On 10/14/19 10:11 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 21:32 +0300, Alexander Vdolainen wrote:
>>> For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
>>> using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
>>> to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
>>> and systemd are certainly not lock-in.
>>
>> I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd design
>> you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a source
>> code to support systemd (or you will face something like this -
>> https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions).
> 
> It's not lock-in because you don't have to use systemd.  You can take a
> system that currently uses systemd and you can remove it and replace it
> with something else.  It may be more or less effort, depending, but you
> _can_ do it, without violating licenses or losing access to any of your
> personal data.

Also I _can_ write a new kernel using existing code base...

> 
> If you consider systemd "lock-in" then you *must* consider something
> like GNU libc "lock-in"; it's far more difficult to replace your libc
> than it is to switch away from systemd!

uclibc, musl ... but GNU libc doesn't require software to make some
modifications - that's the point.

> 
>> Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires
>> systemd to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ?
> 
> No, because you don't need to run GNOME.  You can't consider software
> "lock-in" just because it requires some other software, as long as you
> don't have to use either one.  And you can't consider some software
> non-free just because it requires other free software: a large majority
> of free programs out there rely on some other free libraries for
> example.

yep

> 
> Anyway, as I said this thread should be moved to gnu-misc-discuss.

ok, let's move it on.

> 

-- 
Alexander Vdolainen,
Evil contractor.