Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
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). 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 :)
And of course, another distribution = testing a product for free.
> 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. And it started way before systemd (dbus, hal and pulseaudio to
name a few). At least Canonical keeps their 'innovations' to themselves
last time.
> 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.
Reco
Reply to: