MS still up to the same old tricks...

Talk about anything you feel like talking about. Pull up a soapbox and pontificate to your heart's content. May contain some adult humour or otherwise objectionable content (NSFW). No warez, pr0n or illegal stuff.

Re: MS still up to the same old tricks...

Postby cynwulf » April 23rd, 2018, 7:58 am

The fact that patent laws are absurd or ridiculous was never in question here.

The article is about MS still patent trolling, by proxy, while publicly donating to and cosying up to the Linux foundation...

You see Red Hat as the bigger threat - I do not. I'd also like to see what you base this on? How is Red Hat in any way shape or form a "danger"?

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/op ... e-thrives/

How exactly is Red Hat a bigger danger than these corporate backers?

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/

How is Red Hat a danger when there are currently 0 Red Hat reps and 1 MS rep on the Linux Foundation board of directors?

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/board-members/

In fact there are no Red Hat people in any relevant position within the Linux Foundation. This would indicate that Red Hat is really a danger to it's own distribution and not a lot else...
User avatar
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:46 pm

Re: MS still up to the same old tricks...

Postby dryden » May 1st, 2018, 5:41 am

Well, there are at least 3 questions here.

1) Does the Linux Foundation really have any power over anything?
2) Is Linux not a do-ocracy, where funding of actual work matters most?

And 3.

You are aware that Greg KH stated that some 90% of work on the Linux kernel for instance (and that's just the kernel) is funded by corporations right?

I do not know the landscape of all employment in Linux. Red Hat is a $2 billion a year company (in turnover) with an exclusive focus in Linux development, sponsoring currently at least RHEL, Fedora and CentOS, but also being responsible for at least SystemD, LVM and its associated device mapper, and by extension (also through systemd-networkd and AVAHI) playing a pretty large role in Linux' networking system.

Red Hat is, as I thought, also a huge backer of Gnome, being responsible for 17% of code commits, and I think they are responsible for NetworkManager as well.

https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-r ... op-project

As NM is effectively hosted by Gnome. That means DBus is probably also a Red Hat project.

And it is. You might even start thinking that Red Hat is the sole owner of the FreeDesktop.org product.

The entire SystemD / Dbus / AVAHI / Gnome / NetworkManager landscape is effectively Red Hat's.

There's more, of course, firewalld is made by Red Hat, but more importantly, Dracut, which is on the way to replace the current initramfs system even in debian-based distrubtions, as well.

Now personally I am not happy with many of these developments.

I consider them simply technically inferior.

To name one example is the PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames which is an extremely poor solution with shoddy excuses, and although not the default in OpenSUSE (I think) is the default in every other distrubtion out there that I know of.

All that is a lot of stuff to wage technical debates on, but the point is simply, and you already knew this I guess.....

Because you already knew this would be the answer.
dryden
 
Posts: 22
Joined: February 23rd, 2018, 12:26 pm

Re: MS still up to the same old tricks...

Postby cynwulf » May 1st, 2018, 11:06 am

dryden wrote:Does the Linux Foundation really have any power over anything?

Well for one thing, it employs Linus Torvalds... it's not necessarily about "power", more about influence. If those reps could not influence things, they probably would not be there.

dryden wrote:I do not know the landscape of all employment in Linux. Red Hat is a $2 billion a year company (in turnover) with an exclusive focus in Linux development, sponsoring currently at least RHEL, Fedora and CentOS, but also being responsible for at least SystemD, LVM and its associated device mapper, and by extension (also through systemd-networkd and AVAHI) playing a pretty large role in Linux' networking system.

It's clear that Red Hat and openSUSE and Arch Linux were a few of the earliest adopters of systemd, but although Red Hat employs the developers, systemd is not strictly a Red Hat project - it's mainly Lennart Poettering's project.

dryden wrote:Red Hat is, as I thought, also a huge backer of Gnome, being responsible for 17% of code commits, and I think they are responsible for NetworkManager as well.

I'd be interested in your data for the "17%" - are these commits by "Red Hat Inc" or just by Red Hat developers?

Red Hat's desktop offerings are very gnome centric, but you could also state that any Linux distribution which pushes out gnome as a "default" is also a big gnome backer or promoter (e.g. Debian - which has lots of gnome proponents among it's developer base).

dryden wrote:As NM is effectively hosted by Gnome. That means DBus is probably also a Red Hat project.

And it is. You might even start thinking that Red Hat is the sole owner of the FreeDesktop.org product.

The entire SystemD / Dbus / AVAHI / Gnome / NetworkManager landscape is effectively Red Hat's.

I would call that "stretching it a little". Or perhaps "jumping to conclusions". In the same way that one could assume that the Linux foundation members and backers have more than just a bit of influence.

dryden wrote:Now personally I am not happy with many of these developments.

Red Hat employs people, those people also work on their own projects, without those projects being actually Red Hat sponsored or "official". Red Hat adopts some of those projects in it's own distribution, as do others.

dryden wrote:To name one example is the PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames which is an extremely poor solution with shoddy excuses, and although not the default in OpenSUSE (I think) is the default in every other distrubtion out there that I know of.

This was a systemd thing, which is a freedesktop.org project, developed by some Red Hat employees.

Yes Red Hat have adopted and supported some of this, but It's not 100% Red Hat instigated, funded or controlled. Red Hat are taking advantage of it and nurturing it, because it probably fits their business model (complex crap, which in itself generates a technical support "market").

Other Linux distributions did not need to adopt it, but they did. They did because enough people in the various boards and committees or leaderships of other upstream projects chose to tie their projects to this - to go with "a standard". Distributions then - being distributions - mostly followed upstream (the path of least resistance) and the results are fairly predictable.

Unfortunately for you and those with similar opinions, the future of Linux is most likely more "developments" which you won't be happy with.
User avatar
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:46 pm

Re: MS still up to the same old tricks...

Postby dryden » May 28th, 2018, 4:44 pm

cynwulf wrote:It's clear that Red Hat and openSUSE and Arch Linux were a few of the earliest adopters of systemd, but although Red Hat employs the developers, systemd is not strictly a Red Hat project - it's mainly Lennart Poettering's project.


Sure, and he was employed by Red Hat for 3 years already and Red Hat pays his work hours.

Look there is a very common expression: follow the trail of money.

Your posts are all about following Microsoft's money trail, but when it comes to a linux company suddenly you don't think it applies anymore, while they get the same currency on the same bank account, as a matter of speaking.

I'd be interested in your data for the "17%" - are these commits by "Red Hat Inc" or just by Red Hat developers?


You make this distinction and it's void; a difference that makes no difference is no difference.

You honestly believe that these main projects are done by these people in their off-hours?

Lennart would consider it a waste of his time to spend his 40+ work week on inferior sub-projects, of course he is being paid for the main ones.

My data was a Red Hat statement, it attributes 17% to itself.

Red Hat's desktop offerings are very gnome centric, but you could also state that any Linux distribution which pushes out gnome as a "default" is also a big gnome backer or promoter


Red Hat prides itself on contributing 17%. It is true other corporations also contribute; I don't have the stats, but I believe Devuan's main problem is that Gnome can hardly live without systemd, this is a known fact and what most of their work goes to?

I'm just saying that if 17% of Gnome's money came from Microsoft, you would cry murder.

I would call that "stretching it a little". Or perhaps "jumping to conclusions".


2 of the products in my last sentence are Lennart's, with 2 others started by Red Hat, which is currently effectively the same thing.
But to call them Red Hat's, you consider "stretching a little"?

Do they have to be called "Red Hat NetworkManager" before you consider it Red Hat's?

I am merely stating obvious facts: those developers are employed (and thus paid) by Red Hat.

For the work they are doing on those projects.

You call that "an employee".

It's not just a donation or something you know.

It's called employment.

They are not working on major projects in their free time.

In the same way that one could assume that the Linux foundation members and backers have more than just a bit of influence.


That statement would depend on the amount of money going which way.

Microsoft has to share its influence with every other party out there, and there are many corporate contributors to the kernel.

There are not many corporate contributors to systemd.

Only one, basically.

In fact, Lennart has recently begun talking about systemd being or becoming the "main" linux,

which was of course already years in the making.

Everything I've said is obvious, if you think it's not, the emperor is wearing no clothes, and that's also obvious, but few would admit it.

Red Hat employs people, those people also work on their own projects, without those projects being actually Red Hat sponsored or "official". Red Hat adopts some of those projects in it's own distribution, as do others.


You are making vague assertions in lieu of us having real data. I am pretty certain Lennart Poettering, Kay Sievers and others work on systemd in their main work hours, because it is a fulltime job.

You make harsh statements about Microsoft and have no issue believing that Microsoft employees work for Microsoft and do Microsoft's bidding, nor that subsidiaries under their own name still work for Microsoft because the money trail leads there.

Yet when it comes to a linux company, suddenly the sea is no longer made of water, but of air.

You believe in an upside-down world, where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is that other thing ;-).

Listen man, corporations are corporations whether they are called "Microsoft" or "Red Hat", and "employment" doesn't suddenly turn into "getting free donations" just because it is a linux company.

Or did you think no Microsoft project was ever started by or under an individual employee's name, and then later assimilated into a Microsoft offering?


dryden wrote:To name one example is the PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames which is an extremely poor solution with shoddy excuses, and although not the default in OpenSUSE (I think) is the default in every other distrubtion out there that I know of.


This was a systemd thing, which is a freedesktop.org project, developed by some Red Hat employees.


During work hours, which they get paid for.

Yes Red Hat have adopted and supported some of this, but It's not 100% Red Hat instigated, funded or controlled.


Actually some of them are, but since we don't have the money trail, you can keep pretending it isn't.

Red Hat are taking advantage of it and nurturing it, because it probably fits their business model (complex crap, which in itself generates a technical support "market").


And employing people to work on these projects during 100% of their work hours, because they benefit from the product.

Which is almost identical to ordinary employment of anything.

And you really think they would "be there" if it was not for the "influence"?

If those reps could not influence things, they probably would not be there.


Your pretense is that these are free projects and those employees are completely free to do whatever they want.

And they just get $80k+ worth of corporate sponsoring for free because they benefit, but no strings attached?

But when it comes to Microsoft, we see the reigns of evil all too clear!

I'm just saying it's much of the same.

Other Linux distributions did not need to adopt it, but they did. They did because enough people in the various boards and committees or leaderships of other upstream projects chose to tie their projects to this - to go with "a standard". Distributions then - being distributions - mostly followed upstream (the path of least resistance) and the results are fairly predictable.


I know that. But what you are denying, is that this came about because this path of low resistance was carved by corporate money paying for work hours.

A superior product comes about because of effort expended on it. Someone getting paid to do this 40 hours a week or more, is in the best position to spend this effort.

Other projects not being corporate sponsored thus will fall by the wayside for sheer lack of development in comparison.

Thus, the corporate sponsored project will become the adopted one.

Unfortunately for you and those with similar opinions, the future of Linux is most likely more "developments" which you won't be happy with.


Sounds like you are employed by one of those corporate sponsors.
dryden
 
Posts: 22
Joined: February 23rd, 2018, 12:26 pm

Re: MS still up to the same old tricks...

Postby cynwulf » May 30th, 2018, 9:42 am

dryden wrote:Sure, and he was employed by Red Hat for 3 years already and Red Hat pays his work hours.

How is this any different to Linus Torvalds being employed by the Linux foundation, which is in turn funded by fortune 500 companies (from Silicon Valley and elsewhere).

dryden wrote:Look there is a very common expression: follow the trail of money.

That's precisely what I have done with respect to the Linux kernel. The trail leads to corporate sponsors. These sponsors both provide monetary donations and donations of hardware, but more importantly have reps sitting on the foundation's board and kernel developers on the payroll. Linux is just one example, but it's a fairly significant one.

dryden wrote:You honestly believe that these main projects are done by these people in their off-hours?

No my point is that there is no real distinction - and the same applies to the Linux kernel. I'm not disputing that systemd has become a Red Hat project, mainly developed by Red Hat people - I'm just challenging your assertion that it was conceived as one. From everything I've read it just snowballed and evolved from Poettering's desire to produce something like upstart, but which worked how he wanted and expected it to work. Red Hat were one of the earliest adopters and quite predictably decided to move to it (or it could, as you say have been an expertly planned "conspiracy" of some sort - that's possible though cannot be proven - the end result is the same).

I believe it suits Red Hat's business interests - as their business model is about their services and support. So this adds a layer of complexity for which they can tailor their business needs to suit. systemd has certainly been designed from the ground up to lend itself to the development of graphical front ends, but that's just part of it.

A user on the FreeBSD forums made two interesting and insightful posts on the Linux/systemd situation last year:

https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/linu ... ost-353824
https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/linu ... ost-353891

dryden wrote:Red Hat prides itself on contributing 17%. It is true other corporations also contribute; I don't have the stats, but I believe Devuan's main problem is that Gnome can hardly live without systemd, this is a known fact and what most of their work goes to?

Devuan has a very simple solution to that. My biggest problem with most anti-systemd people is that they selectively apply the reasoning which brought them to the point of avoiding it to only systemd. If you look at gnome, it's the epitome of systemd style ideology and pretty much always was. The gnome project is very much focused on a Linux-centric desktop environment which is built on the principles of obscurity, binary config and viewing the potential end user in the same way that MS or Apple does.

This is why I have little sympathy with anti-systemd types struggling to get their beloved gnome working. In the case of Debian, the gnome maintainers have pretty much said they ignore bug reports if systemd is not installed. Why cling to using software where the developers have this attitude and and a clear affiliation to the aforementioned project?

dryden wrote:I'm just saying that if 17% of Gnome's money came from Microsoft, you would cry murder.

On what do you base this assertion?

dryden wrote:I am merely stating obvious facts: those developers are employed (and thus paid) by Red Hat.

And I'm saying the same thing about the Linux kernel (just with different paymasters).

dryden wrote:That statement would depend on the amount of money going which way.

So now that I apply the same logic to the Linux kernel it "would depend"...?

dryden wrote:Microsoft has to share its influence with every other party out there, and there are many corporate contributors to the kernel.

These contributors are pumping far more money into kernel development than Red Hat are spending on systemd. Follow the money... all of these vendors piss in the same pot and have pretty much the same interests. There are "industry" meetings among these vendors, where the Linux people are not present.

dryden wrote:You believe in an upside-down world, where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is that other thing ;-).

Except that you have no idea what I "believe in". Attempting to insult my intelligence really doesn't become you, you've done well up until that point.

dryden wrote:And you really think they would "be there" if it was not for the "influence"?

Apply this to the Linux kernel/foundation and it's corporate backers. Donations, employment, contributions, whatever else.

dryden wrote:I know that. But what you are denying, is that this came about because this path of low resistance was carved by corporate money paying for work hours.

I'm not denying that at all...

dryden wrote:Other projects not being corporate sponsored thus will fall by the wayside for sheer lack of development in comparison.

I agree completely.

dryden wrote:Thus, the corporate sponsored project will become the adopted one.

And Linux is the "corporate sponsored project" and the "adopted one". Any other kernels are pretty much doomed to start with (e.g. Hurd which has been a stagnant project for decades). Only the *BSDs are the real competitors lurking in the shadows. All of the *BSDs pretty much have superior kernels. Linux simply has the better vendor support (via it's corporate sponsors). The way was paved for systemd, long before it came along.

dryden wrote:Sounds like you are employed by one of those corporate sponsors.

If I were, I would probably have something better to do with my time.

You will find that we agree more than we disagree. I just don't see systemd or Red Hat as the one true evil (nor MS, just in case that wasn't obvious).

My original point about MS was that they are still patent trolling by proxy, while also jumping on the Linux bandwagon. That was my one and only point. You jumped in with the assertion that MS are no longer a threat and Red Hat are. You've then proceeded to make a lot of assumptions - i.e. that I can't see the faults in "Linux companies".

It may surprise you somewhat to learn that I'm not a Linux user, not a fan of Linux as piece of software - and certainly not a fan of systemd, gnome, freedesktop.org, GNU (or the GPL licences).

Where big corporations could not just take code and close it off, they have simply "owned" the projects via their developers - and if you think about it it's easy. You just need enough money. Total ownership/control is not needed or desired, just enough influence to sway things. That's what google, HP, IBM, Oracle, Intel, AMD, to name just a few, have been doing for years. But some people haven't batted an eyelid until systemd appeared on the scene and *GASP* appeared to be Red Hat sponsored.

Previously some of these companies had to invest in proprietary UNIX and the paid full time developers and all the other associated costs. Now they get what is essentially the same thing for what amounts to peanuts.

The *BSDs get left alone, for now, partially due to strong leadership but also because of how they are licenced. The permissive licences mean that the Likes of google or Microsoft can take what they need and just don't need to interfere directly.

If you think that licences don't count for much, consider that google bought a small company which produced a Linux (and NetBSD) based smartphone OS. Android is entirely structured around how licenced layer and interact. In basic terms, the "GPL layer" is kept separate from the proprietary layer. The userland is not GNU, in fact there is a lot of NetBSD code in android - despite this Linux fans celebrate Android as a "Linux distro". It's a clever setup and just proves the point that the more restrictive these licences become, so the more creative the circumvention will become.

systemd is just a symptom of a wider problem. Things were heading in that direction long before systemd came along. If Red Hat hadn't done it, someone else (most likely Shuttleworth) would have done.
User avatar
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:46 pm

Re: MS still up to the same old tricks...

Postby cynwulf » June 5th, 2018, 9:16 am

Microsoft is to acquire GitHub for an eye watering 7.5 billion USD...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ite-github?

Nat Friedman of Xamarin is to be CEO. You may recall that Xamarin was founded by Friedman and Miguel de Icaza - both are now MS employees. Xamarin, another MS acquisition, is what came of the "Mono" project - an effort to implement MS .NET framework for Linux - or more specifically for gnome (of which de Icaza was a founder).

There are various opinions on this floating around, here is one I found via the FreeBSD forums:

https://jacquesmattheij.com/what-is-wro ... ing-github

It's interesting that deals such as this one will be brushed aside by the "Microsoft has changed" denialists, as was the case with the whole Microsoft backed Attachmate acquisition of Novell (and thus SUSE/openSUSE and UNIX patents). In 2014, the doubts about that murky deal should have been cleared up even further following the merger of Attachmate with Micro Focus, a Microsoft partner. Again this is another case of following the money - 2.2 billion USD in that case...
450 million USD of which was paid to CPTN Holdings in return for well over 800 software patents.
User avatar
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:46 pm

Re: MS still up to the same old tricks...

Postby Randicus Draco Albus » June 6th, 2018, 2:13 am

The Jacques Mattheij article provides some interesting insight into Github's business model. I find it interesting that MicroSoft paid such a huge amount for something that is losing money. One would think they could have paid much less for it. Those patents must be worth a lot in terms of power over the competition.
Klingons are fun, but Romulans are the sexiest women in the galaxy.
User avatar
Randicus Draco Albus
 
Posts: 1492
Joined: September 22nd, 2011, 1:22 pm

Re: MS still up to the same old tricks...

Postby cynwulf » June 6th, 2018, 11:44 am

This is not a matter of patents, those have not been mentioned as yet, but moreso of MS taking control of a very large and important code repository (which it's already a big user of - Azure among other things), which has become a focal point and "social network" for developers... This is MS becoming a "steward" as their CEO put it...

It will certainly lose some code repositories as worried users migrate to alternatives such as GitLab.

I'm not a developer, but I actually think the comparison of services like GitHub with services like facebook and twitter is relevant. And I would say that the same issues apply: it's a big "collaborative" thing, you have to be in it (signed up) in order to do anything, that gives the (well apparently 7.5 billion USD) corporation quite some power. When that corporation is swallowed by a bigger fish, that power is essentially transferred (upward). It's not a big deal, those repositories move, but will they now that "Microsoft loves Linux"...?

Of course the closed source projects which are hosted there - and which provided the main revenue stream - will have to terminate their agreements and move - not quite so simple for them.

These articles have some more details:

https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-g ... oderation/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-micr ... velopment/
https://stratechery.com/2018/the-cost-of-developers/

The last stratechery article may give some insight as to why MS paid so much for this.
User avatar
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:46 pm

Re: MS still up to the same old tricks...

Postby cynwulf » June 10th, 2018, 11:38 am

Linux Foundation's reaction:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/mi ... -reaction/

I see a lot of problems with that condescending propaganda piece. For example:
Open source developers changed our world. Microsoft gets that, which is why they purchased GitHub

How on earth does the author, or the Linux Foundation he represents, know what Microsoft "gets"? The entire article is an apology for Microsoft. You will note that in typical style it sets out to dismiss those who might hold the opposite viewpoint or harbour doubts about MS' intentions. This is the Linux Foundation, once again, bending over and greasing up for Microsoft and asking the reader to do the same.
User avatar
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:46 pm

Re: MS still up to the same old tricks...

Postby dryden » June 10th, 2018, 3:33 pm

cynwulf wrote:
dryden wrote:Sure, and he was employed by Red Hat for 3 years already and Red Hat pays his work hours.

How is this any different to Linus Torvalds being employed by the Linux foundation, which is in turn funded by fortune 500 companies (from Silicon Valley and elsewhere).


The Linux foundation is funded by parties who recognise that they get to sponsor, but not direct, at least not to the greatest extent.

Red Hat is the sole contributor (probably) to e.g. Lennart Poettering.

Like I say, it's a numbers game. You ask what is different. You should be able to do the calculations.

Linus is basically his own man, he doesn't have an "employer", he probably founded the Linux foundation himself too, he gets to decide what he does, because that's how it started.

That's precisely what I have done with respect to the Linux kernel. The trail leads to corporate sponsors. These sponsors both provide monetary donations and donations of hardware, but more importantly have reps sitting on the foundation's board and kernel developers on the payroll. Linux is just one example, but it's a fairly significant one.


So you have X companies from various parts of the world contributing PARTS to the kernel.

Red Hat is basically the sole owner of systemd.

Numbers, cynwulf. You pretend that because (or if) MIcrosoft donates $1, that that's going to be the same thing as Red Had contributing $100k.

dryden wrote:You honestly believe that these main projects are done by these people in their off-hours?

No my point is that there is no real distinction - and the same applies to the Linux kernel. I'm not disputing that systemd has become a Red Hat project, mainly developed by Red Hat people - I'm just challenging your assertion that it was conceived as one. From everything I've read it just snowballed and evolved from Poettering's desire to produce something like upstart, but which worked how he wanted and expected it to work. Red Hat were one of the earliest adopters and quite predictably decided to move to it (or it could, as you say have been an expertly planned "conspiracy" of some sort - that's possible though cannot be proven - the end result is the same).


You look at birds flapping their wings, and you say "look, air is moving" "oh, and there are also birds flapping their wings, it might be connected, but it's inconsquential, the end result is the same."

Just because Lennart Poettering conceived of the idea himself, doesn't mean he is not a corporate rat making choices that are beneficient to his employer.

You now liken Red Hat to the kernel development, and say "it's the same"

previously you were concerned about Microsoft, but you are still not concerned about Red Hat? Even though it is the same?

I believe it suits Red Hat's business interests - as their business model is about their services and support. So this adds a layer of complexity for which they can tailor their business needs to suit. systemd has certainly been designed from the ground up to lend itself to the development of graphical front ends, but that's just part of it.


Not sure what you're saying.

If I direct my employee to build a product for my company, then my company is also going to be one of the first "early adopters", actually the first.

You are simply pretending that employment is not employment, and then you turn around and say that the financing of the Linux Foundation is also "employment", or the same thing.

It's pretty clear the financing model of systemd is direct employment, while the financing for the Linux Kernel comes from a diverse array of sources.

This means the external control over the linux kernel is disperse and fragmented, while the 'external' control over systemd is extremely direct and singular.

A 2 year old toddler should see this.

So I don't know why you don't.

Yes, it's something that pisses me off, to say it a bit quickly and bluntly, my apologies.

You are asking for stuff 6-graders would immediately understand.


A user on the FreeBSD forums made two interesting and insightful posts on the Linux/systemd situation last year:

https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/linuxs-systemd-can-be-pwned-via-an-evil-dns-query.61441/#post-353824
https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/linu ... ost-353891


I agree completely with those posts.

From this viewpoint, systemd is exactly what the commercial Linux support ecosystem needs: it makes it more bizarre and complex, meaning that paid support becomes even more important. Note that Poettering's employer is also the largest vendor of Linux support.


My point exactly.

Systemd is a mess; but PulseAudio actually creates the same kind of mess, and even AVAHI has illogical and stupid design aspects that only create problems; Poettering just creates bad software.

Each of these systems are extremely arrogant, supersede existing structures, demand that they are the sole arbiter of some functionality, overtake choice points with their own plugin that should NEVER be allowed to make those choices, and so on.

If this was a democracy, then Lennart Poettering's software is a political party that says all voting forms should only be allowed to vote on him.

That's how he functions, that's how his software works.

PulseAudio DECIDES that it is going to be the main Alsa plugin, libnss-mdns DECIDES that it is going to be the main DNS resolver,

yeah and when Debian decided a different thing, Poettering went about raving, screaming and insulting on the bug tracker because someone had the audacity to thwart him.

This guy is a megalomaniacal moron.

When people wanted to have easily accessible security incidence numbers, he thought it wasn't necessary.

There is nothing he does right and everything he does wrong, and some people call him "brilliant".

But he creates an utter mess, and yeah, as that FreeBSD guy says, Red Hat benefits.

Devuan has a very simple solution to that. My biggest problem with most anti-systemd people is that they selectively apply the reasoning which brought them to the point of avoiding it to only systemd. If you look at gnome, it's the epitome of systemd style ideology and pretty much always was. The gnome project is very much focused on a Linux-centric desktop environment which is built on the principles of obscurity, binary config and viewing the potential end user in the same way that MS or Apple does.


Clearly, I criticized both. I am not a Gnome fan, I don't see how you come to think systemd critics are not Gnome critics.

There was a funny email in the Fedora mailing list when the Fedora maintainer gave up on Akonadi (which is also a mess).

Personally, I've found the KDE apps to be more stable and more
user-friendly. Gnome does nothing but change for the sake of change, not
for any sort of 'evolutionary' reason. That's a dogma I can't stand.
Gnome is not friendly enough for new linux users, nor for those who come
from the Windows world (like my parents). Not to mention, several of the
Gnome maintainers are rude, patronising gits who think they know what's
best for us. If I wanted that attitude, I'd have stuck with Apple or
Microsoft.


The next guy responds:

No no no, you've just failed to understand the genius of their design,
which is proof itself that you don't know what you're talking about.


Which is exactly Lennart Poettering's attitude.

This is why I have little sympathy with anti-systemd types struggling to get their beloved gnome working. In the case of Debian, the gnome maintainers have pretty much said they ignore bug reports if systemd is not installed. Why cling to using software where the developers have this attitude and and a clear affiliation to the aforementioned project?


I don't know, I tend to like having Mint as an option.

I also personally like GTK-style apps better than Qt, and have only developed in GTK so far (and not Qt) because it is more accessible, unfortunately, the Gnome project as a whole I make the opposite choice.

dryden wrote:I'm just saying that if 17% of Gnome's money came from Microsoft, you would cry murder.

On what do you base this assertion?


I am sorry for my words, but sometimes I do wonder if you are not actively trolling instead of merely disagreeing.

The sites you linked initially are extremely panicky, vile, hostile against Microsoft

And I'm saying the same thing about the Linux kernel (just with different paymasters).


Yet you see the kernel paymasters as a problem even though their sources are diverse with many companies like Google actively using Linux,

but you don't see the Red Hat paymasters as a problem, even though the payment source is monolithic and they have direct, total control.

dryden wrote:That statement would depend on the amount of money going which way.

So now that I apply the same logic to the Linux kernel it "would depend"...?


Of course it depends on numbers, who are you bullshitting? I am going to end this debate, you are just trolling.

Where big corporations could not just take code and close it off, they have simply "owned" the projects via their developers - and if you think about it it's easy. You just need enough money. Total ownership/control is not needed or desired, just enough influence to sway things. That's what google, HP, IBM, Oracle, Intel, AMD, to name just a few, have been doing for years. But some people haven't batted an eyelid until systemd appeared on the scene and *GASP* appeared to be Red Hat sponsored.


And how has the Linux kernel been swayed in a detrimental direction?
dryden
 
Posts: 22
Joined: February 23rd, 2018, 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Nonsense

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

x