Ubuntu Linux Preparing systemd-hwe To Ease OEM Hardware Enablement

[jacob]

That's true, but "an init system" is what it was sold as. If you distort the truth a million times specifically to deceive people, you can hardly blame them for repeating it back to you. Making beds and all that.

Except it never was. Since Poettering's first announcement in 2010 it was described as a full-featured process supervisor, cgroup manager, mount manager, socket activation handler and more. It was always intended and sold as a new userland framework. The "just an init system" myth is just that, a myth kept alive by those who for whatever reason can't come to terms with systemd's existence and so they try to justify its success by some dark conspiracy or, at the very least, some cheating and lies. Because "obviously" (to them) it's unthinkable that it could have succeeded on its merits.

[timofonic]

Except it never was. Since Poettering's first announcement in 2010 it was described as a full-featured process supervisor, cgroup manager, mount manager, socket activation handler and more. It was always intended and sold as a new userland framework. The "just an init system" myth is just that, a myth kept alive by those who for whatever reason can't come to terms with systemd's existence and so they try to justify its success by some dark conspiracy or, at the very least, some cheating and lies. Because "obviously" (to them) it's unthinkable that it could have succeeded on its merits.

Merits? Only partially. Altenatives were somewhat worse at that time and Red Hat has lots of traction. They even made popular a quite deceiving Desktop Environment originally being a purely GNU project.

[jacob]

Merits? Only partially. Altenatives were somewhat worse at that time and Red Hat has lots of traction. They even made popular a quite deceiving Desktop Environment originally being a purely GNU project.

If all available alternatives are worse, that's the definition of succeeding on merits. RedHat has lots of traction (which is neither the result of some dark plot nor "unfair") but it didn't create systemd and didn't adopt it until it saw some of its advantages in practice. It wasn't even the first to adopt it. I don't even know what you mean by a "deceiving" desktop environment and how it's supposed to relate to the topic at hand. By the way to my best knowledge no desktop environment has ever been a GNU project.

[Jaxad0127]

By the way to my best knowledge no desktop environment has ever been a GNU project.

GNOME used to be a GNU project. The G even stood for GNU (rest: Network Object Model Environment). https://web.archive.org/web/20130627...ome.org/about/

[jacob]

GNOME used to be a GNU project. The G even stood for GNU (rest: Network Object Model Environment). https://web.archive.org/web/20130627...ome.org/about/

If course. But that doesn't mean it was a GNU project. It was started by Miguel de Icanza who AFAIK never had any actual relationship with GNU or the FSF. At one time various software used the GNU moniker to indicate it was free software even if it wasn't related to the GNU project at all (like GNOME, Gnustep, Gnuplot, "GNU" Ghostscript etc)

[sinepgib]

It also makes it far less likely that some random change in systemd will break things, which the enterprise market that LTS's are aimed at would very much not appreciate.

The problem here is the systemd metastasis, but since lock-in was the whole damn point that's not going to change. Canonical seems to be a bit of a slow learner though: I dunno about you, but I'd be pretty reluctant to give my main competitor a knife, close my eyes, and hope for the best.

They tried, but when they couldn't get Debian to reject systemd they decided leeching off them was more valuable than doing their own thing.

[sinepgib]

Merits? Only partially. Altenatives were somewhat worse at that time and Red Hat has lots of traction. They even made popular a quite deceiving Desktop Environment originally being a purely GNU project.

When the alternatives are worse than your solution, what do you call that?

[Jaxad0127]

If course. But that doesn't mean it was a GNU project. It was started by Miguel de Icanza who AFAIK never had any actual relationship with GNU or the FSF. At one time various software used the GNU moniker to indicate it was free software even if it wasn't related to the GNU project at all (like GNOME, Gnustep, Gnuplot, "GNU" Ghostscript etc)

Did you read my link? That's GNOME's own about page stating it was part of GNU. Here's a news article about the possibility of GNOME splitting from the GNU project: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online...om-GNU-Project

[jacob]

Did you read my link? That's GNOME's own about page stating it was part of GNU. Here's a news article about the possibility of GNOME splitting from the GNU project: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online...om-GNU-Project

OK I stand corrected about GNOME.