Also worth noting that systemd has morphed into something that is *way* beyond what it was originally sold as.

If you remember, systemd was supposed to just be an init replacement. And if you did not like systemd, you could remove it and go back to init. All that changed - after the adoption.

Does Devuan have a chance?

Systemd is clearly Red Hat's attempt to monopolize Linux. And I am afraid it will work.

What we are seeing now is only the beginning. Within a few months, about 95% of all Linux installs will be running systemd. Once that happens, Linux will be completely at the mercy of RH/Poettering.

Red Hat is going step-by-step from Microsoft's playbook. Even the propaganda is the same: "users demanded it" "the only people who don't like it are a handful of Luddites" "the decision has already been made, why are you fighting it."

> It remains to be seen if anyone truly cares enough to bother.

You mean like Devuan?
https://devuan.org/

It will be interesting to see if Devuan gets any traction.

It is entirely wrong to assume that acceptance of something means that it's better, or that users like it. Microsoft pushes stuff that users hate all the time: ribbon, metro interface, DRM, WGA, OOXML. Microsoft can get away with this because Microsoft is the dominate player. The exact same is true of Red Hat. Debian did not accept systemd because Debian loved systemd, Debian accepted systemd because Debian felt that it was inevitable.

This is also why there are not a lot of popular forks. People figure forking is a waste of time because Red Hat has all the power.

Could libreoffice, gimp, etc. be made to be indirectly dependent of systemd?

For example, what if Red Hat dictates that only recent versions of Gnome will work as the DE - systemd will reject any other DE.

To run libreoffice, you will need some sort of WM/DE, and since only one is available, you will have to use Gnome, which means you will also have to use systemd.

Because other distributions have been pressured into accepting systemd.

Red Hat is the 800 pound Gorilla in Linux. Red Hat forces systemd acceptance the exact same way that Microsoft forces OOXML acceptance, or DRM acceptance. And then justifies their actions with the same propaganda "because users demanded it."

So you think it would be a good idea for systemd to not allow Debian style package management?

Red Hat can say they did that because of user demand to increase standardization, and decrease complexity.

In fact, why not set up systemd to not allow any sort of package management other than RPM.

And why not set up systemd to only allow Red Hat approved DEs? Or just one DE: Gnome.

Of course, once you do that, there is little need of any distro that is not Red Hat. The other distros would fade into obscurity. And everybody would be vendor locked by Red Hat. Checkmate.

Right out of Microsoft's play book.

Post below explains it well:

From "SystemD Abomination"
Subject Vested interest in control. RedHat and SystemD
Date Mon, 17 Nov 2014 04:40:08 +0100

  by beaverdownunder:

It should be obvious to anyone that RedHat has a vested interest in making the vast majority of Linux distributions dependent on technology it controls. Linux is its bread-and-butter.

It appears RedHat has realised that, through systemd, it can readily provide preferential support for its own projects, and place roadblocks up for projects it does not control, thus extending its influence broadly and quickly. By using tenuous dependencies amongst its own projects it can speed adoption even faster.

Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.

At this point, they can market themselves as the only rational choice for corporate Linux support -- and this would be perfectly reasonable because they would have effective control of the ecosystem.

Linux (as in a full OS implementation) is an extremely complex beast and you can't just "fork it" and start your own 'distro' from scratch anymore -- you would have to leverage a small army to do it, then keep that army to maintain it. It's just not practical.

At the same time, Linux has matured to the point of attaining some measure of corporate credibility, and from RedHat's point of view, it no longer needs its 'open source' roots to remain viable. RedHat also, understandably, fears potential competition.

Through systemd and subsequent takeovers of other ecosystem components, RedHat can leverage its own position while stifling potential competition -- this is a best-case scenario for any corporation. It will have an advantage in the marketplace, potential customers will recognise that advantage, and buy its products and support contracts.

I hope you can understand why many see this as an extremely compelling case. Arguing that RedHat has 'ethics' and would 'never do such a thing' is immature and silly -- RedHat is a corporation, it exists to profit from its opportunities, just like any other company. To attempt to argue that it would not do so is contrary to what we can assume is its default state.

It's no 'conspiracy theory' to assume that a corporation will behave like a corporation; arguing that it is just makes one look like a naive child. systemd is one large step toward RedHat gaining the ability to reap what it has sewn -- for its benefit and not necessarily ours.

Why not just use Microsoft? It works.

Here is the reason you should care about systemd:

From "SystemD Abomination"
Subject Vested interest in control. RedHat and SystemD
Date Mon, 17 Nov 2014 04:40:08 +0100

  by beaverdownunder:

It should be obvious to anyone that RedHat has a vested interest in making the vast majority of Linux distributions dependent on technology it controls. Linux is its bread-and-butter.

It appears RedHat has realised that, through systemd, it can readily provide preferential support for its own projects, and place roadblocks up for projects it does not control, thus extending its influence broadly and quickly. By using tenuous dependencies amongst its own projects it can speed adoption even faster.

Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.

At this point, they can market themselves as the only rational choice for corporate Linux support -- and this would be perfectly reasonable because they would have effective control of the ecosystem.

Linux (as in a full OS implementation) is an extremely complex beast and you can't just "fork it" and start your own 'distro' from scratch anymore -- you would have to leverage a small army to do it, then keep that army to maintain it. It's just not practical.

At the same time, Linux has matured to the point of attaining some measure of corporate credibility, and from RedHat's point of view, it no longer needs its 'open source' roots to remain viable. RedHat also, understandably, fears potential competition.

Through systemd and subsequent takeovers of other ecosystem components, RedHat can leverage its own position while stifling potential competition -- this is a best-case scenario for any corporation. It will have an advantage in the marketplace, potential customers will recognise that advantage, and buy its products and support contracts.

I hope you can understand why many see this as an extremely compelling case. Arguing that RedHat has 'ethics' and would 'never do such a thing' is immature and silly -- RedHat is a corporation, it exists to profit from its opportunities, just like any other company. To attempt to argue that it would not do so is contrary to what we can assume is its default state.

It's no 'conspiracy theory' to assume that a corporation will behave like a corporation; arguing that it is just makes one look like a naive child. systemd is one large step toward RedHat gaining the ability to reap what it has sewn -- for its benefit and not necessarily ours.

Please don't post stuff like that. Poettering is already whining about "death threats." Poettering is using posts like yours to prove that systemd haters are a bunch of irrational, violent, criminals.

> So is this all just people acting on some philosophical principle, rather than picking the best tool to complete the job they want?

The UNIX philosophy leads to the best tool for the job.

> what the hell is the difference between one big black box versus 20 smaller ones?

The 20 smaller ones are much easier to maintain, and update. Also the 20 smaller ones make for a more versatile user experience.

Below is a great explanation as to why systemd is like windows.

From "SystemD Abomination"
Subject Vested interest in control. RedHat and SystemD
Date Mon, 17 Nov 2014 04:40:08 +0100

  by beaverdownunder:

It should be obvious to anyone that RedHat has a vested interest in making the vast majority of Linux distributions dependent on technology it controls. Linux is its bread-and-butter.

It appears RedHat has realised that, through systemd, it can readily provide preferential support for its own projects, and place roadblocks up for projects it does not control, thus extending its influence broadly and quickly. By using tenuous dependencies amongst its own projects it can speed adoption even faster.

Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.

At this point, they can market themselves as the only rational choice for corporate Linux support -- and this would be perfectly reasonable because they would have effective control of the ecosystem.

Linux (as in a full OS implementation) is an extremely complex beast and you can't just "fork it" and start your own 'distro' from scratch anymore -- you would have to leverage a small army to do it, then keep that army to maintain it. It's just not practical.

At the same time, Linux has matured to the point of attaining some measure of corporate credibility, and from RedHat's point of view, it no longer needs its 'open source' roots to remain viable. RedHat also, understandably, fears potential competition.

Through systemd and subsequent takeovers of other ecosystem components, RedHat can leverage its own position while stifling potential competition -- this is a best-case scenario for any corporation. It will have an advantage in the marketplace, potential customers will recognize that advantage, and buy its products and support contracts.

I hope you can understand why many see this as an extremely compelling case. Arguing that RedHat has 'ethics' and would 'never do such a thing' is immature and silly -- RedHat is a corporation, it exists to profit from its opportunities, just like any other company. To attempt to argue that it would not do so is contrary to what we can assume is its default state.

It's no 'conspiracy theory' to assume that a corporation will behave like a corporation; arguing that it is just makes one look like a naive child. systemd is one large step toward RedHat gaining the ability to reap what it has sewn -- for its benefit and not necessarily ours.

You can say safe, polite, PC stuff anywhere. The real acid test for freedom of expression is when you can say things that are not so safe, polite, and PC.

Muslims certainly feel free to offend any non-Muslims.

Movie, and concessions, cost is no big deal to me - unless the entire experience is ruined by some jackass who sits behind me and won't shut his mouth for ten seconds.

Other - less important - reasons:

- watching at home is cheaper
- watching at home is more comfortable
- watching at home is less hassle - no worries about start time, do not have to drive anyway, or park. Can stop the movie.
- home theaters are really good
- it does not take long for feature movies to be available to download on Amazon, or whatever
- TV shows, like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and Walking Dead; are better than most feature movies.
- more variety: I can watch a movie that has not been in theaters in years.

IT is all going to be offshored anyway.