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.
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.
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.
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.
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.