Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail
From: antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: systemd (Subject line fixed as a public service)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 17:17:50 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: To protect and to server
Message-ID: <vmbevs$3v6su$5@paganini.bofh.team>
References: <vjec09$1jpju$1@news.xmission.com> <vjeh88$23spl$1@dont-email.me> <vjfob3$2vfl9$4@dont-email.me> <vm6hd3$3dgbv$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vm6tm4$2klvb$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 17:17:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="4168606"; posting-host="WwiNTD3IIceGeoS5hCc4+A.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";
User-Agent: tin/2.6.2-20221225 ("Pittyvaich") (Linux/6.1.0-9-amd64 (x86_64))
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3
Bytes: 2489
Lines: 28

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 20:28:21 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> 
>> And once something gets wide adpotion compatibility concerns frequently
>> mean that intrinsically better ideas have no chance.
> 
> Open Source projects seem less hidebound by that. Look at the way things 
> have evolved, with old “traditional” *nix ideas being supplanted by new 
> ones: netstat/ifconfig by iproute2, X11 by Wayland, various hacky audio 
> things by first PulseAudio and then PipeWire, sysvinit by systemd (and 
> other options) etc.
> 
> Just goes to show, there is no “vendor lock-in” in the Open Source world.

Rather that vendors can (an will) break compatibility when they want.
And actually systemd is an example of thing that users are essentially
forced to use regardless if they want it or not: it comes with the
system and is hard or even impossible to avoid if one wants to
use rest of the system.  Currenlty one can opt to use X11, but
apparently Wayland proponents want to remove this choice.

Breaking compatibility with past does not mean that compatibility
is not a concern.  Simply once enough vendors decide on "new"
solution other are forced to follow to be compatible.  And if
big vendors stick to their solution, alternative has little or
no chance of success.

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch