Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

[Daniel Campbell]

On 02/20/2014 07:42 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Daniel Campbell <lists@××××××××.us> wrote:
>> On 02/15/2014 08:09 PM, walt wrote:
>>> On 02/15/2014 12:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>>> The social
>>>> tactics at work from the systemd team (and verily, other Red Hat
>>>> projects like GNOME) are reminiscent of Microsoft through the use of the
>>>> "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" methodology.
>>>
>>> I certainly share your hostility towards M$ for suppressing competition.
>>>
>>> Red Hat, like M$, is a for-profit corporation, so I share your suspicion
>>> that they want to suppress their competitors (though I don't know who
>>> their competitors are).
>>>
>>> But comparing a completely closed-source shop like M$ to any open source
>>> company leaves me feeling uneasy.  I can't find the exact argument to
>>> explain my unease, but I'm hoping someone else will jump in with a more
>>> rational argument.
>>>
>> I think I understand where you're coming from. "How can they compare
>> when Red Hat releases their source under a liberating license while MS
>> locks it down behind closed doors?"
>>
>> That's missing the point, though.
>
> No, it's not.
>
>> In the FOSS world, that's the "bait",
>> so to speak. The wolf in sheep's clothing. Red Hat can release (or hack
>> on) a bunch of attractive software or features, get people interested
>> (so interested that, say, the majority of distros depend on it *wink
>> wink*), and then use that influence to indirectly control where FOSS
>> moves. By striking the weakest part of the stack (sysv probably *did*
>> need a good replacement, but not one as ambitious as systemd) and
>> digging down into the kernel level (kdbus), Red Hat devs will now have a
>> very influential role in the FOSS world. This will in turn generate
>> interest (and thus profit) in Red Hat.
>
> First of all, you do realize that Greg Kroah-Hartman, the primary
> author of kdbus, works for the Linux Foundation, right? Not RedHat.
>
> Second, good for RedHat if they can turn a profit. Meanwhile the code
> from the whole stack is free, and anyone willing and able can fork it
> and use, enhance, or replace any part of it. And yes, I said replace.
>
> So, again, the comparison makes no sense at all.
>
>> It's marginally clever, but so clearly obvious at the same time. It's
>> sad (to me) that the community didn't see it coming.
>
> So you are saying we are idiots? Or just naive? Or both? And *all* of
> us who use systemd and think is a great idea?
>
> Damn, if only we had knew. Too bad you didn't come before to open our
> eyes to this undeniable truth. Now it's too late, the sky is falling
> and the world will end on fire and brim.
>
>> Those who did have
>> been written off as conspiracy theorists or FUDders. Time will reveal all.
>
> Indeed it will. Wanna bet a beer?
>
> Regards.
>

Indeed, Greg doesn't work for Red Hat. Prior to working for LF, however,
he worked for Novell, another for-profit Linux company. Moot point.
Businesses tend to do favors for other businesses. What makes you think
Red Hat hasn't given LF some money at some point? Further, isn't Lennart
friends with Greg? Isn't that how he got udev into systemd, since Greg
maintained udev before it was merged into systemd? Tell the full story
if you're going to bring it up.

I will refrain from stooping to the level of petty insults... but yes,
collectively the FOSS community at large has *terrible* social awareness
within its own ecosystem and would not see an agenda coming until it was
too late and they had to fork or rebuild. It has nothing to do with me;
it has everything to do with foresight. And the FOSS world is lacking in
that. Those that have it are outnumbered by those who get distracted by
shiny objects and if they care about the future of FOSS, it's only in a
superficial sense.

FOSS is not just code, it's culture too.