My Nvidia card says no to Wayland+KDE :( incredibly laggy and unresponsive ui

I wish it worked well on my system

Yes, very sad. Anyway.

Now I want to do some PRs for systemD.

I, for one, welcome our new systemd overlords...

This was an excellent listen, thank you for the link. I had no idea what was involved in it when I started, nor the roles of initd and launchd before it and what systemd was trying to replace.

The funny thing is that the guy giving the talk, Benno Rice, is primarily FreeBSD/openRC and not Linux, so he seemed fairly agnostic in presenting the various sides, not just from Unix and then Linux but also from the Apple viewpoint, who have also been playing a kind of parallel but separate role in this.

Very cool. Not a beginner level talk, definitely, but there was nothing I couldn't figure out coming from Windows/Mac tech. Really informative, thank you again.

It is between systemc and systeme

Oversimplified: It's the service that handles starting and stopping of other services, including starting them in the right order after boot. Many people hate it because of astrology and supersticion. Allegedly it's "bloated". But still it has become the standard on many (most?) distros, effectively replacing init.

I like init. It's simple. I like systemd as well. It's convenient. Beyond that i don't have very strong feelings on the matter.

Also, see important answer by topinambour-rex.

• systemd is an init system commonly used in distros like Linux Mint, Arch, Manjaro, Ubuntu, Debian, etc.

• init systems have a process id of 1 and manage services like a login manager, network, firewall service, etc.

• a process id is assigned to every process in a linux system.

the average user usually doesn't worry about the init system, although more experienced/techy users may care about it.

To be fair, while it's the Libreboot creator's project and they can do whatever they want with it, I can see why people are upset that Libreboot has had the "Libre" in it's name seemingly neglected.

The FSF is an ideological organisation. It's important that they exist. It's also important that pure free software exists. Pragmatism is also important, but without any purity, the "extreme" of software freedom gets watered down, and so the window of an "acceptable" amount of proprietary-ness shifts as a new, less hardline "extreme" takes it's place, if that makes sense. We should be striving for full software freedom, even if it's currently just a dream.

Libreboot was a pure libre software project. Now it isn't. Originally, a fork called osboot was created with the new blob reduction policy. That was fine, because it was a different name that didn't mislead (also because nobody knew osboot as the fully free BIOS replacement). Then that policy became Libreboot policy. Libreboot is no longer fully libre, despite it having been exactly that for it's whole life. It had an established name as the fully free BIOS replacement. It was known for that. Hence the upset.

Also, I see Canoeboot as a success. Rowe seems to be doing it out of spite, but it's achieved what the GNU project wants. It has successfully pushed Rowe to at least provide some sort of fully free release again.