> Seeing as people hated what systemd did and wanted to preserve "choice" in the Linux world, you'd expect that people would like what Wayland did, but instead everyone is just pissed about fragmentation now.

As a mere Linux user, who's occasionally been annoyed at systemd and as mentioned have had poor experiences with Wayland implementations, I've been wondering about the alternate timeline where systemd and Wayland swapped approaches.

That is, systemd was just a set of protocols along with reference implementations, so people could say swap out journald to something that logged to text instead of a binary database etc.

And Wayland instead just did the whole kitchen sink, becoming the basis for the Linux desktop of the future, instead of fragmenting the existing ecosystem even more.

Probably a lot of good reasons why it wouldn't have been better, but it would be interesting to see what might have been.