Linux + systemd = MS-Windows.
So you think accusing somebody automatically makes that person guilty? Like the witch hunts, or the communist hunts?
If I accused you of being a child molester, would that automatically make you guilty?
I think there is may something that can be said for an "innocent until proven guilty" system.
Office-2003 may be okay for creating your own documents, but if people start emailing you 2013, or 2016 formatted? Will Office-2003 read those formats?
IMO: that goes for Red Hat as well.
Just a chrome-os ripoff.
As I see it: windows is desktops, BSDs are for servers, android or ios is for handhelds. Linux does not fit in anywhere - not since systemd.
I think we all know how that works out.
I am one of Poettering's favorite targets. I am one of those "UNIX grey beards" that Poettering has such deep contempt for.
Since Poettering is such an arrogant ass about it, I know where he stands. Poettering has made no secret of hating the UNIX way of doing things, and adoring the Microsoft way of doing things. So great, I know that LInux is being controlled by a Linux hater.
In fact, Poettering pisses me off the most when he pretends to be nice by saying that Red Hat listens to Linux user. What a total load of crap. I much prefer honesty to niceness. Same goes for Linus, and Theo de Raadt, among others.
Nobody is going to happy with other people are doing all the time. If you think somebody is being jerk, but you just bite your tongue to be nice; are you just being phoney?
Red Hat is likely to destroy Linux as we know it. That is something even Microsoft could not do.
I am a bit surprised that so many Linux do not understand how systemd is a scam that Red Hat is using to monopolize Linux.
Why would gimp do that?
For those who might not know: a lot of RNs earn over $100K a year.
I know, that is nothing especially extraordinary these days. But it's a fairly decent salary, even for a college graduate.
Men are hugely under-represented in the nursing field. Why isn't everybody having a hissy fit about that?
Poettering hates Linux. He is hardly even shy about it. He speaks glowingly of Microsoft, and is dismissive of stuff like POSIX, or the UNIX philosophy. He constantly expresses contempt for "UNIX grey beards." Poettering clearly loves the idea of one company setting the standard for everybody else to follow, just as he loves the idea of a giant proprietary goo ball that does everything.
Usually, I have no problem with Linux haters, because they have no effect on me, or Linux. But Poettering is dictating the future of Linux.
Why doesn't Poettering go work for Microsoft, and make everybody happier?
Why is the role of systemd constantly expanding?
If systemd is supposed to just be an init replacement, then why all the crap like binary logging? Why all the hardwired requirements?
From "SystemD Abomination"
Subject Vested interest in control. RedHat and SystemD
Date Mon, 17 Nov 2014 04:40:08 +0100
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.