FOSS Week in Review
Flamethrowers and a kumbaya that will probably never happen: Yep, that’s the kind of week it was this week in the land of free/open source software.
Wearing your fireproof underwear? KDE’s Aaron Seigo – never one to shy away from saying what he thinks – lit into community managers in a Google+ post on Monday, calling the community manager role in free/open source software projects “a fraud and a farce.”
“Communities (real ones) have facilitators and leaders of various forms and stripes,” Seigo writes. “It’s OK if they get paid so they are able to spend the time and energy facilitating and leading, but they damn sure are not ‘managers of the community.’ They are accountable to the community, selected by the community, derive their influence from community consensus and can be replaced by the community at the community’s behest.
“Does that sound much like the free software ‘community managers’ you know?”
Well, since you asked, Aaron, it actually does sound like some “community managers” I know, but I define them not as bosses giving orders or “rock stars” to be adored. Maybe “community manager” is a bad term, but I define them as those who facilitate the process in making community-produced software and helping raise the bar of the project through inspiring a committed and focused community.
Admittedly, leadership of this kind is rare in many FOSS projects, but it does exist in others.
The post is worth a read, not only for the points Aaron makes — many of them right on the money — but also for the comments, which are both thought provoking and entertaining.
Merger? Not likely: Recently the head of IT at Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court told the LibreOffice conference that OpenOffice and LibreOffice should throw off their differences and unite — a digital “kumbaya” that will create a force to be reckoned with by proprietary office suites.
Daniel Brunner, the Swiss Supreme Court’s top IT guy, is welcome to dream.
Joinup, a site reporting on interoperability solutions for public administrators, featured an article about Brunner’s comments. Drawing on the experience that Brunner’s office has using OO.o on 460 computers in the Supreme Court’s offices in Bern.
In the article, Brunner does point out a couple of advantages and disadvantages to both OO.o and LO, and his experience with both, though he uses one professionally, is one where his opinions on the matter are valid.
But perhaps he is missing the wider picture.
What wider picture? Putting aside for a moment the differences in the licenses, a merger would not be good for either entity now that the fork has taken each on a different path. Clearly LibreOffice and the public using it has nothing to gain by any sort of merger, and the suits at IBM and Oracle would prefer not to have a merger since their goal for quite some time has been to allow the inclusion of proprietary modules into OO.o and offering it as a value-add to their stacks.
So that’s where we stand: A nice pipe dream, but the reality is that they are now too far apart, philosopically, to become one unit. Interestly enough, that’s OK, too — with the maturity of both projects, especially that of LO, there may not be a need to join forces.
One more thing: Matt Hartley nails it on Chrome vs. Linux in his Datamation column on Tuesday. Matt points out the similarities and differences in both and makes some poignant arguments regarding why either — and both — should be focused on different markets, though they could bump heads in the desktop market, and how both are horrid at marketing, though ChromeOS has the benefit of Google marketing money — metric tons of it. He also draws a very interesting conclusion.
It’s a good read, and if your weekend is anything like mine, it will involve a lot of reading.
Larry Cafiero, a.k.a. Larry the Free Software Guy, is a journalist and a Free/Open Source Software advocate. He is involved in several FOSS projects and serves as the publicity chair for the Southern California Linux Expo. Follow him on Twitter: @lcafiero
As a Linux user since the mid-nineties, I have to admit I’m growing increasingly disenchanged with the fixation on “community”. (In a broad sense, it’s one element in the mix of infighting and partisanship that seems to always characterize FOSS. It’s increasingly tiresome.)
I wonder if the attention focused on “community” by developers like Seigo really does *me* any good.
My interest in all of this, frankly, is the creation of better software for me.
I know I’ve never seen myself as a member of any community. I’m just using software. These communities, and the navel-gazing that surrounds them, seem to me to be developer-only phenomena.
No necessary connection exists between the perceived health and happiness of any developer community — the FOSS version or the folks in cubicles in Redmond and Cupertino — and the creation of better software for users. That’s because no real feedback loop exists between users and developers. At least, any loop that delivers feedback that compels developers to alter course. The commercial world has cash, and as compelling as money can be, even there developers pretty obviously often crank out products that turn users off. FOSS has little besides unvetted online noise.
I think Aaron Seigo hit the nail on the head.
joncr – There are developers and projects that DO listen to their users to develop better software. Those are real communities.
Unlike the pseudo-communities created by corporate spin where users are led around by a ‘community manager’. There users have no real influence on developer’s direction. Sound familiar? It should. Canonical and Red Hat are both guilty of this to varying degrees. See: Unity, systemd, pulseaudio, Gnome 3.
“There users have no real influence on developer’s direction. Sound familiar? It should. Canonical and Red Hat are both guilty of this to varying degrees. See: Unity, systemd, pulseaudio, Gnome 3.”
Unity is very much Canonical development. However, Red Hat control neither systemd, nor pulseaudio nor Gnome 3 development. That quote above only highlights a serious misinformation within individual using FOSS. It becomes rather hypocritical to blame company that heavily contributes to FOSS, give freedom to other coming with ideas yet receives so much bashing. That description is akin of armchair person whining yet do nothing to propose an alternative.
Without systemd, the state of Linux system will remain in disarray still using the fragmented method notably Sysvint that even UNIX systemd got rid a while ago. Be in mind systemd has over 500 contributions unmatched from other inits since moving beyond that phase.
Without pulseaudio, the Linux audio system will still remain bug fest and undiscovered inside ALSA, messy with fragmented solution and unable to use modern technologies like audio Bluetooth, audio USB to name a few. Nearly a majority of distribution adopt pulseaudio since then.
Gnome Shell aimed for modern approach, extensible as displayed by the classic. Granted some issues happened with the lack of proper documentation but Gnome Shell break free from the legacy desktop layout i.e. Windows 95 interface.
Keep blaming others than oneself for issue and lack of proper communication (swearing, insult, threatening, etc) while doing nothing hardly help to the advance of modernisation of Linux system.
Finalzone – regarding: systemd, pulseaudio, Gnome 3
You pretty much proved my point. Calling me names and trying to discredit me by implying I am simply whining and doing nothing to help improve Linux (without any evidence to support that point of view) shows exactly what people who are opposed to these corporate takeovers of Linux development are up against. You are obviously part of the problem. Do everyone a favor and crawl back under your rock.
All three of those systems suck. I use alternatives, and I support those alternatives.
XFCE > Gnome 3 (XFCE is faster, easier to configure, has fewer dependencies, and isn’t tied to all the other systems with similar problems.)
ALSA > PulseAudio (ALSA has lower latency, doesn’t try to involve the entire network stack, etc.)
OpenRC > systemd (OpenRC works better. It doesn’t turn my system into a Windows clone: dependency hell ridden, rebooting all the time, unpredictable mess)
joncr – “My interest in all of this, frankly, is the creation of better software for me.”
Thank you for being frank. It’s good to be frank. Now we know who to not call if anything important needs doing. We know you’ll be too busy looking for better software.
I know this might be a difficult concept for you, but some people do care about things beyond their own self-interest. At least you’ve done them the favor of saving their time when there’s work to be done. Frankly, thank you.
Mike, have to agree that XFCE has provided a safe haven for many KDE 4 – Gnome 3 refugees. Thanks for the tip on OpenRC as a replacement for the suspicious systemd. I’ll check it out.
I see where you are coming from. When pointing out your own attitude and your misinformation, that is become a name calling. That post highlights the core problem from someone when anyone disagree with an opinion is consideried labelling.
It appears the comment has nothing to do with the technical aspect but the emotion. Look how you reacted when correcting you about some information. You are free to use tools for your need but you should not make a false claim about some stuff.
Your comment suggests you use Gentoo with your own custom configuration then vents when one of new software breaks it. Care to explain how Greg Kroah-Hartman who is one of Gentoo users has no problem with either software.
There would be many benefits to LibreOffice from the merger. The biggest is that they’d get a more well-known brand, more money, and most importantly, more people to fix bugs and improve the code. It would also make it easier for users who try to share documents, plugin creators, people who want to write documentation, etc.
Furthermore, Oracle currently has nothing to do with Apache OpenOffice. In addition, IBM could build proprietary additions to LibreOffice. I can’t speak for the rest of the article, but the LibreOffice section of it is mistaken.
@ Keith Curtis Your points are well taken. However, your point that “IBM could build proprietary additions to LibreOffice” is true the way that it’s worded, but fails to tell the whole story.
OpenOffice is released using the Apache license, which means that IBM if free to take the code, make changes, add features, increase stability, etc. and then release the whole package and make it proprietary — much like Apple has done using BSD to create OS X and iOS. LibreOffice, on the other hand, is released under the GPL, which means IBM might be able to build proprietary add ons, but they couldn’t release the whole kit and kaboodle in proprietary shrink wrap.
Also, LibreOffice wouldn’t really gain anything on the development front by merging with OOo. OOo has relatively few active developers when compaired to LibreOffice. And the development team as a whole at LibreOffice is much more experienced working on the LibreOffice/Open Office code base, since many of them have years and years of experience working on the project. Some of the LibreOffice developers have been helping develop the suite since it was the proprietary software suite called Star Office.
It is true that IBM has more possibilities to make a proprietary product with the Apache license. However, there are plenty of possibilities with LibreOffice because it is loose copyleft, which is a quite reasonable compromise. I don’t see IBM currently doing anything with AOO that they couldn’t do with LibreOffice. They are mostly just trying to keep AOO afloat. One even wonders whether IBM considers such a proprietary fork a good idea anymore given that they made free all their code from Symphony. And why is this website endorsing ideas that might (possibly) be good for IBM, but bad for everyone else?
LibreOffice would gain more than one might think for two reasons.
1. Much of the work that Apache OpenOffice is doing they would get for free from LibreOffice, because someone has already done it, and so they could work on other things. This would make the AOO team perhaps twice as effective as they currently are.
2. There are a lot of volunteers who were interested in helping Apache OpenOffice, and yet have left over time. If the AOO volunteers had joined a combined LibreOffice team, it is more likely they would have stayed because it has a better community and better tools: http://mmohrhard.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/why-i-contribute-my-changes-to-libreoffice-and-wont-relicense-them-to-a-non-copyleft-license/
It not a good idea to use failure as a reason to continue.
The core AOO team is a good one, they would definitely be helpful to LibreOffice. Many of them have more than 10 years of experience! And again, their skills would be put to better use in LibreOffice.
@Keith I think that Open Office is a lost cause. LibreOffice has picked up the mantle and they’re the future of free and open source office suites. Any good developers with Open Office are free to contribute to LibreOffice. Just saying…
You seem to be claiming I took unneeded offense and responded emotionally rather than technically.
Firstly, looking at the last paragraph of your first response, there is no way to read it other than as an insult.
Secondly, I provided specific technical reasons why those systems are garbage to me. You ignored that as it clearly doesn’t fit your agenda.
You continue to make baseless assumptions about me: Now you have decided I run a custom Gentoo and “vent when one of new software breaks it”. You should really stop trying to pigeonhole me, as you are only making a fool of yourself. At the same time you are acknowledging the breakage these systems cause (and there is a lot of it)…but that isn’t the message you want to send, is it.
In a bizarre attempt to have me defend my position, you ask me to explain why Greg Kroah-Hartman “has no problem with either software”. Why should it matter to me, you, or anyone, what he approves or disapproves of? For example: Lots of people use (and some even like) Windows. That doesn’t mean it is good or that I want to use it. Appealing to authority and saying “Look, so-and-so likes it, it must be OK!” is exactly what corporations do to push their shit on everybody else.
Windows is crap. Gnome 3 is crap. Systemd is crap. Pulseaudio is crap. All those things have a lot in commom but, like a good little marketing pawn, I’m certain you will keep defending them. Unfortunately for you, some of us know better.
Do you think Linux on the desktop is a lost cause? Last I saw, it was about 1%. We were discussing whether something should happen, not what will happen. We are humans, the future is not decided yet.
It is a lot easier to merge AOO and LibreOffice than it is to merge a bicycle with a television. Of course sometimes things are lost causes, but many times the mindset is self-fulfilling.
It matters if volunteers’ efforts are being wasted. IBM’s money is valuable. The OpenOffice brand is far from worthless. The biggest reason to end the fork is because it is a waste to build another brand name. Imagine if Ford decided to rename themselves to Bhatavita 😉
Many good developers of OpenOffice can’t contribute to LibreOffice because they have been hired by IBM. They are fighting between each other and working inefficiently.
LibreOffice would be a lot better off today if the AOO fork had never been created. It is hard to imagine alternative realities, but I can definitely say that LibreOffice is far from universal in every school and government. Until that happens, it is worth continuing to recommend the fork end. In fact, that reality might not ever happen without ending the fork. You talk about “the future of free and open source suites” as if LibreOffice are a success like Firefox and Wikipedia. They are far from that.
Libre Office and AOO will never combine. The LO team have made it a big point to differentiat themselves in the LO code base by emphasizing Python useage from what I’ve read. They’ve made themselves as unpleasant to use as MS Office. I will continue to use AOO. I prefer having a frame to write in. I prefer not to have marching ants around a selectin in Calc that requires extra effort to get rid of. Those are user issues and will, by themselves, keep me on AOO. I HATE marching ants around a range selection!!!! I much prefer AOO’s simple background color indication. And I despise those stupid little perpendicular line thingys they use rather than a frame to do my writing.
Long live personal CHOICE in the marketplace!
How do you know LibreOffice and AOO will never combine? Are you a VIP at IBM? That mindset is like the person who feels overweight and thinks they will never be thin, and so doesn’t even try.
I think it would be easy to merge. Maybe you think it will never happen because you don’t understand what could take place, or what the benefits would be.
AOO supports Python as well. That won’t be a problem. LibreOffice still supports Java, but it is preferring Python for internal uses because it is a superior language with better free libraries.
I don’t see the marching ants around selections in Calc, but maybe it is because I’m still running 4.2.6. It would be less than 50 lines of code to make it a configurable checkbox in the options dialog. There are many ways to provide choice other than creating a fork.
Choice is a good idea, but there are downsides of the current situation: for example, did you know that LO has many features in ODF and DOCX support that simply won’t work in AOO? This is a much bigger problem than the marching ants you complain about because it involes loss of user data.
There is plenty of personal CHOICE in the marketplace today: there is also TeX, Calligra, AbiWord, Kingsoft Office, Google Docs, Microsoft Office, etc.
Take my last paragraph as insult as you want, the way you reacted only expose your own inner problem.
“Secondly, I provided specific technical reasons why those systems are garbage to me. You ignored that as it clearly doesn’t fit your agenda.”
My agenda is simple, point out your own mistake and expose your blind hatred.
Shall I start with these technical arguments you posted:
“XFCE > Gnome 3 (XFCE is faster, easier to configure, has fewer dependencies, and isn’t tied to all the other systems with similar problems.)”
XFCE is based on the legacy GTK2 which contained depreciated elements no longer present in GTK3. Gnome Shell is a part of Gnome 3. In term configuration, the existance of Gnome Classic which is the default in Red Hat Enterprise Linux invalidated the configuration as handicap.
“ALSA > PulseAudio (ALSA has lower latency, doesn’t try to involve the entire network stack, etc.)”
So has PulseAudio, a sound server, considering its use of ALSA.
“OpenRC > systemd (OpenRC works better. It doesn’t turn my system into a Windows clone: dependency hell ridden, rebooting all the time, unpredictable mess)”
OpenRC is nothing more a SysVinit on steroid insisting on still using scripts and executable configuration files. No wonder it did not get a wild adoption because SysVinit has been on dead list for more than 20 years within Linux ecosystem itself.
“[…]. At the same time you are acknowledging the breakage these systems cause (and there is a lot of it)…but that isn’t the message you want to send, is it.”
The quote is based on your own example of using ALSA, XFCE and OpenRC. You are right that I assumed too much on that part. Software break meaning all of them including ALSA, XFCE and OpenRC from your own example.
“Windows is crap. Gnome 3 is crap. Systemd is crap. Pulseaudio is crap. All those things have a lot in commom but, like a good little marketing pawn, I’m certain you will keep defending them. Unfortunately for you, some of us know better.”
Then it is your opinion. About Windows (I personnally think it is a frankeinstein system with its insane space requirement), some of ideas turned out useful notably the sound server, of course Windows 8 was disaster but some ideas are copied and improved on other environments, funny that some of you still use Windows paradigm interface. Gnome Shell, a breath of fresh for the Linux desktop environment keeping improving. Systemd, at last a system daemon for Linux kernel got more adoption.
“…expose your blind hatred.”
There you go making assumptions about me again. Now I am going to make one about you: You are a blind fanboy, or a corporate drone (perhaps both) and desperate to prevent anything from tarnishing the image of your beloved products.
My dislike for systemd, gnome 3 and pulseaudio come from INFORMED CHOICE, not hatred. However, your attempted defense of those systems has practically nothing in they way of technical content, and is mostly empty handwaving.
You want some more? Here:
Systemd suffers from a fundamentally flawed design. It will always be a neverending source of stability and security issues because it tries to stuff too much into PID 1. It can not be fixed and should be scrapped. Take a look at the issues that have already been cropped up if you don’t believe me. It should never be used in a system where long term stability is needed, or where security is even mildly important; which is everywhere.
Pulseaudio adds unneeded overhead making it near useless for audio processing requiring very low latency…and Windows has perhaps the worst audio system of any OS, so I wouldn’t want to use it as a model for anything. If you are suggesting pulseaudio was modeled after the audio system in Windows (it sort of sounds like that), then I’d say that explains a lot about why it is garbage.
Gnome 3 suffers from the same “stuff everything into a big unusable ball of crap” strategy that systemd and pulseaudio suffer from. Eliminating configurability was perhaps its primary mistake, but certainly not the only one.
The dependencies each of these pieces of software have on each other and the increased dependencies being planned (udev requiring systemd is an example) reveals the untrustworthy nature of these projects, just as your continued insistence on proving me wrong in my dislike for these particular products reveals yours.
> calling the community manager role in free/open source software projects “a fraud and a farce.”
I’ve said this for years, but no-one noticed or cared until it was said by “someone of value”. Meh.
The “community” isn’t a community at all, it’s a collection of people all working on selfish goals few of which are the betterment of the community as a whole, but what do I know.
“There you go making assumptions about me again. Now I am going to make one about you: You are a blind fanboy, or a corporate drone (perhaps both) and desperate to prevent anything from tarnishing the image of your beloved products.”
You have successfully made assumption without realizing it. I am flattered of being called a corporate drone.
“My dislike for systemd, gnome 3 and pulseaudio come from INFORMED CHOICE, not hatred.[…]”
The choice of being ill-informed and intentionally ignoring that Red Hat control neither GNOME, PulseAudio and systemd?
“Systemd suffers from a fundamentally flawed design. It will always be a neverending source of stability and security issues because it tries to stuff too much into PID 1”
Do you talk about systemd as software bundle or the init daemon? About the stability and security, care to explain its uses in enterprise environment and mobile industry.
“Pulseaudio adds unneeded overhead making it near useless for audio processing requiring very low latency…”
You reach professional audio level, in that case JACK fills the bill. PulseAudio has no problem using JACK for much lower latency. It seems your information is outdated being valid to older version of PulseAudio. I am running an updated Fedora 21 with PulseAudio and JACK Audio for your information so I failed to see the problem.
“and Windows has perhaps the worst audio system of any OS, so I wouldn’t want to use it as a model for anything.”
Windows 7+ audio systems are actually decent. Vista came with the idea of sound control per application.
” If you are suggesting pulseaudio was modeled after the audio system in Windows (it sort of sounds like that), […]”
You just made that assumption.
“Gnome 3 suffers from the same “stuff everything into a big unusable ball of crap” strategy that systemd and pulseaudio suffer from. Eliminating configurability was perhaps its primary mistake, but certainly not the only one”
Care to explain about dconf, tweak tools and extensions when it comes to configuration? Gnome 3.14 got GTK Inspector.
“The dependencies each of these pieces of software have on each other and the increased dependencies being planned (udev requiring systemd is an example) ”
systemd depends on udev not vice versa. Most pieces within systemd as software bundle are optional suitable for different needs.
I’m done arguing with you since I don’t think you know what you are talking about.
However, I will leave you with one last thing:
I am so glad you said this: “systemd depends on udev not vice versa. Most pieces within systemd as software bundle are optional suitable for different needs.”
Now I will provide some information correcting you. A quote from Lennart Poettering from Red Hat made earlier this year (original link – http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html ):
“Also note that at that point we intend to move udev onto kdbus as
transport, and get rid of the userspace-to-userspace netlink-based
tranport udev used so far. Unless the systemd-haters prepare another
kdbus userspace until then this will effectively also mean that we will
not support non-systemd systems with udev anymore starting at that
point. Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call.
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat”
So udev will indeed depend on systemd…by design. If you don’t see a problem with that, then there is no hope for you. Red Hat may not completely own those projects, but they have de facto control of them. I stand by my original post that those are not open projects in the sense that many others are.
I’m not bothered by the split between AOO & LibreOffice. I consider AOO as the “reference implementation” of the ODF specification, which like many other reference implementations is able to be appropriated by others as needed. LibreOffice serves a different purpose. Granted, a reference implementation is also free to be mis-appropriated by any 3-letter pretend-tech company that wants to, but such is life.
You might not be bothered by the split by AOO & LibreOffice, just like you might not care if baby seals get clubbed, but do understand that this wasteful fork is a good example of the free software community shooting itself in the foot.
You might “consider” AOO to be the reference implementation, but the LibreOffice people would tell you they consider their version to be it: http://mmohrhard.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/why-i-contribute-my-changes-to-libreoffice-and-wont-relicense-them-to-a-non-copyleft-license/
However, I will leave you with one last thing:
“[…]So udev will indeed depend on systemd…by design. If you don’t see a problem with that, then there is no hope for you. Red Hat may not completely own those projects, but they have de facto control of them. I stand by my original post that those are not open projects in the sense that many others are.”
Udev functions will be in kdbus once it becomes part of the kernel. Systemd will switch to that dependancy instead of the standalone udev to avoid duplicity and redundancy. Once again, you inteprated the mailing list post to suit your own opinion rather than looking at the real context.
It is a shame your hatred toward Red Hat, argually the latest contributor to FOSS, clouds your judgements so you can look at the rationale.
I didn’t interpret that post to suit my opinion, I simply read what was there: udev is being altered to work only with systemd. You can keep changing your arguments and re-wording things as you like, but you can not alter reality.
It is interesting how you are so desperate to paint me as possessing blind hatred clouding all my judgments. Nothing like an ad hominem attack to paint anyone who disagrees with you as unreasonable, eh? You know nothing about me, yet you’ve made assumption after assumption in an attempt to…what? Do damage control? If you are a representative of Red Hat, you are a very poor one. Frankly you strike me as an uneducated asshole with a poor English skills.
systemd currently depends on udev so how the latter be made to work on the former? kdbus,the new dependancy for systemd which will be part of the kernel, basically integrates all udev tasks hence the decision to drop its standalone to avoid duplication of work. That is how I read the mailing list from Poettering. Still wanting to use udev, the source is still available but do not expect support on kbus enabled kernels.
I only point out your assumption and your excessive obsession of despiting a company like Red Hat. Your accusation made me laugh when it fact you are the one who post such misinformation and feel upset when being corrected.
For your information, English is my second language. I speak at least three so your favorite asshole is at honest as he can be. Can you do better than that? Keep on insulting and you already successfully made a fool of yourself. Beside, I thought that was the last message for me. You are too easy.
You continue assuming you know how I feel, and you continue to get it wrong.
The big question is why do you have such a problem with my CHOICE not to use products I don’t like.
I’ve yet to see you correct anything I’ve said with actual information instead of systemd / Red Hat propaganda. You do this at the same time you claim one has nothing to do with the other. In other words, you keep spewing nonsense.
kdbus is only the kernel piece. udev still represents the non-trivial userspace potion of those functions. Its absorbtion into systemd and Poettering’s plans to make it depend on systemd are one thing among many I have a problem with. Yes the source is available and I fully expect to see a non-systemd implementation of userspace kdbus which I will gladly use to avoid systemd.
I don’t care how many languages you speak. I happen to speak multiple languages as well, but who cares.
call assumption as you want. What you did is attempt of spreading fear, doubt and uncertainity. I get your dislike to anything related to Red Hat but excessive dislike cloud your judgement.
“I’ve yet to see you correct anything I’ve said with actual information instead of systemd / Red Hat propaganda. ”
displayed your own problem, excessive obsession and lack of logics and rationale. The fear of GPL software like PulseAudio and systemd just because they were made by a Red Hat employee exposed your own complex. You basically ignore non-Red Hat contributors and that is your problem. That explains why you are unable to see what other tried to show you, your own attitude.
“kdbus is only the kernel piece. ”
A piece of kernel made by the original udev developer who also share works with both systemd creators. That piece systemd will depend on in a future.
“Yes the source is available and I fully expect to see a non-systemd implementation of userspace kdbus which I will gladly use to avoid systemd.”
Be glad Poettering has the honesty to warn Gentoo developers about the incoming change so they can start coding and carrying the modification. You are free to avoid systemd but be prepared to deal with the reality when industry will mandate it.
“I don’t care how many languages you speak. I happen to speak multiple languages as well, but who cares.”
You do because you insulted my English knowing that even native speaking language made mistakes.
> “You are free to avoid systemd but be prepared to deal with the reality when industry will mandate it.”
No company can control what I run on my computer. I will continue to support projects which provide alternatives to those pieces of junk.
Comments are closed.