1 |
On 02/20/2014 08:53 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Daniel Campbell <lists@××××××××.us> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 02/20/2014 07:42 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Daniel Campbell <lists@××××××××.us> wrote: |
5 |
>>>> On 02/15/2014 08:09 PM, walt wrote: |
6 |
>>>>> On 02/15/2014 12:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
7 |
>>>>>> The social |
8 |
>>>>>> tactics at work from the systemd team (and verily, other Red Hat |
9 |
>>>>>> projects like GNOME) are reminiscent of Microsoft through the use of the |
10 |
>>>>>> "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" methodology. |
11 |
>>>>> |
12 |
>>>>> I certainly share your hostility towards M$ for suppressing competition. |
13 |
>>>>> |
14 |
>>>>> Red Hat, like M$, is a for-profit corporation, so I share your suspicion |
15 |
>>>>> that they want to suppress their competitors (though I don't know who |
16 |
>>>>> their competitors are). |
17 |
>>>>> |
18 |
>>>>> But comparing a completely closed-source shop like M$ to any open source |
19 |
>>>>> company leaves me feeling uneasy. I can't find the exact argument to |
20 |
>>>>> explain my unease, but I'm hoping someone else will jump in with a more |
21 |
>>>>> rational argument. |
22 |
>>>>> |
23 |
>>>> I think I understand where you're coming from. "How can they compare |
24 |
>>>> when Red Hat releases their source under a liberating license while MS |
25 |
>>>> locks it down behind closed doors?" |
26 |
>>>> |
27 |
>>>> That's missing the point, though. |
28 |
>>> |
29 |
>>> No, it's not. |
30 |
>>> |
31 |
>>>> In the FOSS world, that's the "bait", |
32 |
>>>> so to speak. The wolf in sheep's clothing. Red Hat can release (or hack |
33 |
>>>> on) a bunch of attractive software or features, get people interested |
34 |
>>>> (so interested that, say, the majority of distros depend on it *wink |
35 |
>>>> wink*), and then use that influence to indirectly control where FOSS |
36 |
>>>> moves. By striking the weakest part of the stack (sysv probably *did* |
37 |
>>>> need a good replacement, but not one as ambitious as systemd) and |
38 |
>>>> digging down into the kernel level (kdbus), Red Hat devs will now have a |
39 |
>>>> very influential role in the FOSS world. This will in turn generate |
40 |
>>>> interest (and thus profit) in Red Hat. |
41 |
>>> |
42 |
>>> First of all, you do realize that Greg Kroah-Hartman, the primary |
43 |
>>> author of kdbus, works for the Linux Foundation, right? Not RedHat. |
44 |
>>> |
45 |
>>> Second, good for RedHat if they can turn a profit. Meanwhile the code |
46 |
>>> from the whole stack is free, and anyone willing and able can fork it |
47 |
>>> and use, enhance, or replace any part of it. And yes, I said replace. |
48 |
>>> |
49 |
>>> So, again, the comparison makes no sense at all. |
50 |
>>> |
51 |
>>>> It's marginally clever, but so clearly obvious at the same time. It's |
52 |
>>>> sad (to me) that the community didn't see it coming. |
53 |
>>> |
54 |
>>> So you are saying we are idiots? Or just naive? Or both? And *all* of |
55 |
>>> us who use systemd and think is a great idea? |
56 |
>>> |
57 |
>>> Damn, if only we had knew. Too bad you didn't come before to open our |
58 |
>>> eyes to this undeniable truth. Now it's too late, the sky is falling |
59 |
>>> and the world will end on fire and brim. |
60 |
>>> |
61 |
>>>> Those who did have |
62 |
>>>> been written off as conspiracy theorists or FUDders. Time will reveal all. |
63 |
>>> |
64 |
>>> Indeed it will. Wanna bet a beer? |
65 |
>>> |
66 |
>>> Regards. |
67 |
>>> |
68 |
>> |
69 |
>> Indeed, Greg doesn't work for Red Hat. Prior to working for LF, however, |
70 |
>> he worked for Novell, another for-profit Linux company. Moot point. |
71 |
>> Businesses tend to do favors for other businesses. What makes you think |
72 |
>> Red Hat hasn't given LF some money at some point? Further, isn't Lennart |
73 |
>> friends with Greg? Isn't that how he got udev into systemd, since Greg |
74 |
>> maintained udev before it was merged into systemd? Tell the full story |
75 |
>> if you're going to bring it up. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> So, now it's RedHat, Novell and the Linux Foundation. Anyone else? The |
78 |
> NSA? The CIA? The Cobra Commander? |
79 |
> |
80 |
> The Cobra Commander is always involved. |
81 |
> |
82 |
>> I will refrain from stooping to the level of petty insults... but yes, |
83 |
>> collectively the FOSS community at large has *terrible* social awareness |
84 |
>> within its own ecosystem and would not see an agenda coming until it was |
85 |
>> too late and they had to fork or rebuild. It has nothing to do with me; |
86 |
>> it has everything to do with foresight. And the FOSS world is lacking in |
87 |
>> that. Those that have it are outnumbered by those who get distracted by |
88 |
>> shiny objects and if they care about the future of FOSS, it's only in a |
89 |
>> superficial sense. |
90 |
> |
91 |
> Gee, if I though that about our community, then I would not want to be |
92 |
> part of it. |
93 |
> |
94 |
> Good think I don't think like you. |
95 |
> |
96 |
>> FOSS is not just code, it's culture too. |
97 |
> |
98 |
> Exactly, and it seems you miss the whole point about the FOSS culture too. |
99 |
> |
100 |
> I will not answer any more of your mails until you present some actual |
101 |
> evidence about this big bad group of people under the guidance of |
102 |
> shady corporations trying to take advantage of the poor, stupid, |
103 |
> social inept FOSS community. |
104 |
> |
105 |
> I do not care about hearsay. I care about facts, and technological |
106 |
> arguments. If you do not have any of those, I'm done with you in this |
107 |
> thread. |
108 |
> |
109 |
> Regards. |
110 |
> |
111 |
|
112 |
Firstly, you don't control whether or not I send an e-mail. The high |
113 |
horse is completely unnecessary. This particular thread (from walt) had |
114 |
nothing to do with you directly, so I don't know why you're getting so |
115 |
upset. You're free to hit the "Delete" button in your e-mail client or |
116 |
add me to your spam filter. |
117 |
|
118 |
I said nothing specific about the LF. What I *did* say is that Greg and |
119 |
Lennart have some sort of friendship that resulted in systemd swallowing |
120 |
udev. What technical argument supports that and makes systemd important |
121 |
enough to be the only project worthy of guiding udev's development? What |
122 |
technical reason does Greg have to implement kdbus? What technical |
123 |
reason does the systemd community have to push its project onto every |
124 |
single popular distribution? |
125 |
|
126 |
Before you retort with "it hasn't", go read the numerous arguments (just |
127 |
like this one) that have been had on all the distros' mailing lists. In |
128 |
every last one of them, the systemd proponents pushed and pushed a |
129 |
decision, insisting that one must be made, and systemd must be the one |
130 |
that's chosen. It was aggressively evangelized and marketing. To see it |
131 |
any other way is to be willfully ignorant or simply dishonest. |
132 |
|
133 |
Here's a logical argument: Red Hat is a for-profit company. Employees |
134 |
that do not earn them profits are not valuable assets. Ergo, Lennart |
135 |
Poettering must be profitable to Red Hat in some way. He has created |
136 |
PulseAudio, maintained *kit, and is now head of systemd and pushed for |
137 |
kdbus in the kernel. His community has pushed for systemd across the |
138 |
entire ecosystem. He pushed systemd as a dependency in GNOME, another |
139 |
Red Hat employee-lead project. Why would Red Hat, as a company, allow |
140 |
this to happen if they wouldn't profit from it? If Lennart's work is |
141 |
profitable to Red Hat, then spreading systemd and implementing kdbus |
142 |
will make Red Hat money. Red Hat's profiting from this growth of |
143 |
development means that it was a deliberate effort and they intend to |
144 |
continue taking advantage of the free labor that's built FOSS into what |
145 |
it is today. This was not accidental and was not in the spirit of FOSS. |
146 |
It's FOSS only as far as the code (copyleft licensing), which is the |
147 |
bare minimum. |
148 |
|
149 |
Other companies have contributed code, yes, but where? The kernel! To |
150 |
support their devices! The only *legitimate* place for a company to |
151 |
really contribute code. They make the hardware, so they're the most |
152 |
qualified to write drivers for it. |
153 |
|
154 |
So tell me what entitles Red Hat (or any other business) to financially |
155 |
profit from the work of thousands of volunteers and influence the ecosystem. |
156 |
|
157 |
I don't think it's some big huge generic evilness at all. It's just |
158 |
greed, the fuel of every business. Like it or not, companies are based |
159 |
on and are powered by greed. Even if they license their code under |
160 |
GPL/MIT/BSD, it's still all about the money, or they wouldn't write code |
161 |
at all. Consider the source (of the code and the source code itself). If |
162 |
you disagree with this, I'm not sure why you think Red Hat is in the |
163 |
software business. |