It is not clear that this is the case. Roughly three times the contributions (measured in changesets) made by Red Hat developers have been made by developers unaffiliated with any corporation. These "unaffiliated" developers may in fact be participants in the non-corporate distros such as Debian, Gentoo, Arch, and even Slackware. It would not be that unreasonable to consider Debian, in particular, as comprising more than a third of these unaffiliated contributions (placing their total higher than Red Hat's) -- Debian has long maintained an active kernel team whose work has consistently been recognized as a major contribution (not just in adding new code to new releases, but in maintaining older kernels).

Except systemd is not quite in Red Hat, yet. The latest version is 6, and the plan is to switch to systemd in RedHat 7 due next year. (see link and go to slides -- slide 34, image 5)
http://www.h-online.com/open/feature...p-1631791.html
With systemd being in Fedora, systemd will be in RHEL in a matter of time.

I think the only people that are using systemd knowingly, and have an opinion, are the nerds. This means that the people that you will hear from are probably not your desktop users or the corporate people.

Speaking of corporate people, we use Red Hat at work, and I'm trying to learn what will be in the Red Hat 7 upgrade. My biggest concern is if Gnome 3 is going to be the default. Hopefully we will keep lagging far behind so whatever does happen will get worked out.

Just read any public interview with Red Hat employee Lennart Poettering and his disparaging comments about BSD ("irrelevant") - and Slackware ("Oh God Slackware") - and then simply ask yourself where the disrespect lies and who's treading like an elephant.

A saying of the great german philosopher/poet goes like this: if you don't lose your head in certain situations, then maybe you don't have a head at all.

Debian has definitely contributed a whole lot. But I would not say it has contributed more then RH in kernel code.

i just got into linux cpl years ago and now i feel like everything i am used to is changing and not always for the bettter. i.e gnome3, unity upstart/sysd ect...everyone(distros) seems to be going in a different directions despite users input. anyway what i really want to ask is does anyone know where i can find good documentation on how sysd is supposed to work and how to use/configure it. i ask because i'd like to stay current and google yeilded few results about sysd/systemd. this seems odd since fedora ect... have fully converted and suse is almost there. this does show a trend of becoming accepted awfully fast as a standard w/ relatively little info for an avg user to learn about ot.

Hi, you are not too different from me. I started linux in 1998-99 and went on a big 13 year break. Now I am back from scratch (been about 4 months). I feel like a noob all over again . But God has blessed me with a quick learning mind. Cough Cough (yes, i am just being full of myself).
So anyways to make it short. Here is my solution for you that worked well for me. Because I was just like you getting really frustrated with all this volatility.

I installed all the systems I liked on different partitions and computers. Now I use them all depending on which one I feel like using that day.

Also for learning you should learn things that are common in all linux distros for example the command line and shell scripting. That way you don't have to deal with the volatile mess everyone else is arguing over. So I stay dedicated. I know my direction. I just need to put the work effort into it to succeed.
I use Ubuntu as desktop usage for its large repo. However, I experienced many childlocks on the terminal. So whenever I study the terminal I mostly use Slackware and sometimes CentOS.
To understand Linux you must focus on the command line. Slackware does a great job forcing me into it.

To learn to configure systemd type: "man systemd" on your console. That is the best docs over 100 pages with details and examples.

Cheers!

Have a look here, it contains a bunch of links for documentation: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/

my console on my mint desktop i'm using now says "no manual for systemd" when i type --- man systemd --- i tried man sysd also

yea i do distro hop on vm's ect... to try em all and get used to them but i feel more non-commital to any since they're all so volatile anymore. once i get it the way i like it changes. for example ubuntu went to unity i went to mint got mint where i loved it then mint maya changed fundamentally so now i did what you said. i switched to slack to force me to learn. just made switch yesterday and after got wireless going i love it. it's superfast. i chose slackware because it doesn't use sysd or upstart since all my references were for sysv or this bsd varient. i just felt the switch to slackware was getting back to roots and from there i can learn all the common stuff as you said. i actually chose this as my host OS for my linux from scratch build i'm about to embark on because i knew it didn't have any odd technologies like sysd to worry about.

i still have my mint partition for multimedia ect.. but this is my learning station.

great community by the way

My sympathies lie with the slackware maintainer's and contributors' position on this. I just don't get why distros have to "conform" to what a few of the major distros (and their adoring flocks of kewl kids) want and strive to include the latest toys. If a lot of distributions had switched to upstart a few years ago, they'd now be transitioning all over again to yet another init. In only a few years there may well be something else to replace systemd - maybe that will be "the one", maybe not. I don't think distros themselves can be driven by these whims. I say wait until it's in RHEL, let them run with it for a few years and then have this conversation...

Unfortunately Open Source or not, we as end users, don't get a say in any of these developments.

That is bullshit man.

The only reason why I use linux is because the freedom of choice. Closed/commercial systems does not let you choose anything... linux does; and that's the point.

I personally don't like the idea. Core infrastructure stuff like systemd should be at "minimal" stuff; not extended because promises of new random features...

RHEL will implement systemd and it may or may not stick on the servers to become updated assuming system administrators KNOW a bit of what they are doing; however, if it becomes mainstream (as in adopted by every distro) is because we, the users did accept it and so far it doesn't look quite there.

also, for us (the users) to accept such a thing, it because systemd has matured to a point... so it won't hit production systems just because!

I already explained several posts ago why freedom of choice doesn't apply in an issue as fundamental as this, which affects the core of the operating system and potentially all Linux distributions in the long run. It's not as simple a choice as between Koffice or OpenOffice, for instance.

When was the time you directly influenced the development of the kernel or a mainstream Linux distribution? Then we can talk.

Users "accepting" or "rejecting" is a fundamentally flawed concept. It's the developers who take the final decisions.

well
let me disagree!

1. there is linux from scratch for example (as in doing/maintaining your own shit)
2. there is "sticking with an old release"... i had (because id died and the wife made a bitch fit) a box running slackware 9 until last year when i trow it away.

3. I'm using a broad concept when i say user. IE the guys who ported slackware to ARM are users...

If you see, several distro maintainers/packers are saying no to sysd, some say let's wait for the forthcoming... either way, it won't get mainstream just because; and that was my point.

at the end i could always send money to Microsoft of apple and use their software instead of argue if this or that is bad or good idea.... at least here i can bitch about it... over there i have to suck it up.

at least, around here i'm informed... over there i have to blindly obey... if you don't get that concept... then you are a moron (no offense)

A lot of your suggestions are impractical for people who have day jobs and don't have oodles of time to tinker with their computer. In the end, whether you use Linux or Windows, you get what the developers decide, unless you're one yourself and have the time/resources and the knowledge to write code. It all boils down to what you code. I'm talking about core, fundamental OS features, not application software. Ultimately even if you had choice, the choice can be taken away when the software becomes unmaintained or distributions refuse to support it. EVEN if you had the time and resources to maintain your own distribution or even LFS, you are still bound to and tied by the work of a lot of others.

And sticking with old, unmaintained software for an indefinite period is a ridiculously bad idea. Why don't you go first and influence the open source developments and then talk the talk instead of impliedly calling others names?

I might... don't get me wrong.