• caseyweederman@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    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”.

    • kunaltyagi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      10 months ago

      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