171–178 of 178 posts
I can’t tell if Poettering hasn’t read Brave New World, so the title is innocuous, or he has, and the title is frightening. That said, I’m in the camp of: this is good, and a lot of the comments here are FUD (aka Poettering probably hasn’t read Brave New World, or at least this isn’t that).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think that is?
Because more and more software developers use hard dependencies on SystemD making alternatives difficult to maintain ?
Systemd is not making the alternatives more difficult to maintain, the alternatives are more difficult and more difficult to maintain. Matter of perspective, really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem isn’t that you can’t trust people. The problem is that people are defenseless in the face of malicious hackers with vastly more expertise and zero day vulnerabilities. It’s not that you can’t trust your employees. It’s that you can’t trust them to defend themselves from being mugged. The forcing function for all this removal of freedom is defense against malicious hackers. The removal of freedom is not th…
Some good points. Lets see what we can do here: > The problem isn’t that you can’t trust people. Good. It's always best to have an optimistic view of our fellows, that's how we build good social structures. > The problem is that people are defenceless in the face of malicious hackers So. Make then not defenceless. We arm them. With education and other tools they need to defend themselves. Digital Self Defence (Or Dig…
The world is already full of proprietary systems, including the one produced by the employer of systemd. WSL has improved a lot in the past years, he should be focusing on that, or at least use that as a testing ground.
Not confining new technology like systemd has lead to an infinite amount of CVEs to deal with in the past years, this could have been avoided by not allowing a tech prototype to bypass community adoption and impose itself as a ego-driven standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because more and more software developers use hard dependencies on SystemD making alternatives difficult to maintain ?
Because systemd has moved forward while the alternatives haven't. Systemd is not making the alternatives more difficult to maintain, the alternatives are more difficult and more difficult to maintain. Matter of perspective, really.
It's a very MS approach instead of a UNIX - do one job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because systemd has moved forward while the alternatives haven't. Systemd is not making the alternatives more difficult to maintain, the alternatives are more difficult and more difficult to maintain. Matter of perspective, really.
I disagree - SystemD has the approach of embrace-extend-extinguish, where it gobbles up services and turns them into their own hard dependency - from DNS to device managers, etc It's a very MS approach instead of a UNIX - do one job.
UDev & Gnome https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8416912 (8 years ago)
udev, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6066848 (9 years ago, same behavior reported)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7211451
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8203507 (8 years ago, community reports the same treatment)
I applaud Pottering's systemd projects as a masterful career move at the same time that I shake my fist at them, and how they build a path to undermine free computing.
They recentralize, and fragilize, the free software ecosystem.
They build features that are not requested, with the premise of small, incremental benefits while taking away choice by making the pre-existing standard of interoperable decoupled components difficult-to-impossible to continue to use.
This development pattern enforces deeper integration with their one blessed way, and tramples on the culture of the free software ecosystem, which the project efforts take part in, in all but ultimate aim. They do things that should not be done, although he's effective in creating and pursuing opportunities that advance the interests of Red Hat and now Microsoft.
I like that free software has let me build and explore things without getting sign-off and approval from authority, while the existence and strength of free software means I get to enjoy some of its benefits even while using devices made by companies that do not pay-forward their free/open software founding roots, specifically that developer system configuration escape hatches are needed on macOS, and Windows, for competitive reasons.
The ease of use, breadth of adoption, and creeping (and unnecessarily coupled) integration with widely used software are all small pennies, which "no one should object to", thrown to entice in front of the steamroller of centralized control of plausibly all software running (boot, OS, & applications) that makes founding fears of the free software community more likely to come to pass.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Then again,
> users are not contributors nor customers,
and so
> "They are not _technically_ part of the "community".