[ Xorg vs Wayland Thread ] "Improve the crap" versus "Create a new Crap" ?

Originally Posted by _blackhole_ Getting deja vu with this Wayland debate: https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6469000 What many perhaps missed in that last debate, is that Wayland adoption is in fact being forced (by the planned obsolescence of xorg and by way of dependency of desktop environments such as e.g. gnome, with distributions providing a systemd -> wayland -> gnome dependency chain as the "default" or only option - which was a big part of systemd proliferation, and Wayland is in fact corporate backed, as with systemd. In terms of X.org forks, to continue maintenance - that may well happen once X.org completely abandon it. So despite the talk about no one "stepping up", which is the usual propaganda (no one was "stepping up" to maintain sysvinit either, except they did "step up" and it is being maintained by Jesse Smith (of Distrowatch) and others) you may well see X.org forks in the future. To quote Theo de Raadt: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m...4852204712&w=2

This was really one of the big things about GNU/Linux that I noticed when I ditched Windows decades ago. It was the Linux Kernel and GNU components,, but every part of the system (in theory) was exchangeable, well in practice also even the Linux Kernel (or even GNU). There are variants to mention like Debian GNU/BSD or plenty of Linux/busybox or similar. It was NOT some kind of integrated single system, but a system of components that you could take apart and exchange for equivalent functions. You could chose a desktop environment, or another, or none, or a Window manager. Your startup was not from BIOS directly into a desktop, but first you start the Kernel, then you can start Xorg, and a desktop.

Ofcourse, back then there was only X (free86), but then the change the Xorg happened. But in theory, another option could be used. And then there was the idea of "do one thing and do it well".

I hate the idea of a vertical monoculture system, it's so against everything that GNU and Linux was the past decades, but that is sadly changing and gone is the idea of "do one thing and do it well", and even decent coding standards or sensible choices. It's a generational shift towards the Python kind languages and philosophy of "do it the easiest way". And there seems to be some kind of hatred of free software and software freedom too, which made this whole thing possible in the first place, and so the "movement" seem to be self amputating its own legs, or rather having been hijacked, and now there is this whole talk about "open source" instead.

I'm really starting to miss what GNU/Linux was and starting to dread what it is becoming. The old C-guard and free software people are aging, which is natural and we can't do anything about that either, but I'm starting to think that those who care about standards, sound choices and freedom would be better of in some kind of new Hurd/GNU movement that looks more like the old GNU/Linux movement and less like the corporate version that GNU/Linux has become. Pipe dreams.. 2>&1

Some time ago there was a thread about the four freedoms and whether it would be appropriate to add a fifth one. I suggested modularity, the freedom to mix and match. Applications are necessarily dependent on their libraries, but a wider dependency web should be avoided as far as possible. In particular no user-facing app should be dependent on having to use a particular init program.

I think that if you need to make a case against systemd, this is a more reasonable one than pulling out that old chestnut about doing one thing and doing it well because, let's face it, hardly any modern user application could work that way. I'm using FF right now and it is very much a Swiss army knife. It has to be to work at all.

Originally Posted by zeebra This was really one of the big things about GNU/Linux that I noticed when I ditched Windows decades ago. It was the Linux Kernel and GNU components,, but every part of the system (in theory) was exchangeable, well in practice also even the Linux Kernel (or even GNU). There are variants to mention like Debian GNU/BSD or plenty of Linux/busybox or similar. It was NOT some kind of integrated single system, but a system of components that you could take apart and exchange for equivalent functions. You could chose a desktop environment, or another, or none, or a Window manager. Your startup was not from BIOS directly into a desktop, but first you start the Kernel, then you can start Xorg, and a desktop.

Linux Distributions, such as Ubuntu, are disabling the VTs 1 through 6 by default. There is no logic or method behind this that I can think of, except to intentionally lock newer users out of using those.

Read up on the systemd BSOD and weep:

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/28077

(in case you wonder what a VT is, it's this archaic textual display logic that the linux kernel uses to do early boot logging before wayland/x11 take over, and that you can log into via Alt-F2, Alt-F3, …)

Yes you read they right - they are going to use a VT for their Windows style "bsod" screen.

Originally Posted by zeebra And there seems to be some kind of hatred of free software and software freedom too, which made this whole thing possible in the first place, and so the "movement" seem to be self amputating its own legs, or rather having been hijacked, and now there is this whole talk about "open source" instead.

There was a drive to make free software, particularly software which adheres to the KISS principles, "uncool" and there were plenty of people ridiculing it online via blogs and news articles for over a decade now, and many willing parrots happy to repeat the lies and the misinformation. Fast forward to now, and we live in an age where the likes of Microsoft have enormous power and influence over free software via sponsorship, involvement, code contributions, ownership of github and it goes on. I'm afraid Linux is already lost:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/leadership

Currently 1 Microsofter and 4 google employees on the TAB. Various corporate reps on the board of directors, including 2 Microsofters. I'm not hopeful.

Originally Posted by hazel Some time ago there was a thread about the four freedoms and whether it would be appropriate to add a fifth one. I suggested modularity, the freedom to mix and match. Applications are necessarily dependent on their libraries, but a wider dependency web should be avoided as far as possible. In particular no user-facing app should be dependent on having to use a particular init program.

No amount of extra "freedoms" will change a thing. It has been the GPL licences that have facilitated the current status quo. GPLv2 did not save the Linux kernel from corporate takeover. However restrictive you make the licence, corporate involvement in terms of being the main source of funding, reps sitting on foundation boards and paying the developers trumps everything else. If they form part of a consortium that effectively pay for everything and pay most of the developers, then the licence just works for them regardless. If they require interoperability / linking with proprietary software, they simply change the licence on those parts of the code that they are willing to expose, to a more permissive licence.

Originally Posted by hazel Some time ago there was a thread about the four freedoms and whether it would be appropriate to add a fifth one. I suggested modularity, the freedom to mix and match. Applications are necessarily dependent on their libraries, but a wider dependency web should be avoided as far as possible. In particular no user-facing app should be dependent on having to use a particular init program. I think that if you need to make a case against systemd, this is a more reasonable one than pulling out that old chestnut about doing one thing and doing it well because, let's face it, hardly any modern user application could work that way. I'm using FF right now and it is very much a Swiss army knife. It has to be to work at all.

I'm not sure about modularity.

FF has to be a Swiss Army knife, I think. If you made it modular, It might be dependent on several programs to perform basic functions. But firefox comes as one self-contained directory, needing no extra libraries.

My problem with systemd as an init system is that it doesn't stop messing. Sysvinit's scripts exit, and init remains there purely for runlevel control. As long as you're happy where you are, you won't hear from it. Not so systemd, which wants a finger in every pie.

I have equal problems with over-modular programs. Try compiling from source: Kicad; Freecad; Invesalius; Da Vinci resolve, etc. You'll find them a nightmare. There's 7 Slackbuilds for Kicad. Each forms part of the software suite. I built it in 2012/13, and they were getting started, and certainly the best pcb suite out there by a long chalk. But it was a horrible job then, and much worse now. That's why I want Devuan, or something with devs behind it to do that heavy lifting. Kicad has modularity. Ditto the others listed. You want that?

Originally Posted by _blackhole_ Linux Distributions, such as Ubuntu, are disabling the VTs 1 through 6 by default. There is no logic or method behind this that I can think of, except to intentionally lock newer users out of using those.

It's not just the distros, it's the kernel. The old kernels supported scrolling consoles that you could use for almost anything. But the bit of the kernel that handled them lost its maintainer, so suddenly the consoles could no longer scroll back. Someone in this forum made a patch for this which I still have. I remember patching a kernel with it to try it out. But although it worked, it also made the console unstable with very fast output, such as from a compilation.

A non-scrolling console isn't terribly useful; that's probably why distros are not providing them any more.

I'm not sure Firefox is a great example - or any browser for that matter - of a model for building an OS, or any software... Firefox is descended from the Mozilla 1.x code, which is in turn based on the old Netscape code (which was a windows application). That code was infamous for being messy and some of the problems inherited from that, still remain today.

Both firefox and chromium are massive projects that can take a few hours to build from source.

But firefox is a browser, not part of an OS. Regardless of that, the parts that make up a typical browser, could be designed in a modular way if the developers were willing to do so. Often they are not. A layout engine is in fact a modular component - khtml/kjs for example and later webkit. blink however is integrated within chromium, hence you see a plethora of chromium "based on" browsers, such as edge or opera, but no blink based browsers. This is intentional and it's what you get when software is designed from a proprietary mindset to suit the needs of a business.

Originally Posted by hazel A non-scrolling console isn't terribly useful; that's probably why distros are not providing them any more.

I remember reading the rational for deprecating scroll back, but can't recall the details, though I'm sure wasn't very convincing. Non scrolling consoles are still useful however - and you can use something like tmux (as I had to do in OpenBSD around 10 years ago). I somehow doubt the Linux VTs are being disabled for that reason. If you read the link I posted previously you will get an idea of the mindset of these people - particularly the systemd project lead.