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