On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:29:24PM +0300, Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 03:48:34PM +0100, Ludovic Meyer wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 09:41:23PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > > As much as I dislike systemd, I'm not sure that it's a vendor > > > conspiracy to "control the Linux ecosystem." Yes, redhat pays > > > Lennart Poettering's salary (among others). But... I'm hard pressed > > > to see how turning a collection of free distros into functional > > > equivalent's of redhat, or increasing the resources applied to free > > > distros, is really to their benefit. If anything, it would seem to > > > dilute the competitive advantage of paid RHEL. > > > > > > Personally, I think it's more a matter of one, prima donna > > > developer, who has the advantage of a salary, who has a vision and > > > design philosophy that he's promoting in a very aggressive and > > > single minded way. And he's very overt about it. (Somebody posted > > > an email from Poettering last week saying, roughly, 'first we're > > > going to get kdbus into the kernel, then we're going to make udev > > > depend on it, and then everyone will have to eat systemd to get > > > udev.' As I recall, the message closed with 'gentoo, be warned.') > > > > > > I figure this is more a case of redhat management not wanting to > > > tick off valued prima donna, and maybe seeing what he's doing as a > > > contribution to the open source community (to date, redhat has been > > > pretty good about contributing to the community in lots of different > > > ways). Still, if I were in their shoes, I'd be trying to reign the > > > guys in. > > > > Why would the management of a external company care about what > > happen in Debian ? > > Because Debian is upstream for several critical RHEL parts, such as > shadow (passwd, useradd and friends).
1 ( ie shadow-utils ) is not "several". And by having a critical look at your affirmation, RH is paying a lot of upstreams contributors for several critical Debian part : - glibc - gcc - util-linux-ng - kernel - udevd to name a few. I could name a few non critical stuff, from gnome, openjdk. So I am not sure that your point is valid. Given the size of Redhat, I also suspect that having someone working on shadow-utils wouldn't be a problem. Judging by SEC fillings, public information, there is around 6900 people. 1 more coder is not a stretch at all. > And, curiously enough, systemd's > goal is to replace those parts (see "Revisiting How We Put Together Linux > Systems" at http://0pointer.net/blog ). > Apparently, management doesn't like to be left out of control :) This is free software, there is no way to be left out of control. That's the whole point of the movement, provided you can code of course. A lot of people seems to totally forget that point. > And of course, another distribution = testing a product for free. I wonder how, since Debian is lagging so much behind that even RHEL 7 is released with systemd. I wonder even why they still have jobs posting for QA people if all is needed is to have users of others distributions. > > People keep wanting the project to be free of corporate influence, but > > it seems that some wouldn't be against having a bit of corporate influence > > if the > > influence was in the way they want.. > > > > > Given that RHEL's main selling points are enterprise > > > capabilities, quality control, and (for the government market) > > > security accreditation and lots of support, I'd much rather see > > > diversity and weak code spread across competing distributions. > > > > Canonical was criticized for keeping their code for their ( mir, unity ), > > and Redhat would be criticized for not keeping the code only for them. > > No. RedHat is criticized for pushing their code to everyone and their > dog. People keep saying that, but none show no conclusive proof. Just stating it doesn't make it true. And it doesn't resist simple inquiry such as: "if they wanted to push it everywhere, why would it be non portable to BSD ?" We go back to criticize everything that happen, that's getting old. And kinda poisonous, looking at the people leaving TC or Debian or maintainership. > And it started way before systemd (dbus, hal and pulseaudio to > name a few). At least Canonical keeps their 'innovations' to themselves > last time. So you agree with me. If you share, you are criticized, if you don't, you are criticized. > > > I guess there is no good way for a company to make free software that > > change something in the core of existing ecosystem. > > Take a look at IBM, Oracle and Novell, you may reconsider your statement. I fail to see what did they tried to change in the core ecosystem exactly. Oracle is attacked by everyone for the stewardship leading to forks on mysql and openoffice, among others. They even alienated their own community on solaris. Novell was criticized for providing Mono, and providing software written in mono for gnome ( thus changing part of the core of Gnome ), and was criticized for trying to get Microsoft working on interoperability. So sure, not changing anything in the core is the right way to avoid some critics. Obviously, haters still find their way, even when they have the choice. -- l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141117181538.ga31...@gmail.com
