You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
46 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

(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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

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…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

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

/s sort of

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

But for example replacing sudo is needed.

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I suppose doas is a pretty great alternative.

Smaller code is often good, but not always.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Linux

!linux@lemmy.ml

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 6.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 4.1K

    Posts

  • 55K

    Comments