There's a tiny dust-up on slackware forum about pulseaudio and ponce suggested that discussing "what's happening to linux" should not be discussed in slackware forum. I agree so there's this post now.

1. Why are certain pieces of software being forced upon the linux community? Is it a conspiracy?
2. Has the "state" involved itself in the linux world and is pushing things toward a homegenous environment that's easy to control?
3. Are the developers pushing to have a homogenous environment to make it easier to implement just about anything and make it easier to deploy across the linux landscape?

#1 Humans are conspiratorial by nature and pushing controversial projects requires conspiring because it has to be thought through or a controversial project will fail quickly.

#2 Could be, there's evidence all over the place that they have done so. It's what they do. i.e. crypto backdoors and now cloud computing SMITM (sanctioned Man In The Middle)

#3 Of course, because writing software is hard enough as it is without making it not run on some linux distros while it runs on others. But there is disagreement about the solutions proposed and unsavory personalities trying to sell their solutions to everyone in the wrong way.

So linux moves forward, personal security is always assailed and the "state" does what it always does. It's an ebb and flow but neither side gives up.
So don't give up for your side, pushing for what you want. If you see one group always getting what they want that spells trouble.

I like this page so you know where I am on that:
http://without-systemd.org/wiki/inde..._distributions


and this one's always good too:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename...=CVE-2015-7756

What software are you referring to? If it's SystemD, there is no evidence of conspiracy. Distros are adopting it because it is superior. It's superiority is not evident to the home user, but to admins of huge servers and server farms, it makes a difference.

I have a friend who administers a RHEL network in a thin client environment. His server takes over 20 minutes to boot. He reports that the boot process is much smoother with SystemD. His only complaint is that, when something goes wrong, the troubleshooting is a little more complex.

There was a podcast on HPR recently that gave an excellent overview of how System D works. It's definitely not a tutorial. http://hackerpublicradio.org/eps.php?id=1930

Note: This does not mean that I am a fan of SystemD.

I doubt the "state" pays much attention to Linux as distinct from any other OS and there is no indication of any kind of conspiracy directed at Linux that I've heard.

(Of course, a true conspiracy theorist would advocate that the adsence of evidence is in fact conclusive proof of a conspiracy. That same conspiracy theorist will launch into an endless tirade about how the government can't to this, can't manage that, and doesn't understand the other, all the while maintaining that this incompetent, struggling beast can somehow pull off perfect conspiracies. There is no reasoning with a true believer.)

Developers can't even agree on a version numbering system.

2 members found this post helpful.

Linux, like any other OS, is "a commercial product" (although you do not have to "buy" it ...) that is used around the world in, now, millions of active installations. Don't be surprised, therefore, if it is subject to the same sort of concerns. Linux "wears the big-boy pants" now, because it is pretty much the "foundation of the Internet."

"The State(s)" would certainly be involved, but of much more concern to me (and not specifically with regards to Linux ...) is what is happening in the private sector, as people find themselves with nearly-unfettered ability to gather, assimilate, and use (for whatever purpose, benign or ill ...) highly personal information, and they find that "the State(s)" are not (yet ... heh ...) passing laws to define what is and is not acceptable.

Frankly, instead of fretting that "the State(s)" has too much access to my private life, I believe that "the State(s)" are derelict in their duties to protect our society from the myriad private entities ... that do!

Let's just say that "I'm unimpressed." For all the ##CLASSIFIED## dollars that I spend every day "in the name of 'the common defense,'" let the record show that someone walked out with a complete list of the people who have applied for access to this ##CLASSIFIED## information . . . Furthermore, it was an enormous list, even though every fool knows that a secret becomes less 'secret' with every additional person who knows it.

"Our State's" internal security must be pretty much "swiss cheese," because Ed Snowden (who was pretty much just an IT "grunt") had access to (authentic!) diplomatic cables from the Secretary of State, even though he didn't work there. He seems to have access to damn near everything, and if he did, so does everybody else who can't talk about what they do. So, I don't exactly feel "defended."

Yeah, "Linux conspiracies" are the least of my concerns, relative to real ones.

Of course the state is interested in Linux: sensible ones use it! Even in the USA, the security organisations use it because they can check it's secure and NASA uses it because they know it's reliable. Many countries put it in their schools because they object to paying money to a foreign company.

Who finances Windows? PC users, most of whom are home users. Who finances the Linux Foundation? The big companies who donate, like those with seats on the board: Fujitsu, HP, IBM, Intel, NEC, Oracle, Qualcomm, and Samsung. Naturally Linux will consult the needs of people running servers, mainframes, and supercomputers. Naturally the enterprise distros will consult the needs of businesses and institutions. Naturally the others will follow in their wake.

There will be a dust-up with Slackware users about anything new. I only marvel that they ever accepted the GUI!

What I care about is what are the best solutions for my needs and what are the pros and cons of using using them. It also seems that some Distros are stuck in the past.

There's a difference between "stuck in the past" and "tested and proven."

While that is true, there is a fine line between the two.

Thanks for that link. I didn't know so many others dislike systemd.

My 2 bits: Now that Linux is commercially viable, it will tend to move in the direction of $$$. That's good thing in general, I think.

Linux has grown up over the past 20 years. It's good that there are options to go commercial or stay grass-roots.

Regarding commerciality, MICROS~T pretty much has the market cornered in Point-Of-Sale terminals, yet they're the last people I would get involved when dealing with customer transactions, money, and security. It's a shame. Anybody here have experience with POS terminals and crappy software?

1 members found this post helpful.

Not much difference between the state and the private sector. Any air gap is so small now you'd need an artificial apparatus to see it.

It's all corporate now with the recent dust-up over the board elections.

Linux will be obsolete soon I think. Less than 10 years. There will be an entirely new system once the next hardware paradigm starts. Programmers will need to learn over as von neumann architecture goes like the poor Dodo Bird.

Best Laugh all week.

I think Linux will outlast you.

1 members found this post helpful.

I rather doubt that will be the case. I'm also pretty sure Linux and BSD can and will be adapted to run on non Von Neumann architecture just fine.

1 members found this post helpful.

Today I've used a web-browser, an email client, a word-processor, an accounting program, and a file manager. All of these are designed to interact with me, not to reflect the architecture of my hardware.

1 members found this post helpful.

I will have to say, duh! This is the way applications should work.