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

Tue Sep 1 23:35:05 EDT 2015

> 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.

According to Revolution OS, https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html,
and https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html , RMS started GNU not
because of the Unix wars, but because of the collapse of the free community
(running a Lisp-based OS called Incompatible Timesharing System) that he
contributed to within the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab.  He chose a
Unix-based OS for GNU because it was portable and it let Unix people
transfer over easily, but RMS had never used Unix until he had committed to
reverse-engineer it to make the GNU tools.  His favorite language is Lisp,
and Emacs clearly shows that he prefers a Lisp Machine environment similar
to the one formerly at MIT.

> Basically, software does not need commercial sponsorship.

> 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.

A study done in 2014 (
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2610207/open-source-software/who-writes-linux--corporations--more-than-ever.html
) found that more than 80 percent of Linux patches are written by people
being paid for their work by corporations.  That means 80 percent of Linux
contributors have managers and are trying to ultimately benefit a company.
Programmers need money to pay the bills and feed their children -- without
money, you get people's spare time if you're lucky.

> The Linux maintainers are obviously
> a timid, acquiescent, and mawkish lot (and perhaps lazy as well).

Linux maintainers pour blood, sweat, and tears daily to make sure your OS
is stable, well-documented, and secure.  They are often repaid with nothing
but ingratitude by the community.  Lennart Poettering has received death
threats serious enough that he turned them over to the FBI.  Do you really
think most people would stick around these toxic developer communities if
they weren't being paid?

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:40 PM, A. Zimmer <andrew.zimmer at comcast.net>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug mailing list
> mdlug at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug
>