I agree in general with what you say. Obviously you can't make something generalized enough to support everything. And more importantly it is up to its projct to see what it wants to support and obviously Systemd provides some benefit to GNOME.
But I also see KDE or XFCE which are both fully featured desktops and don't need systemd or its forks to work. They are system agnostic if you will. This looks as a problem for GNOME for me.
I could see it being a little subjective though since systemd is basically "standard" right now, kind of.
Hi,
isn't that what basically every Developer does? If I write a program and
it's elisp there is only as far as I know one interpreter and all libs I
use are also not replacable without rewriting code.
So is all my programmes I ever wrote also not Free software because it's
not based on some very primitive Kernel Systemcalls (that have to be
then not even linux specific right? Then 99% of GPL software out there
would not really be free software.
So that A only runs with B seems no good Definition you would have to
provide some other definition that makes Gnome here a special case.
I assume you would bring up that a DE is some sort of base level
software that is no application layer software in itself but part of a
Operation System, like the UI in Windows is also considered part of the
OS?
I could see that argument if Gnome would be the only grafical
environment for Linux in existence, and even then I wonder what's the
problem with rewriting it to run without systemd?
It's like saying a software that has not my wished Feature A / B / C is
not free software. But we don't meassure freedom in how much and which
features a software has.
Sorry to interject that discussion but maybe that is helpful?
<address@hidden> writes:
But that is achieved with forks of systemd tools and messing with the source code.
How does that make GNOME independent from Systemd?
Fannys
Oct 14, 2019, 20:59 by address@hidden:
On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 21:32 +0300, Alexander Vdolainen wrote:
Hi,
On 10/14/19 9:16 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
(skipped)
> For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
> using the common meaning of the term. Also, "lock-in" usually refers
> to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
> and systemd are certainly not lock-in.
I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd design
you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a source
code to support systemd (or you will face something like this -
https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions).
Also, a lot of system daemons has eaten by systemd (and to make it works
some forks were created like eudev).
Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires systemd
to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ?
I'm assuming by GNOME you mean gnome-shell. Please let me know if I'm
incorrect.
Guix has packaged gnome-shell 3.30.2 but has not packaged systemd.
If systemd was a requirement for gnome-shell guix would have had to package
systemd in order for gnome-shell to compile and/or work, by definition of
requirement.
gnome-shell builds and works just fine in guix.
It follows that systemd is not a prerequisite for gnome-shell 3.30.2.
Please consider this a friendly correction :)