systemd, those that want to stick to the old ways are very vocal but are a very small minority.
Edit - Sometimes I want to erase spell checks 1’s and 0’s.
I mean, at least systemd is one(-ish) program with one API that everyone can target like xorg. There’s so many different Wayland implementations that it gets rather mind-boggling.
Of course, I don’t hate Wayland - I just currently use XFCE. If XFCE ever switches, I’ll go along with it. If applications end xorg support before XFCe switches(or if XFCE becomes unmaintained), I’ll consider jumping ship to something that uses Wayland.
Yes. When will people realize that there should only be one HTML implementation. There are so many web browsers that it gets rather mind-boggling.
Same argument exactly.
You can use XFCE today by switching out xfwm for labwc (Wayland compositor). It works ok but, if you are an XFCE user, the Xorg version is still a bit more polished. That has nothing to do with Wayland really. Even XFCE will be be Wayland first in a release or two. But all the XFCE apps, the panel, the launcher, etc all work great on Wayland already. You are just waiting for them to finish their own compositor.
True! I guess I don’t mean that many implementations are inherently bad.
I guess the web browser analogy brings up the point that even though there’s many major behavioral differences between Wayland implementations right now that can make life a bit miserable, there’s hope that standardization could improve and make it easier to make sure applications work anywhere. I’m just a little sad a lot of important thinks weren’t standardized from the beginning/
100% a system D like issue. And I get it. People tend to hate change. The old init scripts work okay back in the day. And if you’re familiar with them I can see why you wouldn’t want it to change. But system D really has brought something to the game. It’s so much easier to enable disable services. No having to dig through init scripts trying to find the one you’re looking for which might be called through a script of a script of a script.
And while I hate to see fragmentation between the Linux and BSD space. Part of that is on the BSD space. Reluctance to do anything different than the way it was always done can and will hold you back. Not that BSD has ever been fragment free on its own.
BSD just has 4 (or more?) main distributions (or operating systems, whatever). It is nothing like Linux.
Also I think BSD systems are much more integrated on how they work, because on any Linux distro there are hundreds of different packages that were built by hundreds of different people, and on *BSD all pieces fit together nicely, unless you install 3rd party packages that are entirely optional. (Although you won’t get any desktop environment if you do that, aside from default one on OpenBSD, which is modified X server+Fvwm AFAIK).
More for sure if you include Darwin. Linux and BSD were largely similar for a long time. The divergence only really started the last 15-20 years.
It’s interesting to imagine where BSD would be today without all the litigation on the 90s. Would BSD be where Linux is today? Or would it still be in a similar situation due to it’s reluctance to break with system V traditions.
The big reason I personally dislike Systemd is bloat. It takes me 6 seconds to boot a windows 11 VM, it takes 20+ with Systemd, and it takes 6 seconds with dinit. On real machines I frequently hit 40 seconds with systemd. Now is that enough of a problem that I am going to switch to Windows (ugh) or Chimera/Artix, probably no. I still find it very annoying.
That’s not normal. Unless you’re using an HDD, but then Windows wouldn’t boot that fast.
Check the output of
systemd-analyze blame.I have tried. Nothing worked. I also experience the same slow booting on every machine+systemd, with the same resulting slow boot up. Even friends have mentioned to me the slow boot times compared to Windows.
I boot to login in probably under 5 seconds, so 30+ seconds seems like something is not configured correctly. And every Windows machine I’ve ever interacted with boots slow and updates even slower.
Idk what is wrong but every fresh install on any Systemd distro (Arch, Fedora, Debian, openSUSE) has the same slow boot on every device I have tried. I have never seen a 5 second boot on anything else but dinit.
Oh, and my disk is a modern M.2 SSD for my workstation.
I did a fresh install of fedora in a VM given 4 cores, 16gb ram, and storage on an NVME SSD. Finally I am getting a reasonable boot time of 6.5 seconds. But on bare metal I can’t get anywhere close to that. Firmware alone takes 15 seconds. Either way, now I know that it isn’t a “Systemd problem”, just that only Systemd gives me this problem.
If you actually want to fuss with it you could always try some of the stuff from the Holy Wiki and see if it makes a difference. Sometimes it’s just “gremlins” though.
I ironically had a similar issue with moving to Wayland from X. I did everything I saw documented to make it work and it just either flat out didn’t, or performance was ass. Then I think when I had read about Gnome’s future plans to drop X I figured I needed to give it another go. In the end I’m not sure what made the difference (update/config/etc.), but I’m using Wayland now and performance seems the same/better and all is good. My install is also probably close to a decade old (or more - I have moved it between at least 3 disks) at this point so I also have cruft out the ass lol.
Edit - Got curious and decided to look and this install is dated 2013-02-24, so longer than I thought.
deleted by creator