cynwulf wrote:dryden wrote:The Linux foundation is funded by parties who recognise that they get to sponsor, but not direct, at least not to the greatest extent.
The Linux foundation has a board of directors... how can you know the extent of the influence? We can only assume that fortune 500 companies don't just throw millions of dollars at the Linux Foundation and funding developers for no return.
I throw 100s of $ at my food, I expect a return on that.
Not all influence is evil.
The kernel is pretty resilient, if all they do is add hardware support, then how can that be detrimental?
dryden wrote:Red Hat is the sole contributor (probably) to e.g. Lennart Poettering.
Linux distributions can avoid systemd, but apart from a few exceptions there seems to be no real will. Is that Red Hat's fault?
Still playing the Devil's Advocate here huh.
Canonical is in bed with systemd, that's all I know.
Saves them developing their own stuff I guess.
My systems have had shabby shutdown ever since systemd came along.
If it was just the service manager, I'd say, okay, can live with that.
I have a real issue with systemd-networkd, and systemd-resolved.
Martin Pitt, Ubuntu's systemd guy, jumped ship to Red Hat, as I said.
Canonical also defends python 3 to the bone.
What can I say?
Systemd is free (to use); upstart was an alternative I guess, upstart is gone, only sysv remains.
Personally I would want to develop something different, if I was in that 'line of work'.
I have no real will to avoid systemd.
Choice of distributions would become rather small.
I hate pretty much everything about it, and even though it is just extremely arduous, it tends to work, a bit like duct-tape.
No it wasn't founded by Torvalds, FSG and OSDL merged to form LF. These were "industry" groups as is LF. The biggest user of the kernel is google - in it's Android OS. Then the embedded devices market, then servers.
Right. There are 800+ members, with about 10 big ones, including, I guess, Microsoft, the others are Oracle, VMWare and a bunch of hardware companies.
Notably also the phone manufacturers.
Now personally I cannot identify any aspect of the current Linux kernel that has been negatively influenced by this corporate sponsorship. Can you?
The people ranting about systemd on their desktops are barely a blip on the radar - in essence you simply don't matter.
Systemd also doesn't matter to android, nor does it matter to embedded devices.
All that remains are servers, and yes, I agree, my whole point is that Red Hat makes choices for systemd that benefit corporations at the cost of users.
But within the systemd realm, desktops do matter, or at least, I also run VPSes, I'm not just a desktop user.
But, I'm still a small fly.
And systemd does not bring many benefits to me.
systemd is a corporate sponsor contributing to "part" of an OS.
Can you stop playing the devil's advocate here? It is really annoying.
To just pull out one example: In general one must use CUPS to print office documents, graphics, etc - it's an Apple project, yet I don't see many complaining about that?
So why do you think not many are complaining?
Microsoft and others are top donors - Red Hat are nowhere near. Have a look at Linux Foundation website and board of directors. Where are Red Hat?
I wasn't talking about Red Hat contributing to the Linux foundation.
Red Hat is spending it's own money, going out on a limb as it were, developing it's own software, which has been readily adopted. It's sad news for some, but I can't see how that's Red Hat's fault.
If I create food that poisons your family, but all your supermarkets readily adopt it because it's way cheaper, and besides your children only die when they are 20 anyway,
let me know,
how you would feel about that.
As with the "corporate rats" involved at every level of Linux and other FOSS projects...
Well then stop denying stuff.
So AMD and Intel developers, just as two examples, are not being paid to work on Linux kernel development? You have those directly employed a handul employed by the LF (funded by much the same) and all of the others.
Stop trolling.
I already mentioned both the different financing model, and the differentation of sources, as well as the different character of the kernel,
and yet you refuse to engage.
You can keep playing dumb forever you know.
They can only be allowed to do this if developers and distributions "get on board" - which they have.
When Debian refused, Lennart started cursing and theatening them. He called the maintainers of the package imcompetents that should basically FUCK OFF -- basically his language.
The Debian maintainer was like, I'm not gonna sit in this spit fire, I'll comply.
dryden wrote: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.
What is Devuan doing regarding gnome?
Does it matter? Should they not be allowed to choose a smaller task, rather than a much huger one?
Why should they obey your wishes, and if they don't, they are not valid systemd critics?
How could Devuan do anything about Gnome?
Has Devuan removed gnome altogether along with other questionable software?
Why should it?
They base themselves on Debian which has it, and besides, it is probably even less work fixing it, than removing it alltogether, given that many things depend on GTK/Glib.
And, again, see above.
dryden wrote:The sites you linked initially are extremely panicky, vile, hostile against Microsoft
You seem to be extremely panicky, vile, hostile against Poettering and Red Hat?
I was making an argument.
Saying 'you too" doesn't invalidate mine.
You are not seriously debating, because you keep hiding your own position, even though you said it last time in the second half of your message.
Like I say, STOP TROLLING.
FFS, I know I am a guest here, but this is fucking nonsense you know.
You are just training the debate, trying to be as illogical as you, while then, at the end, revealing that you don't like systemd at all.
I still don't see why you see a group - an inustry group - as being "no threat" because there are more of them involved? You're being excaptionally naive in your choice to focus on bogeymen of the minute Lennart Poettering and Red Hat, while the real "threats" are flying in under the radar as we speak - and have been doing so for over a decade.
You have not made any of those threats of yours concrete, mister vaguehood.
Because Red Hat controls/influences one big piece of shitware and a few smaller pieces of shitware which can be avoided...
Pardon me, as a desktop / small server user I am deeply affected by red hat, and not at all by the sponsors to the LF.
I know where you are coming from: a hate for not getting the same sponsorship for your BSD kernel.
And so you are not debating sincerely at all.
Developers have jumped into bed with systemd because it's seen as a progression. Many sysadmins absolutely love it. It's been adopted, not because of the efforts of Red Hat (don't give them that much credit), but because we've seen decades of "corporate creep" in Linux and a huge shift in mindset from the old "POSIX or nothing" style to the people which the likes of Canonical/Ubuntu lured over from MS Windows. Canonical and SUSE jumped on the bandwagon for much the same reasoning (business).
I have a girlfriend when I say "I don't have a lot of energy" she says "No, because I will just stay away for a while".
You argue in the same way.
You keep frustrating and denying my points just because you want to make a bigger point that you keep hiding for several weeks.
First you say "Systemd is not a problem". Then you say "All of the other problems are worse"
So, you keep lying.
Twisting words in order to make the point that something other, bigger out there is more worthy of concern.
I say "The pool is dry." You say "The pool is not dry".
Then you say "The sea is much drier, so even if the pool is dry, that's just a blip on the radar".
Pardon me, but objective truth does not change just because there is some bigger problem out there.
Just because to your view the kernel is a bigger problem for your concerns doesn't mean systemd is not a huge problem for my concerns, both can be a problem at the same time you know, for different people?
So please stop arguing this stupid "No it's not a problem, because my problem is worse" style of debate?
It is really tasteless.
I know why corporations jump on ship of systemd.
The topic of debate was Microsoft being up to the same old tricks.
I said I see systemd as a bigger threat. You even cite BSD forum people who agree with me.
You claim Microsoft is a threat because of the Linux kernel.
You have not quantified or qualified this threat whatsoever, except by hinting that you feel left behind as a BSD guy.
I say Red Hat is creating crappy software that is at least a clear threat to me.
I say, that for me personally, this software makes my life hell.
Particularly because I have no control over it.
You say "I don't matter". You did not quantify or qualify whether or not systemd is a threat to the "corporate Linux", you say sysadmins love it, I know a bunch do. I can conclude that you don't think systemd is a threat to corporate linux.
To me systemd is a threat in many ways, from a developer perspective, it closes off alleys.
As an administrator who likes to experiment, it makes my life hell.
You name desktops and servers as insignificant on the Linux scale, that is folly.
Just because android is much larger kernel user share, does not negate the relevance and importance of server/desktop.
If I live by a small pool, this pool may be life to me, I don't care about the bigger sea.
"Linux" is not determined by the Linux kernel. Linux is currently determined by systemd, because the kernel is a fixed part, nonchanging, also nonproblematic.
The kernel did not significantly change from 2.6
My dealings with the kernel did not change.
It is also not an issue, not an obstacle, and a thing of high quality to me.
As a rock solid foundation, I am not bothered by it.
Systemd however, has much more impact, and particularly its flaws.
I don't care how many corporate sponsors there are into the Linux kernel [/b]cause I don't see any problems arising just yet[/b].
On the other hand, systemd problems harm me daily.
You are belittling my problems, while keeping to insinuate that there are HUGE kernel problems --- where are they?
SHOW THEM.
Servers/desktops are not a blip on the radar for the server/desktop world.
Yet, you now judge ME because DEVUAN did not choose to ditch Gnome?
Aren't you just a slight bit insincere in your arguments?
Trolling a Linux forum being a BSD user?
And because Devuan is not "pure" enough their arguments against systemd are now void?
You don't have to have achieved mastery to be able to speak of mastery.
You disqualify them because they didn't go all the way that YOU say they should have gone?
Who made you the arbiter of everything?
I can quantify and qualify all of my problems with systemd (personal).
I think your kernel problems are nothing but jealousy.
Read the Linux Foundation bulletin about GitHub - these are the "mouthpieces" now running the show, oozing patronising corporate speak from every pore.
Just did, and I agree with you.
And in fact I do not like the tone Greg KH directs at corporate sponsors.
I do not like, that Greg goes out of his way to get corporate code into the kernel, but if you are a lone developer, you may find that it's a bit harder. Yet, I think that the kernel projects are way more inviting and friendly to contributors than many Linux projects out there.
My experience with kernel projects has always been much better.
So while I do recognise a corporate teint, and dollar signs in Greg's eyes (literally, I saw a presentation).
I just have no evidence as of yet telling me that the kernel is in danger, while my suffering with systemd is real.
dryden wrote:And how has the Linux kernel been swayed in a detrimental direction?
How do you know it hasn't?
See, only vague assertions.
It's own lead developer admits that it has more lines of code than they can ever audit.
You mean in terms of possible nefarious code.
I do not like the pace at which the kernel is growing, unlike Greg.
But the project has long since been controlled by corporate interests such as google, IBM, Intel and now Microsoft. They pay, indirectly or directly, many of the most important developlers.
But you cannot state any serious, concrete, real problems.
You know, since this is a freedom forum, I am just going to be blunt here and say it in the directest way possible.
Then just shut up.
Yes it is a concerning situation and the blog post you mention is a telling sign,
yet you are still only talking vaguehoods while belittling my REAL problems with systemd.
And all as a means of discrediting (or sounding the alarm) about Microsoft.
Now midway through Github got acquired.
THAT is for me troubling!!!!
Yes, I consider it an extremely dark day.
I mean you have me on board on this.
But the systemd corruption is real, real, real.
And why is one problem suddenly irrelevant because you think you can vaguely point to an in your eyes bigger problem?
When you don't even care about "Linux"?
Well, I guess I am the one who says that systemd is a bigger problem than the patent trolling you mention, and I am dead sure it is.
Systemd is also a much bigger problem than Microsoft acquiring Github, although now I tend to see them as things approaching similar severity.
But I can avoid Github --- I don't like to, I don't like this.
Personally I cannot avoid systemd
And if it had stayed at a service manager I would be reasonably fine with it
But Ubuntu keeps adding stuff, systemd-networkd, systemd-resolved, what's next?
I don't like it at all, all of it is bad software.
You consider me a fly, so what, to me, this is my world, in a sense.
Not So Fast, Slick
I could not find Lennart's recent post about Systemd becoming the "full linux".