Github is very much a de facto centralisation of a decentralised technology. If that sounds a bit "woo woo" consider that Facebook does the exact same thing for a different form of "content."

So theoretically, the distributed nature of Git implies that who owns Github doesn't mean dick. In actual practice however, we are not talking about the decentralised part of the Git universe, we are talking about the very large, very significant, de facto centralised part of it. You might as well say-- and I think this is a very fair, accurate analogy-- that it doesn't matter if Mark Zuckerberg controls Facebook because the internet is a decentralised network. Correct, and still false.

Out of all the stupid, ridiculous reasons to not like a piece of software, you're really resorting to where it's hosted? That is amazing!

You do realize that systemd has been on github long before it was ever taken over by Microsoft, right? And what would Microsoft do with it? Access the open-source code and use it in Windows?

I'm all for not letting Microsoft revert to their former selves, but "that" Microsoft was several generations ago (Gates until 2000, Ballmer until 2014, and now Nadella). Do we still hold Coca-Cola accountable for putting cocaine in their soda? What about McDonald's for using beef tallow when frying their fries and clogging people's arteries? What about Volkswagon cheating on emissions? When do we allow people to grow from their past mistakes rather than keep saying it's impossible to change? Has there been any proof that the Microsoft of today is the same as the one in the 90s and earlier?

Seriously, systemd has enough fault through the software design and execution alone that there's really no need to attack where it's being hosted, especially when that attack has absolutely nothing to do with systemd. And consider the fact that many, many open source projects are hosted there, and it is unlikely they are choosing to be there because of Microsoft owning it.

You must fly through tinfoil with worries like that...

4 members found this post helpful.

Yes-- relevance? The issue is it's still there now.

They've already allowed Canonical to get hacked on the same host. I sort of thought it was silly to worry about their lack of good security, after all they didn't build it-- but this is Microsoft, they build backdoors into their own software, and now they host the core of countless distros in an ecosystem they are at war with.

Wrong.

Microsoft has recently infiltrated:

Linux Foundation
OSI
Apache Software Foundation
Canonical

It was considered a buyer for:

Red Hat (which I predicted the purchase of, right after Microsoft purchased Github. IBM obviously got it instead. I got the timing right, but the buyer I was slightly off about.)

You're out of touch and misinformed here.

Gates is still on the board, Microsoft is still a cult he runs. Nadella is a lapdog-- Ballmer was not independent either.

You are telling a story that Microsoft tells, thus you didn't make it up-- but that doesn't mean it isn't made up.

Maybe when they stop making newer and bigger ones. Nothing has changed but their marketing.

Look up Eric Lundgren if you think there aren't plenty of recent examples-- Microsoft has never changed.

http://slated.org/torvalds_hatred_of...s_is_a_disease

I agree, but there's even LESS need to attack someone pointing out where it's hosted, unless you REALLY BELIEVE Microsoft has changed, and deserves your defense.

But that is a giant mistake on your part. It's based on a PR fairy tale.

I'm concerned about future attacks. You don't decide to feel safe in enemy territory just because they haven't attacked YET, especially when there's a war on. (Which there is.)

Relevance?

With arguments like the one you're making, you must fly through a lot of toilet tissue.

1 members found this post helpful.

There's the bickering. Now it's a systemd thread ;-)

5 members found this post helpful.

Wellllll, I mean you make a point and people start talking like you're some kind of idiot with a vivid imagination-- it's not really a systemd thread until someone starts being condescending.

But it's weird when it's someone who openly agrees that the thing itself isn't good. I mean aren't we doing it wrong? We weren't really bickering about systemd itself. (Or were we?)

2 members found this post helpful.

I have been using systemd since Ubuntu started using it and initially struggled with many of the concepts. However, it has been an excellent replacement for LIRC, which has just become a dog's breakfast and a nightmare to configure.
For that alone, as well as shorter boot times I am happy to use it.
Mythtv is so much easier with systemd, so for the HTPC world, it has been a good thing.

Just my 2 bob's worth, cheers Tony.

And what about the millions of other projects hosted on github? Are all of them just as bad as systemd since they're still hosted there?

And if you'd read articles, it is highly suspected the attackers were able to find credentials in config files that shouldn't have been hosted on public git repos. Even Ubuntu themselves say it is due to compromised credentials of one of their accounts. And this wasn't even the first time Canonical was hacked, and others weren't on github. Maybe this speaks more to Canonical's security than github.

Infiltrated is a big word when you're talking about open source projects they don't have write access to. Microsoft has contributed to the Linux kernel since the 2.6 era, but those contributions still have to be signed off to be added to the kernel. How have they infiltrated them when they don't have any control?

Who knows what was going on behind closed doors? Lawyers may have been suggesting that they file this to protect IP and prevent others from being able to do something more serious and have a precedent where MS allowed it. It is unfortunate it got to that point.

But as I asked, who cares where it's hosted? There are so many completely factual, easy to back up, issues with the systemd software itself that you complaining about where it being hosted is so ridiculously laughable that I was initially expecting you were just trolling. Microsoft doesn't even need my defense, and I honestly don't know much about the company now (it's been a long time since I've used their products -- except I know you will now count github even though nothing on my end has changed since the purchase). I do know that github remains largely unchanged over a year after purchase except for making private repos free. But as I said, when there's so many things to discuss about systemd itself, who cares where it's hosted?

Where do you draw the line? Do you worry about Germany creating a 3rd world war? What about Rome conquering the world again? I am an American and I lived in Germany for 5 years and was able to feel safe in the "enemy territory".

You just stated the relevance above... that they are still hosted on github after Microsoft purchased it. Where's the hate for them like you have towards systemd for being hosted on github?

Can you use any product? How are you ok using the Linux Kernel, that both Microsoft and the NSA have contributed to? Pretty much everything is going to have a tie back to some company that probably has it out for you...

And with that, I am going to bow out of this thread. I should've stopped several posts back, but it is hard for me to do so sometimes (as many of you already know). I'm sorry for that. I'm not willing to go back and forth any further in a matter that really has no relevance since systemd doesn't seem to be making any inroads to being included in Slackware.

Good luck with everyone who decides to continue it. Feel free to reply to my posts, but know that I won't be replying back.

2 members found this post helpful.

As I said, it's a particular problem that this is PID 1 on a large and growing number of distros.

Fair enough-- that's definitely relevant.

I'm not talking about codebases in that context, I'm talking about joining the board. For example, the guy from Microsoft who is now an exec at the Linux Foundation.

That's not influence over the kernel, it's influence over the trademark. But considering their ongoing patent litigation (right, ongoing) and their royalty agreements over things they didn't create like Android, that's just some of the fun they might have with "Linux" in the future-- especially if Nokia's handset division teaches anything.

I know the feeling. But I suppose we agree that it's a terrible piece of software, so at least there's not much for us to argue about that.

1 members found this post helpful.

One word for the overly naive: institutionalization.


When will accept the debt slavery of the Federal Reserve/Central Banking is good for us because generations have passed since it' s founding and it has more cheery smiling faces that are of our generation?

This thread would better fit in General, or maybe in /dev/null as the previous ones on similar topics.

If nobody remembers we should be calling Linux - IBM GNU/Linux. All three major players were at war with a world spearheaded by Microsoft. I guess there is a lack of XBill players in this thread: http://xbill.org/. The greatest trick Microsoft did was convince their enemies they are not at war with them.

systemd can be explained by an old proverb: "choose your enemy well for you will become like them". systemd is an example of this proverb in the Linux world. systemd is where it became like it' s enemy.

GNU wrote the software that unix users were installing on their unix machines because unix userland sucked balls. c shell still sucks balls and FreeBSD still installs it as default root. The t in tcsh means Total for Total C&^* Shell in total. Sure, the unix programs were 'pure' but people did not like using them over GNU. Unix was controlled by corporate dicks, consumer BSD was still new, Microsoft was the new corporate dick on the block and there was no non consumer dick for your PC. Except Microsoft was not as evil then, like a hillbilly Google; the "we are not evil yet just annoying and loud".

Linux comes along, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. Then it is 2001. You have a userland. You have a kernel. Then IBM drops a billion bucks on the table. Microsoft around this time determined to lose a billion bucks to break the console market with a crap machine called the XBox. A few months later IBM throws down another 300 million. A few years later another billion. A few hundred million here and there since.

I don' t think IBM to this day forgets Microsoft screwed them over or believes that Microsoft has changed their stripes or that there is not a political war going on. Stallman ignited a political ideology, Raymond beat around the bush with poetical metaphors. This whole free software, open source (they are not the same thing), are political movements. Microsoft is on the other end of the spectrum. With the infusion of IBM money into the equation it is now more a war than it ever has been. They upped the ante by buying their pet called Red Hat. Something had to be done before Canonical got too cozy with M$ and before RH became more M$ minded; i.e. systemd.

When you spend the money like IBM did on RH, you can never count if you made it back, or how long it will take if you ever do. Counting inflation and other factors you probably never do mathematically. Beasts as large as ABC, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft, how do you even count what they own and owe? This is where mathematics becomes fuzzy.

Linux largely has been corporate since 2001. It owes it success to the zealotry of the priesthood of GNU, the corporate power of IBM, and the little guy trying to make it in a world of giants.

systemd threads have to be flame threads, contentious, barbaric. The enemy is inside the gates. All the well defined lines have been erased, the culture that created the success is diminished, so some people are going to kick and scream longer than the domesticated.

Yes, the whole rant is over simplified, misses whole events, insensitive, highly opinionated, and loosely reasoned. Don' t like it, pick your enemies carefully. ;-)

2 members found this post helpful.

I very much dislike Windows (I was a member of TeamOS2 if that tells you anything of just how much) but I have to begrudgingly admit that MS products, including Windows, is an important part of computer software development. There can be no doubt that Linux has been mined by Microsoft for incorporation into Windows, but it is just as real that Linux inherited a lot from Windows. To write something off just because it resembles Windows in some way is a bucket full of holes. It holds no water.

Well, this thread seems to be going the way of every systemd thread.

It should really depend on how it reminds someone of Windows.

There are several individual aspects of Windows that are worth taking issue with-- matters of lock-in and controlling the upgrade cycle in a way that admins can't do their job, for example. Not that any specifics were mentioned in that post.

You can't really think everyone is going exceed your expectations, can you? What were you hoping for exactly?