[mdlug] Systemd Should Be A Fork -- Why Is It Not?

[A. Zimmer]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:20:50 -0400
Gregory Czerniak <gregczrk at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I want to say that I admire that you are so passionate for what you
> believe in.  
>

I only wish that the distribution maintainers could muster a little
passion of some sort.  It is quite astonishing, at least to me,
how quickly and easily systemd gained total control of virtually
all major Linux distributions.  The Linux maintainers are obviously
a timid, acquiescent, and mawkish lot (and perhaps lazy as well).

>
>  it appears you have several fundamental
> misunderstandings about open source and free software:
> 
> 1) RMS considers himself an advocate of free software ...
>

However it may be spelled out in the official documents, one must
not forget that the GNU project was originally formed as a reaction
to the ridiculous commercial "Unix wars" of the 1980's.  It is in
this sense that I invoke the GNU project as an example of freedom
in the contemporary world.

Basically, software does not need commercial sponsorship.


> 
> 2) Both the free software and open source movements have no problems with
> profit.
>

But the issues of profit are purely secondary.

Open source allows the programmer to be unconstrained by pecuniary motives.
There are no managers breathing down the open source programmer's neck
and demanding that the code conform to a certain design or to exclude
certain functionality for the sake of minimum cost and maximum sales.
As a consequence, the open source programmer is free to be guided only
by principles of quality, completeness, and theoretical correctness.

Systemd, on the other hand, is intended to ultimately benefit RedHat
by providing a uniform environment for COMMERCIAL applications.


> 
> 3) Both the free software and open source movements have published formal
> documents explaining what they are about.
>
> 4) Except for certain "must not" statements in the Open Source definition,
> both free software and open source are defined in terms of what they grant,
> not what they force you to do.
>

Well, there has to be a formal and official side to it all to satisfy
the fastidious legal obligations involved in software use and distribution.

But there is a spirit to open source that cannot be so easily codified,
That spirit compels the programmer to produce works of high quality that
directly address a specific need or set of needs.  Being open, all eyes
are upon him and his code.  He must live up to the high standards that
are implicitly expected and must not be swayed by extraneous influences.

Again, the motives of the systemd clique are seen as questionable.  They
are all in the pocket, not of an altruistic foundation, but of the profit
making RedHat corporation.


>
> If you are truly passionate about
> systemd destroying the world, then resist by joining the Devuan developer
> community.  Beat systemd with a better design.
> 

I encounter this argument frequently.  However, it has no basis.

The design is already here, i.e. traditional Linux.  There is no need
to do anything.  A fully functional and efficient system has always
been in place.

Systemd is the interloper, and they have somehow succeeded in creating
the perception (illusion) that there is no other effective way.

Systemd has used no expensive advertising campaign or employed no public
relations firm to proclaim its cause.  It has relied solely on the shameful
obeisance of Linux distribution maintainers and the repugnant apathy of
the Linux user to effect their bloodless coup.