News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd. Parent comment

Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by msgodel on Wednesday June 11, 2025 @10:17AM (#44247895)
All of us paying attention saw how the systemd authors shopped their stuff around issue trackers and mailing lists telling everyone "it's just the way it is now." They absolutely did manufacture the situation. They pushed hard enough doing this that it's resulted in multiple large distros being forked by groups of former maintainers.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by pcpuser on Wednesday June 11, 2025 @11:07AM (#44248460)
Care to share any evidence to back up the tall claim that systemd authors forced their code on anyone?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by gatlin on Wednesday June 11, 2025 @11:56AM (#44248974)
The claim was "shopped around" and if you are going to change people's words do not be surprised when nobody takes your challenge. And preemptively: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by rbanffy on Wednesday June 11, 2025 @12:48PM (#44249437)
> absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

After holding up well for a long time, absence of evidence becomes a good indicator for actual evidence of absence.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by pcpuser on Wednesday June 11, 2025 @05:43PM (#44252140)
What does "shopped around" mean? That's not a common or accepted idiom for code. Or not one I've come across anyway.

Also show me evidence of them "shopping around" code. I'll wait.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by nixosbestos on Wednesday June 11, 2025 @10:25PM (#44253758)
Truly, don't bother. I've been watching this conversation play out for 10 years. I've watched it play out with systemd, udev, rust, Wayland.

Just ignore them. Their validation is meaningless. Their ignorance is mostly meaningless, too, for reasons that feel mean to type out.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by justinrubek on Thursday June 12, 2025 @01:16PM (#44260204)
I'm getting the sense that both sets of parties here have a strong opinion and that this isn't a real discussion because of that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by nixosbestos on Wednesday June 18, 2025 @07:35PM (#44314164)
Yeah my strong opinion is that I have better hidpi support than any other platform, no tearing, ever, a better security model, the x devs have abandoned x11. They have accessibility (which I am completely sympathetic to, but is rarely the actual point) and a bunch of hand waving neck beard bullshit.

I have worked on DEs, I have committed to compositors. I know which side has more merit.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by gatlin on Thursday June 19, 2025 @08:51AM (#44318213)
Strong opinions don't make something not a discussion. Announcing to the room how aloof you are though does make you not very aloof.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by gatlin on Thursday June 19, 2025 @08:53AM (#44318232)
My task here was to reprimand you for arguing disingenuously, not to teach you language or do homework for you. What an appallingly entitled way to carry yourself.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by codeguro on Friday June 13, 2025 @07:53PM (#44273260)
obligatory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797075
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gnome introducing stronger dependencies on systemd by panick21_ on Thursday June 12, 2025 @07:55PM (#44264441)
Oh my god, they told other people they are developing open source software and that they like their own software. Say it aint so. Have we informed the authorities about this?
[ Parent | on HN ]