Some people think it handles too many low-level systems. It's a valid concern because if systemd itself were to become compromised (like Xz Utils was) or a serious bug was introduced, all of the userland processes would be affected. People who are stuck in the 90s and think that the Unix philosophy is still relevant will also point out that it's a needlessly complex software suite and we should all go back to writing initscripts in bash. The truth is, it's complex because it needs to solve a complex problem.
Red Hat, the owner of systemd, has also had its fair share of controversies. It's a company that many distrust.
Ultimately, those whose opinion mattered the most decided that systemd's benefits outweigh the risks and drawbacks. Debian held a vote to determine the project's future regarding init systems. Arch Linux replaced initscripts because systemd was simply better, and replicating and maintaining its features (like starting services once their dependencies are running) with initscripts would've been unjustifiably complicated.
It's impressive how much hatred linux gets, by people who generally try to say it's insignificant and unnoticeable.
But eh, better them say that it's going to die, than with Windows where everyone agreed to say that it was dead after 7 and stopped having any expectations.
It's the first time I hear systemd or wayland were spelling the death of the linux desktop (not even gonna mention gnome, it's a choice).
There are controversies around these two, some extremely valid, some a bit over the top, but both do work adequately for the vast majority of common use cases. I'd even argue that systemd (the init process) is better as far as being user friendly. And I say "user", not "poweruser" nor "sysadmin". And wayland is an opportunity to clear some long-lasting backward stuff, and even though it is possible to find issue today, for regular (and new) users, it has no bearing on the usability of their system.
a lot of people actually welcome wayland, systemd is the one they refuse to touch and I've seen less backlash against the Gnome/Systemd coupling than I anticipated!
Now we're at the point where wayland is becoming the only option, while there are still some things that don't work well, like showing up a modal, opening a context menu in a window that wasn't in focus, copy/pasting from non foreground UI applications… All this under KDE, which is somewhat large in terms of good DE.
I understand the argument that if we have to move, we have to start the move at some point. But I'm not sure we have to move. People keep telling X is a messy dangerous unmaintained eldritch horror sucking on your souls every seconds, but as a user, if moving back to X fixes all the tiny weird issues and shows no obvious downside, it's hard to justify the switch.
Who said Wayland was going to be the death? (Excluding canonical) Everyone knew X needed to be replaced and that the transition will be slow until its not.
And systemd is not that bad these days. I do think it's more complex than it needs to be and startup is a bit slow, but that's about it.
GNOME making the huge changes inspired the refugees to build Cinnamon and injected some sense into KDE development. Now even GNOME is getting more sensible.
I saw someone giving a talk either about Wayland and they said someone told them they "don't like Wayland because it violates the Unix philosophy." (Do one thing and do it well.) The speaker said they responded by asking "What one thing does X do well?"
I sure as f don't miss x, but for the fing love of God can I get some access at the shell level to my input devices? The death of Autohotkey is killing me slowly.
I don't quite get why massive Gnome changes would imply a death of Desktop Linux. There are so many great alternatives to it. It's been many years that Gnome has been considered bad by many, and that many have used alternatives. I just think it's positive that Gnome continue to get worse, because like that more distros may default to better alternatives to begin with.
It was somewhat of a special situation back when Gnome 3 dropped. Ubuntu & flavours of it was still regarded as the go-to distro by many and KDE still had a somewhat damaged reputation due to KDE 3 (even though 4 was already available, however that also had some issues). Many environments we know today didn't exist yet, so lots of people were rather distraught when Gnome broke with a lot of concepts and dropped what arguably was a horrendous DE.
Many of our current DEs are Gnome 2 or 3 forks (MATE, Cinnamon, Budgie, and back then also Unity), made exactly because of this whole debacle.
I hated Gnome 3 when it came out, but it got better over the years. If you want to use it as a traditional KDE-style DE, you're going to fight it and have a bad time. If you use it as intended, and that works for you, it's good.
I never understood it either. I was a user of Gnome until Gnome 3 showed up and I decided to nope out of there. It was a simple process of trying few different DE's and I have settled on KDE and Cinnamon for when I want that old timey Gnome feeling.
Yeah, really baffling direction. I ended up trying a version on gnome 3 on a Debian distro when I had a new job. It ran very slowly. Super weird. It used to be super smooth.
Tried KDE in the early days, it was all over the place. Switched to gnome when it was baked. I had been gnome for years. Every update broke and replaced plugins to make it work like I wanted. I've had Windows layout since'95, I have to go back and forth a lot, so muscle memory is key.
After fucking with gnome for the 90th time. I tried KDE again, it was just layed out like I wanted. No plugins, no fucking with it. The worst thing I have to do is set dolphin not to open on single click.
I see people here going well if you don't take it as it comes you're going to have a bad time. That's pretty much the least Linux comment I've ever read. That's OSX in a nutshell.
woah michael jackson is looking kinda goofy these days
and who was saying those things were going to kill the linux desktop? i only ever saw anyone talking about how that stuff would mean the year of the linux desktop
Not only that but also while those changes were mostly received well in the end you can still use a no systemd, x11, MATE distro if you're genuinely unhappy with them
Do you mean as opposed to using phones/tablets, or do you mean like having a tower computer and peripherals? People still use laptops and stationary computers for work, like office work and computer related hobbies and anything like it. For doomscrolling and simple games, phones are more popular though.
We’ll, I mean as in desktop PCs. I’m assuming the “Year of the Linux desktop” thing is a joke that it’s been that long coming that people were still using desktops when people first started saying it.
That’s for desktops and laptops combined though, so doesn’t really answer. I’m curious as everywhere I work transitioned to laptops and tablets since COVID.
A loud part of the community don't like change or having to learn new things. Well regurgitate negative points from 15 years ago not based on their own exspirences.Have issues with small projects popping up all over due to it being open source.
Weird for Linux users I know almost as if you don't have to use anything you don't want to in your own system.