Re:Systemd, 10 years later: a historical and technical retro...
by mid-kid on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @02:37AM
(#41178792)
logind isn't really the worst of it, systemd has a tendency of usurping existing solutions into only working with the rest of systemd, instead of helping improve the ecosystem for everyone.
Re:Systemd, 10 years later: a historical and technical retro...
by ChocolateGod on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @04:21AM
(#41179306)
logind provides features developers of software that use them want or like, people aren't adopting it just for the sake of it.
e.g. GNOME Shell now uses systemd user services to manage its sub services rather than starting them itself. Why? Because systemd does service management a lot better and provides proven features (logging, sandboxing, cgroups etc) rather than GNOME having to re-implement them.
Re:Systemd, 10 years later: a historical and technical retro...
by lmm on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @08:29AM
(#41180694)
> logind provides features developers of software that use them want or like, people aren't adopting it just for the sake of it.
On the contrary, as the article describes, Pottering and the RedHat team pushed all these projects to adopt their stuff, and part of that was making the patches themselves and saying a lot of things that turned out not to be true. It absolutely wasn't an organic success on its technical merits.
Pottering et al went out of their way to make this harder than it would otherwise be (e.g. adding the gnome hard-dependency on logind which they then variously claimed was necessary, was unintended, was accidental...)
Nothing's stopping me from modifying Windows to do what I want either, it's just hard. There was a time when Linux people cared about whether their systems were easy to modify.