On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 07:15:38PM +0100, Ludovic Meyer wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:29:24PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 03:48:34PM +0100, Ludovic Meyer wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 09:41:23PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > > > As much as I dislike systemd, I'm not sure that it's a vendor > > > > conspiracy to "control the Linux ecosystem." Yes, redhat pays > > > > Lennart Poettering's salary (among others). But... I'm hard pressed > > > > to see how turning a collection of free distros into functional > > > > equivalent's of redhat, or increasing the resources applied to free > > > > distros, is really to their benefit. If anything, it would seem to > > > > dilute the competitive advantage of paid RHEL. > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it's more a matter of one, prima donna > > > > developer, who has the advantage of a salary, who has a vision and > > > > design philosophy that he's promoting in a very aggressive and > > > > single minded way. And he's very overt about it. (Somebody posted > > > > an email from Poettering last week saying, roughly, 'first we're > > > > going to get kdbus into the kernel, then we're going to make udev > > > > depend on it, and then everyone will have to eat systemd to get > > > > udev.' As I recall, the message closed with 'gentoo, be warned.') > > > > > > > > I figure this is more a case of redhat management not wanting to > > > > tick off valued prima donna, and maybe seeing what he's doing as a > > > > contribution to the open source community (to date, redhat has been > > > > pretty good about contributing to the community in lots of different > > > > ways). Still, if I were in their shoes, I'd be trying to reign the > > > > guys in. > > > > > > Why would the management of a external company care about what > > > happen in Debian ? > > > > Because Debian is upstream for several critical RHEL parts, such as > > shadow (passwd, useradd and friends). > > 1 ( ie shadow-utils ) is not "several".
Google is your friend. Sorry, could not resist. > And by having a critical look at your affirmation, RH is paying a lot > of upstreams contributors for several critical Debian part : > - glibc Not as of Wheezy. Wheezy uses eglibc. And, while we're on topic of glibc - RedHat isn't writing new 'Modern' libc to replace an old one. Yet. Next few years we may see systemd-libc if things go as they're going now. > - gcc A GNU project. Not a RedHat pet. > - util-linux-ng A kernel.org project. Not a RedHat pet again. > - kernel A joint project, controlled by Torvalds & co. RedHat is one of the few who's playing a major role there, true. But that role was not enough to push the most controversial features (kdbus, for example) into the mainline. > - udevd Yup. You nailed that one if we consider latest udev development. It took a merging into systemd to became that way. Keep shooting, and you may score a couple of more hits ;) > to name a few. I could name a few non critical stuff, from gnome, openjdk. GNOME is can be considered to be controlled by RedHat indeed. OpenJDK - please. Java is Oracle's turf, not a RedHat one. RedHat invented their own Ceylon language just because of that fact. > So I am not sure that your point is valid. Given the size of Redhat, > I also suspect that having someone working on shadow-utils wouldn't be a > problem. Judging by > SEC fillings, public information, there is around 6900 people. > 1 more coder is not a stretch at all. No doubt this number includes a small army of corporate drones, janitors and security guys. Do you have any estimate on a number of real developers in Red Hat? > > And, curiously enough, systemd's > > goal is to replace those parts (see "Revisiting How We Put Together Linux > > Systems" at http://0pointer.net/blog ). > > Apparently, management doesn't like to be left out of control :) > > This is free software, there is no way to be left out of control. For a fellow developer - sure, there's no way to be out of loop as long as said developer plays by upstream rules. > That's the whole point of the movement, provided you can code of course. > A lot of people seems to totally forget that point. But for a typical management drone - it seems we're both agree that there's such a way. All it takes is inability to code. So my point is simple. You mix a few really good developers and an army of managers. That's a modern RedHat. > > > And of course, another distribution = testing a product for free. > > I wonder how, since Debian is lagging so much behind that even > RHEL 7 is released with systemd. By reading users' bug reports. RHEL has a limited choice of prebuilt software, therefore a limited number of usecases. Besides, RHEL7 is supported until 2024 (IIRC). There's plenty room for small improvements. > I wonder even why they > still have jobs posting for QA people if all is needed is to have users of > others distributions. I haven't imply that offloading beta-testing to the community mutually exclusive with internal testing :) > > > People keep wanting the project to be free of corporate influence, but > > > it seems that some wouldn't be against having a bit of corporate > > > influence if the > > > influence was in the way they want.. > > > > > > > Given that RHEL's main selling points are enterprise > > > > capabilities, quality control, and (for the government market) > > > > security accreditation and lots of support, I'd much rather see > > > > diversity and weak code spread across competing distributions. > > > > > > Canonical was criticized for keeping their code for their ( mir, unity ), > > > and Redhat would be criticized for not keeping the code only for them. > > > > No. RedHat is criticized for pushing their code to everyone and their > > dog. > > People keep saying that, but none show no conclusive proof. Just stating > it doesn't make it true. And it doesn't resist simple inquiry such as: > > "if they wanted to push it everywhere, why would it be non portable to > BSD ?" Because BSD 'market share' is irrelevant at RedHat's turf. See AT&T vs BSDi case dated '92. And, of course, writing a non-portable code is much easier than a portable one ;) > We go back to criticize everything that happen, that's getting old. > And kinda poisonous, looking at the people leaving TC or Debian or > maintainership. People leaving Debian's TC is a sad thing to me too. But I don't read debian-devel to have my own opinion for the reasons of leaving. All I see that DD's that actively promoted systemd in the past are leaving now. If I had the mood I'd even came up with some kind of crazy conspiracy theory. > > > And it started way before systemd (dbus, hal and pulseaudio to > > name a few). At least Canonical keeps their 'innovations' to themselves > > last time. > > So you agree with me. > If you share, you are criticized, if you don't, you are criticized. They say they don't judge the winners. Last few years Canonical cannot be considered to be one. > > > I guess there is no good way for a company to make free software that > > > change something in the core of existing ecosystem. > > > > Take a look at IBM, Oracle and Novell, you may reconsider your statement. > > I fail to see what did they tried to change in the core ecosystem exactly. So, judging by your next points, you have no objections against IBM. > Oracle is attacked by everyone for the stewardship leading to forks on mysql > and openoffice, among others. They even alienated their own community on > solaris. And every time one's using rpm-based distribution one's using Oracle-controlled BerkleyDB. And Oracle's own Chris Mason single-handenly wrote btrfs, now a favorite FreeDesktop toy. And of course, there's libaio, written by Oracle guys long time ago. > Novell was criticized for providing Mono, and providing software written in > mono > for gnome ( thus changing part of the core of Gnome ), and was criticized for > trying to get Microsoft working on interoperability. And, at the same time: Novell was THE Xen's leading distribution back in the old day. Novell was the company designed heartbeat. Considering mono as a 'change in the core ecosystem' is to stretching things a bit IMO :) > So sure, not changing anything in the core is the right way to avoid some > critics. Obviously, > haters still find their way, even when they have the choice. There's one thing that they fail to understand at RedHat - there's absolutely no need for the change to be disruptive. And haters - yes, haters gonna hate. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141117214113.GA28591@x101h
