MS still up to the same old tricks...

[dryden]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

[cynwulf]

The kernel is pretty resilient, if all they do is add hardware support, then how can that be detrimental?

The kernel is not just hardware support - there is not just "support", there is what not to support, there is what is relevant. Corporate intersts play a huge part. You're expecting me to provide 100s of words of hard facts - when I say: Just do your own research. But as I've said before, the Linux kernel is just an example. I've mentioned it as one example, you've chosen to focus on it (or systemd). "Corporate Linux" is your problem. Corporate influence is why systemd exists and why it has been adopted. The big distributions are the main adopters which have swung it for systemd. You have to ask yourself: Why?

Without the big distributions and crap like gnome it would just be some obscure Red Hat proprietary thing, it would not have gained the inertia of "widespread adoption" (ironic for a free OS, but there it is...).

Debian adopted it partially because they have pretty much always based their distribution on and around the needs of gnome, For systemd, Debian went through their usual absurd "democratic" and bureaucratic processes and the result was that systemd is the default. This is because "interested" parties can easily infiltrate the "process" and influence the right people. Slackware just said "no" and that was that. It's loyal users have not been betrayed to serve corporate interests.

Canonical is in bed with systemd, that's all I know.
Saves them developing their own stuff I guess.

First statement is ambiguous (depends on your definition of "in bed"), second is of course true... canonical is first and foremost a business and thus mostly a pragmatist, but like most businesses it has a strategy. Ubuntu's move to systemd was another big boost for that software.

It's not so different from MS or google in many ways - it went with the "solution" which was becoming the de facto standard, as part of a calculated business decision - a solution which achieved what they were trying to achieve with upstart anyway. upstart developers were fired, they saved money, etc, etc... as I said earlier, they piss in the same pot. Business is business.

Now personally I cannot identify any aspect of the current Linux kernel that has been negatively influenced by this corporate sponsorship. Can you?

So corporate ownership has worked great for Linux, but not for systemd...? I see... but again the kernel was one example, you could look at the wider FOSS ecosystem if you choose to do so...

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.

You're absolutely right. I see that with a lot of software, even supposedly free software, even with Linux distributions. I'd say that Debian's adoption of systemd, is one such example.

Can you stop playing the devil's advocate here? It is really annoying.

We choose to be annoyed. I actually like you, even though you're most likely someone who I've encountered before under a different handle. So if you've reinvented yourself - it worked well, this is much better... please stick around, but perhaps take a chill pill. There is no need to have a coronary over some light discussion on a messageboard.

Stop trolling.

Like so many impassioned types on the WWW, disagreeing with you is "trolling". Let go of the "troll" label... you're choosing to debate with me, because you really feel the need to win this argument against one person, which no one else really cares about (on this practically dead forum - which is still one of the best there is... what does that say about the others? <--shameless promotion).

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.

Free software is free software. How is it different because it's a kernel or a bloated "init system", because 20 fortune 500 companies contribute or just one? I'm not playing dumb, perhaps I am dumb, sadly I just don't possess your superior intellect, IT background or education.

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.

Lennart is a class one A hole, so is Torvalds, so are many gnome developers and many other hypocritical sell out FOSS devs (and if you think they don't sell out - look no further than Friedman and de Icaza)... so many of these precious divas have all fallen prey to the corporate world and been bought/paid off and now sing from the corporate hymn sheet.

There are very few FOSS zealots who have resisted and still align with FOSS rather than the new hip and trendy "open source". It's about the almighty dollar, not the "Church of Stallman" or true FOSS values. Once corporations get involved, you will inevitably get shit, one way or another. That's how big business works - we know this from decades of experience, we know this because that's why academics in the US released "free stuff" they had fixed themselves, way before Linux existed.

Android is near the pinnacle of "the Linux journey". A mass consumer OS for people who don't know/care they're running Linux. That's the largest slice of market share - another slice, albeit smaller, is Red Hat, then there's Debian, SUSE, Ubuntu, etc servers - but everyone else gets to use the code, but has to do their own legwork - whinging about the "packaged" offerings not meeting their exact needs will not really yield anything useful.

FFS, I know I am a guest here, but this is fucking nonsense you know.

You signed up, that makes you a member rather than a guest - and I feel I must draw your attention to the fact that this thread was posted in the "Nonsense" sub forum...

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 had not realised it was simply all about you. If it's just about you/us, then I have to say that all this doesn't affect me much at all. But these debates can be and interesting diversion (when one doesn't take oneself too seriously).

I know where you are coming from: a hate for not getting the same sponsorship for your BSD kernel.

I'd like to hear all about my *BSD kernel, it seems my fame as a developer has spread far and wide...?

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".

Sorry about that.

You keep frustrating and denying my points just because you want to make a bigger point that you keep hiding for several weeks.

I have no point to make - remember I clearly don't have your education or background. I'm just irrationally averse to all of the corporate influence/ownership of some of the major components of the "free software eco system". I don't lose sleep over it however, I just remain enough healthy cynicism about "all of it" not just "flavour of the decade" systemd.

So, you keep lying.

That's really not nice.

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?

Oh I've not denied there's a problem - I've repeated several times now that the Linux kernel was just one example. But these people have been bought and sold. "no real opinion on systemd", etc.

So please stop arguing this stupid "No it's not a problem, because my problem is worse" style of debate?

You're asking nicely, but I can't comply, sorry about that - plus it's you arguing about "your" problem. You've now made it very clear that this is about your own personal systemd problem and not much else.

I say Red Hat is creating crappy software that is at least a clear threat to me.

Oh definitely.

I say, that for me personally, this software makes my life hell.

That seems rather extreme - but try working with MS Windows for a living...

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.

It depends on how you define "corporate Linux"...

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.

Thinking you matter is "folly". Market share and the interests of shareholders is all the matters to these people.

This is my point all along - software corporations are dishonest and screw end users to suit their business agenda. systemd is geared towards creating and nurturing a technical support market, by providing a complex "black box" solution to a problem which never existed in the first place. Red Hat only had to sell it, to get it accepted as a de facto standard and they have for the most part achieved that. Red Hat could never have succeeded with systemd if other major players refused to adopt it. It would have become an obscure, dead end as with what happened to upstart. Now that they have this corporate backing and saturation, plus droves of "willing helpers" to spread the propaganda, the little people don't matter.

Trolling a Linux forum being a BSD user?

Check my join date and post count, check yours. Tell me who started the thread and who responded to who in the first place?

Who started talking about MS patent trolling and did not mention Linux?

Who initiated the anti - Red Hat/systemd dialogue?

Who began picking over and analysing the term "patent troll"?

Now let's think again - and sincerely ask who may be trolling here?

Are you saying that *BSD users are not welcome here and who are you to decide who is welcome?

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.

As you've said the kernel works fine with "corporate code" - always has and for many systemd is working fine with the same "corporate code" from Red Hat... it doesn't suit you and I, but it seems to suit many others, not just drooling idiots, but developers, sysadmins, etc...

You mean in terms of possible nefarious code.

In terms of all code. Code doesn't need to be "nefarious" to be a problem. They admit they can't audit it, he admits he couldn't care a toss about security, so some Linux fans really need to shut up about Linux being secure. (Windows NT kernel is well ahead in terms of built in security protocols).

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.

That was blunt. Unfortunately for you, it's not you who decides who shuts up here. There is a process for that. Read it, put the wheels in motion, etc...

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.

Sorry about that. It was not my intention in mentioning other problems to belittle your problem.

Now midway through Github got acquired.

THAT is for me troubling!!!!

Yes, I consider it an extremely dark day.

And you'd almost convinced me that Microsoft were not a threat...?

I mean you have me on board on this.

Good to know...

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.

You've said it's a bigger problem for your own personal use case - I don't doubt that. Longer term? Not so sure...

I could not find Lennart's recent post about Systemd becoming the "full linux".

I don't read much Lennart these days...

[dryden]

It is unfair to place all the blame on them when everyone else joyously adopts their "progressive" software.

Thank you for posting a balanced view. I disagree, Red Hat's policies are not just "fair play", Lennart Poettering is one of the most arrogant, anti-social people I ever have had the (pleasure?) to witness.

I mean, I am sure he is pleasant in person, and I have sometimes communicated with him, and he is not the worst guy, and power corrupts, but power corrupts Lennart Poettering very strongly.

On ideas you can differ, but Lennart, "god bless his name" you could say, tends to go about spreading his influence in a very aggressive fashion, even if Red Hat does not; but I don't see a big difference with Microsoft's tactics.

I have always held that open source functions like a business no less than commercial entities, and email list people often act like front desk personnel, for instance.

Lennart is no less arrogant than the Gnome people, even more so, and all of this results from the power position they have.

Microsoft is a different animal. They are infiltrating.

But systemd's infiltration of Linux is near complete, resistance is futile.

You wanna see some artwork from the 90s? Oh, I deleted it again.

This is not the one I was after:

Infiltration includes contributing money to the kernel and Linux Foundation. It may not be a large amount, but it is an investment.

I agree with your sentiment but in this case it appears to only give them good press.

I believe Red Hat is trying to gain a large amount of control over Linux development, but at least their goal is not entirely nefarious.

Creating bad products and then aggressively forcing them on people... it is nefarious in the way that buying up a train station and then dismantling it because really, you are an automobile manufacturer, is nefarious.

They want to be the biggest player, and thereby, make more money.

Just a matter of volume, not essence.

One the other hand, Microsoft's goal has always been to eliminate all competition.

If you really were to publish a competing system to systemd.....

I think you would see a huge amount of bile being thrown your way from the systemd fans.

The resistance against systemd has been muted on every Linux mailing list. If you wanted to post on systemd in opensuse@opensuse.org, you had to use a different title.

Now, how is that not nefarious?

How does that signify "willing adoption"?

You are not welcome to talk about systemd on #debian.

You get banned if you do.

It is also not allowed in #debian-offtopic.

How does that not signify nefariousness?

How does that signify willing adoption?

The topic has been banned. Which is indicative of an oppressive regime. Which is indicative of people not wanting it. Which is indicative of people hating it. Which is indicative of it being forced down people's throats.

[dryden]

I don't see Red Hat as really making any inroads in influencing kernel development, purely because as a distribution which charges for support, they have little to gain. Red Hat has instead opted for the "black box" of systemd.

Red Hat doesn't care about the kernel, the kernel is fine from Red Hat.

Systemd has been designed and developed as an all-or-nothing proposal, hook line and sinker.

They are still trying to expand their control and influence.

Red Hat is not the only horse in this race, not the only problem and certainly not the biggest by far.

You keep making vague, unquantified assertions. Now you speak of webkit, but webkit is not bad software, you can release something based on webkit that does not carry Google's stamp of approval or anything. It does not have any tentacles.

I wonder how many consider the implications of corporate funded or fully owned 'free software' such as chromium, webkit and firefox?

The implication is that they are using their power to force the disbandonment of Flash and Java, and the forcing of security measures that do not benefit users (e.g. 100% SSL).

Smaller layout engine projects are foundering due to lack of development... even some of the smaller and more obscure web browsers use the webkit engine for example, rather than developing their own.

What is there to gain in a layout engine? Does the layout engine contain backdoors? If not, what harm could it possibly do?

The predictable results of corporate intervention/development/funding in "free" browsers has been built in google spyware, geolocation and of course w3c's google DRM (EME).

My browser does not automatically geolocate, I have never been harmed by this. There is no Google spyware in my browser either. I don't have a bad feeling about EME, except that it is proprietary (secret) software, is this because it contains secret keys?

[dryden]

The kernel is not just hardware support - there is not just "support", there is what not to support, there is what is relevant.

Jealousy.

If you can evidence smaller hardware companies seeing their drivers rejected from the Linux kernel, let me know.

But as I've said before, the Linux kernel is just an example. I've mentioned it as one example, you've chosen to focus on it (or systemd).

I have no taste for your style of denying the corporate influence in systemd, just so you can go on a crusade against all corporate interests; training the debate and denying problems on systemd so you can vaguely point to others, bigger, more nefarious.

This is because "interested" parties can easily infiltrate the "process" and influence the right people.

Don't deny that.

upstart developers were fired, they saved money, etc, etc... as I said earlier, they piss in the same pot. Business is business.

I generally have a problem not with choices themselves, but that fact that lies, sabotage and insincerity generally comes with it in order to sell it to an unwilling public; you are never given the truth, you can say it's "clandestine" but it's clandestine like the Emperor is Wearing no Clothes, clandestine.

They will deny the negatives, prevent you from doing something about it, and so on.
It's not fair game at all.

Canonical is not (no longer) a benevolent organisation, and Ubuntu, a circle of people holding hands, is no longer Ubuntu.

Now personally I cannot identify any aspect of the current Linux kernel that has been negatively influenced by this corporate sponsorship. Can you?

So corporate ownership has worked great for Linux, but not for systemd...?

I was asking you a question. If you cannot answer this question, clearly you have nothing to say.

YOUR claim is detrimental influence on the Linux kernel, when I ask you to prove it, you cannot, and then blame me for my position where I say that indeed, the corporate sponsorship of the kernel has not been (very) detrimental, at least not thus far.

The proof is in the pudding, you cannot show me the pudding.

I see... but again the kernel was one example, you could look at the wider FOSS ecosystem if you choose to do so...

Don't put words in my mouth please, you cannot support your own claims.

You're absolutely right. I see that with a lot of software, even supposedly free software, even with Linux distributions. I'd say that Debian's adoption of systemd, is one such example.

I think I must agree, although I do not know details of Debian's processes, but it's clearly not a real free, uncontrolled ecosystem.

We choose to be annoyed.

In this case I am infuriated because you are wasting my time by explicitly refusing to acknowledge one point so you can make another; it is insincere.

My annoyance stems from the fact that I do not immediately act against it and choose to go along with it, in a certain sense, I am annoyed with myself, and project it on you, however, immediate acting against something generally results in what people consider "uncivil" behaviour.

I actually like you, even though you're most likely someone who I've encountered before under a different handle.

I do not recognise your words though.

So if you've reinvented yourself - it worked well, this is much better...

I'm still the same asshat saying the same things.

please stick around, but perhaps take a chill pill. There is no need to have a coronary over some light discussion on a messageboard.

Waste of time tends to depend on how important my time currently is to me.

There is a reason I stay away for lengthy periods.

Like so many impassioned types on the WWW, disagreeing with you is "trolling".

No, I have explained my reasons above.

Let go of the "troll" label... you're choosing to debate with me, because you really feel the need to win this argument against one person, which no one else really cares about (on this practically dead forum - which is still one of the best there is... what does that say about the others? <--shameless promotion).

Actually my most urgent need is to spend not too much time debating someone who is interesting but who is playing a nasty game of denying stuff in order to allude other points. I like you too, but I don't like your blatant denial of obvious things as a debating tactic.

I agree with your troll sentiment, this may be the first time in my life I have used the troll label offensively.

How is it different because it's a kernel or a bloated "init system", because 20 fortune 500 companies contribute or just one?

I already answered that question, it is now my question to you.

Lennart is a class one A hole, so is Torvalds

I like Torvald's aholeness.

He is being an ahole for good reasons.

Lennart is not, that's all I can say about this.

have all fallen prey to the corporate world and been bought/paid off and now sing from the corporate hymn sheet.

It's in their behaviour anyway.

That's how big business works - we know this from decades of experience, we know this because that's why academics in the US released "free stuff" they had fixed themselves, way before Linux existed.

But you're patronizing me a little.

I had not realised it was simply all about you. If it's just about you/us, then I have to say that all this doesn't affect me much at all. But these debates can be and interesting diversion (when one doesn't take oneself too seriously).

Your concern with the future of the universe is not really of any practical concern to me right now; even if a 1000 years from now Microsoft Satan will have usurped another civilisation,

I care about Linux as a desktop/server OS being at risk of utter internal destruction NOW.

Why? Because ALL OTHER SOFTWARE PROJECTS ARE FALLING TO THE SAME LOW STANDARDS AS SYSTEMD.

That's right, KDE, networking, everything is becoming worse because of this new wind.

Many problems have become unsolvable; 4 years ago Linux was suitable for my own needs and goals, my own desires and aspirations for software development; one year ago, I realized Linux was no longer that, and was lost to me.

The systems I wanted to create, the software I wanted to make, was possible in the old Linux.

Strangely, stuff has improved for me lately, mostly because I abandoned Debian and all my efforts for it when I got sortof banned in #debian for saying something funny about systemd.

I thought I had lost a lot, it seems it has saved me from some ill fate; not sure.

I'd like to hear all about my *BSD kernel, it seems my fame as a developer has spread far and wide...?

Playing semantics on the word "my" are we? .

You've now made it very clear that this is about your own personal systemd problem and not much else.

Suppose I was a software developer creating a billion dollar product getting thwarted because Linux is no longer suitable for good desktop/whatever development.

Would you consider it "my personal systemd problem and not much else"?

Everyone out there who wants to do serious development on Linux as a desktop OS is harmed by systemd.

Linux as a gaming platform, more important as a system with a decent and stable GUI, is deeply harmed by systemd.

The chaos it has introduced is exploding into mayhem, and now with the battle between Wayland and X, or rather, server side versus client side decorations, thus, Gnome vs. KDE, a new rift is arising and KDE will die.

Gnome, however, is not for people. It's not for anyone really. No one can actually use Gnome and be productive. Ubuntu (Gnome) maybe. Cinnamon, sure.

But it's minimal, it's not going anywhere.

You can say goodbye to Linux as a desktop OS now.

It has lost its spirit, and so what reason do you have to be here?

What reason to use Linux, if it's no longer Linux?

You can't actually develop anything on it any longer.

There is no longer a culture that fosters mutually interested, happy software development.

It's dead.

The culture is gone, corporate interests remain. And all of this was solely caused by systemd.

Linux is no longer a community. Linux is a nest of people who smell money if they side with the right party.

I say, that for me personally, this software makes my life hell.

That seems rather extreme - but try working with MS Windows for a living...

Real world problems in combination with the deterioration of the linux ecosystem have made these problems more astute and felt by me than they otherwise would have been;

I have been harmed more because my real life position was already weakened.

This is my point all along - software corporations are dishonest and screw end users to suit their business agenda. systemd is geared towards creating and nurturing a technical support market, by providing a complex "black box" solution to a problem which never existed in the first place. Red Hat only had to sell it, to get it accepted as a de facto standard and they have for the most part achieved that. Red Hat could never have succeeded with systemd if other major players refused to adopt it. It would have become an obscure, dead end as with what happened to upstart. Now that they have this corporate backing and saturation, plus droves of "willing helpers" to spread the propaganda, the little people don't matter.

I was not asking whether the little don't matter to Umbrella Corporation. That seems quite obvious.

But never mind, I am leaving.

[golinux]

Yawn . . . and . . . zzzzz

[Randicus Draco Albus]

@ dryden

You seem to be missing the point of what cynwulf and myself are saying. That is, systemd is not the problem with Linux. It is a symptom of a bigger problem. Linux is not longer a system put together by volunteers with the goal of having a system useful for productive purposes that is not controlled by corporate interests. Linux has been taken over by companies that are changing the system into a corporate-driven OS. Eventually Linux will be little different than Windows and OSX. Many people get upset about systemd, because it is highly visible, but they fail to see everything else that is less obvious. You touched on it yourself with:

Many problems have become unsolvable; 4 years ago Linux was suitable for my own needs and goals, my own desires and aspirations for software development; one year ago, I realized Linux was no longer that, and was lost to me.

Most Linux users refuse to let go of the idea that Linux is a system by hackers, for hackers. It stopped being that several years ago. systemd increases the degree of corporate control over development and use, but is not the source of the problem.

[cynwulf]

I'm not going to reply to dryden again point for point as we're clearly going over the same old ground (and I will inevitably go over the same old ground again anyway...), plus there doesn't seem much point.

It's a pity they have not revealed their previous account, but that's their choice. I don't really understand their desire to just move on because we disagree on a few points.

Linux is not longer a system put together by volunteers with the goal of having a system useful for productive purposes that is not controlled by corporate interests.
[...]
Most Linux users refuse to let go of the idea that Linux is a system by hackers, for hackers. It stopped being that several years ago. systemd increases the degree of corporate control over development and use, but is not the source of the problem.

I would say that a subset "refuse to let go", the majority are fully on board the Windows reinvention bandwagon. We have people who are so intent on reinventing and following the same path as 90's proprietary OS, they have lost sight of all else. FOSS has become big money and where's there's money, there's corruption and greed. History tells us that the best product does not win. We're seeing that now and we'll seem more of it as time goes on.

As corporate involvement has advanced and a newer generation of more consumer oriented user has come to the fore, the idea that someone should compile something themselves or use a terminal or edit a plain text file has become a taboo for the type of user who believes everything should be automagic. Editing an rc file is "clunky" to these people, but several megabytes of shitware to achieve the same thing by adding more hidden complexity is good. This type of sentiment has fueled crap like systemd much more than Red Hat's efforts ever could.

As most end users rely on compiled binaries, provided by distributions, it's more likely that specific distributions and the "defaults" they choose to adopt are going to be the biggest decider in terms of what gets out to the end user. It could be said that users' over dependence on distributions, or allegiance to any particular distribution is what provided a "channel" for "systemd infiltration" or whatever you want to call it in the first place.