Comment by ssm@lemmy.sdf.org on Will Linux’s New run0 Command Run sudo Out of Town?

Nah, I’m just referring to IBM’s acquisition of redhat. I’ve been referring to redhat as IBM in kind.

And neither Arch, nor Ubuntu, nor Debian, nor OpenSUSE, nor any other distro using systemd belongs to IBM.

systemd has nothing to do with any corporation doing bad stuff to our Linux.

It is just newer software, doing more things more easily.

Sure, the centralization is pretty damn bad. But for example replacing sudo is needed.

But for example replacing sudo is needed.

There’s plenty of 100-loc tools for that already. And doas, who has most of sudo’s server-features, is not much bigger.

And they all work even without systemd or services.

But for example replacing sudo is needed.

Seriously asking: what’s wrong with Sudo? And aren’t there already loads of alternatives?

I suppose doas is a pretty great alternative.

Smaller code is often good, but not always.

systemd nightmare needs to end. Too many broken garbage from malicious actors within the opensource community.

Just as an experiment, get every distro to have at least 2 or 3 SysVInit / runit / rc.init alternatives, and you will see a MASS Migration back to SysVInit. Bash/shell script init functions were really dead simple and almost unbreakable/hackerproof.

Systemd really needs to be thrown in the garbage dumps of history so we can finally have a UNIX-like boot back.

As someone who writes bash scripts, fuck no, this is a terrible language and it shouldn’t be used for anything more complex than sticking two programs together.

Also, parallelism goes right out of the window.

Maybe you’d convince me with a real programming language.

That just made me imagine a Rust rewrite of systemd

There is (was?) a group writing a whole Linux-esque OS in Rust: https://github.com/nuta/kerla

Any time I see a grognard seriously suggest going back to bash for anything exceeding 10 lines of code it makes me very happy none of them are in control.

If systemd is as bad as you claim why did nearly every distro switch to it?

Corpo sabotage of opensource. So many community projects are under the thumb of corpo insiders. It was a “cash-grab” a way to shoehorn and takeover an essential but mostly unchanged and stable Init system. And they shimmed that into everything they could ram it into with no options or alternatives.

You should probably take the tin-foil hat off once in a while to let that noggin of yours breathe a little.

Why would corporations prefer it?

What exactly did companies gain from making Linux distros switch over to systemd?

If anything, the switch ment a loss of productivity as their staff needed to relearn stuff, not to mention loss of technical knowledge as there would be others who simply would not accept the change and leave the company when the change happened.

This means increased costs, either due to retraining, or due to needing to hire new staff which is expensive.

Meanwhile, I can’t see anything that would mean that companies would earn or even save enough money to make it worth the effort of making distros implement systemd.

Ok so doing it for direct gain seems to be out, but you mention “corpo sabotage of opensource”, I can’t really see that either, a developer won’t move a successful Linux project to Windows, AIX, Solaris, Darwin or HP-UX just because of a move to systemd.

So even indirect gain seems to be out, so “corpo sabotage” doesn’t really seem plausible.

But, I may be wrong, please, tell us how exactly a move to systemd has benefited companies enough that it would make the effort and expense to make a distro move to sytemd, let alone a majority of distros, worth it.

that’s some high ammount of copium from someone that never made a distro

And neither Arch, nor Ubuntu, nor Debian, nor OpenSUSE, nor any other distro using systemd belongs to IBM.

Where did I say they belong to IBM?

Sure, the centralization is pretty damn bad. But for example replacing sudo is needed.

We already have doas, which is such a simple codebase I’d have a hard time imagining it contains a bug that leads to setuid being a problem. run0’s codebase size on the other hand…

Eeeh, if anything, systemd is Microsoft’s contribution.

/s sort of

Btw can RH as the biggest contributor to systemd make it paid like it did with RHEL? Then it’s going to be the death of the free and independent Linux desktop for quite a while.

Don’t spread lies, misinformation and/or FUD.

Btw can RH as the biggest contributor to systemd make it paid like it did with RHEL?

It’s not. They’ve only made it harder for other parties to freely benefit from RHEL’s hard work at the expense of RHEL.

Don’t spread lies, misinformation and/or FUD.

Uhm what? I asked a question bruh.

They’ve only made it harder for other parties to freely benefit from RHEL’s hard work

True but they still can find something to hurt everyone. Not like I think it will happen but it is a problem with centralization and a company being behind a big and important product.

Uhm what? I asked a question bruh.

The bold parts include a false claim; i.e. Red Hat made RHEL paid.. So it’s perfectly possible to include a lie, piece of misinformation and/or straight up FUD within a question.

True but they still can find something to hurt everyone. Not like I think it will happen but it is a problem with centralization and a company being behind a big and important product.

I agree with you that Red Hat is indeed way too powerful in this realm. Hence, there will inevitably always be the fear that they might (somehow) misuse their power. So far, they’ve been mostly benevolent and I hope it will stay that way. There’s no fault at being cautious, but this should never lead us towards toxic behavior.

EDIT: Why the downvotes?

The bold parts include a false claim; i.e. Red Hat made RHEL paid..

Isn’t it? And for distro devs access to the source code is the only thing that matters. I am quite sure it is paid.

There’s no fault at being cautious, but this should never lead us towards toxic behavior.

I agree but I think you are the toxic one here. You boldly accuse a kinda new Linux user that asks a question in sharing misinformation and being toxic. I kinda get the first part but the second? You either don’t know what toxicity is or you’re just being toxic.

If IBM makes redhat do something that greedy and stupid (it’d be more likely to happen with a distribution like fedora or centos than userland components), we have plenty of existing infrastructure to fall back on.

(it’d be more likely to happen with a distribution like fedora or centos than userland components

I mean, if they make an actual workstation distro and kill systemd’s real FOSS nature, everyone else will have to spend some time rebuilding their distros with other init systems. That’ll be quite a sabotage.

RedHat is not restricting access to any upstream project. They package things in extremely stable form, which means they need to manage like all the software themselves and do tons of backports, as normally software just releases new versions.

They restrict access to these packages.

So yes, their 5 years old systemd with backported security fixes may be restricted. But not the normal systemd you can install anywhere.

No, it’s licensed under the LGPL, which means source code can be freely distributed and distros would continue to package it for free no matter how hard Redhat tried to paywall it.

You are not wrong. IBM management paralleled in the same cash-grab and exit C-suite functions that has consumed Redhat. That is why the merger happened.

Soon, Purple Hat should be charging for systemd and hopefully other corpos and organizations will move back to sanity.

Soon, Purple Hat should be charging for systemd and hopefully other corpos and organizations will move back to sanity.

From systemd licenses readme:

Unless otherwise noted, the systemd project sources are licensed under the terms and conditions of LGPL-2.1-or-later (GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later).

New sources that cannot be distributed under LGPL-2.1-or-later will no longer be accepted for inclusion in the systemd project to maintain license uniformity.

I can understand critism of systemd for its tools only working with itself and not with any other Unix tools. But it’s absolutely a conspiracy theory to think they’d want to charge for systemd. Though I do agree that if someone was charging for systemd (which they can’t because its open source), open source alternatives would pop up.

How is RH related to Arch lol? By having GNU core utils?

Arch ships redhat userland (systemd) and doesn’t support alternative userlands; you have to go to artix for that.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word “Linux” in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

Will Linux’s New run0 Command Run sudo Out of Town?(www.howtogeek.com)

Linux

!linux@lemmy.ml

Rules

Related Communities

Community stats

Community moderators