https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/...hat_microsoft/

https://unixsheikh.com/articles/the-...d-systemd.html

Ok,

So you've found this site and are probably wondering what this is
about. Here's the skinny:

In the beginning, Linux was pretty cool. It was free (always a plus), had a rapid development cycle, a moderately knowledgeable user base, and a funny mascot.

Then the pinheads arrived.

I don't have an issue with Linux so much as the user base it attracts. More and more I'm reading about and experiencing what I like to refer to as the "dumbing down of Linux".

Now you may say, "Well this is to be expected... Hell, look at the Windows user base." Yes that's true, but the Windows user base doesn't claim to be "l337", a "hax0r", or anything of the sort. Linux users do and often.

I hope to to poke fun at, possibly educate, and clean up the Linux user base.

I have these simple beliefs:

1) The root partition should be small... painfully so.

2) /var is not for web servers or their content.

3) The kernel has one job: to keeping the system up, running and stable, not to serve web content - I don't care if it's faster from the kernel.

4) Really understanding IP and the applications built upon it is a requirement before you are "1337"

5.) Systemd is the svchost,exe of linux and mixing that with a unix-like system is philosophically mentally retarded.

6.) I don't care how fast something is, if it comes at the cost of security or stability it's stupid.

7.) *BSD is the way. (Free, Open, or Net - pick one)


Your Fearless Leader,
DracoSentien

It'd not so much as dumbing down and the hard is not being doing by the community itself but by monied interests which merely pose as or, through carelessness, are mistaken for community members. deIcaza, for example, was a microsofter from day one and his goal in life was to work for the Beast in Redmond and, failing that, copy whatever Windows did no matter how far behind it was and, failing that, simply break and render the GUI semi-usable. Poettering played his cards closer to his chest in regards to his employment goals but was quite clear about the damage he intended. The only mystery around his work is why so many technical people, like the Debian project's Technical Committee, or Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical's staff, to name two groups, went along with such an a-hole and his terrible ideas.

FreeBSD is certainly not immune either, but is more organized and structure so the subversion would require a different approach than just throwing random "help" at it. However, rest assured, the microsofters have been gnawing away at FreeBSD too. It's been a few years but you used to be able to spot your average FreeBSD developer at a conference because he/she was the one with the Windows laptop. :/ OpenBSD is a different matter because it is the only one with the extreme focus on quality code and documentation, that's the polar opposite of anyone who has been able to climb their way up in the hierarchy of microsofters. However, individual developers can be bought and with OpenBSD there is only a small number of developers and a smaller, even if less formal, core team.

The bigger problem is that of supply. There are few (perhaps not even one) institutions around Europe any more where students can learn proper CS basics with sound theory and certainly not supplementing that with some programming.

Globally the environment that created the Linux world has changed and then disappeared. It used to be off various interests radars. No more. Now control of any given project has become more important for outsiders than allowing the project to actually produce anything. Take a look at all the shills which clamored for removal of various leaders from their own projects, often using very disruptive, destructive, and aggressive methods.

I always keep BSD as my backup for when/if the 'Corporates' finally manage to take over Linux.

First it was OpenBSD, but the last 2 versions don't seem to like my hardware any more, so I am now running NetBSD, & thankfully, they have wifi working almost properly for me now, if a little bit iffy at times, (ver 9.3).

I have never liked the FreeBSD attitude, & found their implementation to always be bigger on disk than Open &/or Net, for the same basic setup; the less on disk, the less to go wrong, or offer a hacker/cracker, when online.

Dissenting opinion:

As Linux broke through into the corporate world, it became clear that it was hard to manage. Especially when you needed to manage perhaps hundreds of servers at a time. You need a consistent and centralized way to be able to do that from one location and console. Unix/Linux, with its "hodgepodge" of various text configuration files, really didn't have that at all. So, this is probably why "systemd" came about, and why companies like Red Hat in particular were really pushing the idea. They were pushing it because they needed it, as did their (largely, corporate) customers. For their needs, there was simply no way to put another band-aid on "init."

One of the key virtues of Microsoft Windows is that you can manage a "farm" of servers centrally. They have a single, central way to store configuration information. They have advanced tools, sold separately, for (mass ...) remote access and updates. (Yes, we are obliged to acknowledge when "the Evil Empire's" technologists design and then implement something very well ... and here, IMHO, they did.)

I'll dissent with your dissent.

GNU/Linux server farms have never been hard to manage. You had SSH plus shell scripts since the 1990s, if you had basic shell scripting competency. Then you quickly ended up with more complex product like rAdmind, Ansible, Puppet, Chef, and other orchestration tools. M$ was, as usual, a day late and a dollar short. Furthermore, with GNU/Linux one generally does not need hundreds of servers as the system is much more capable.

There was a heck of a lot of fighting and arguing about systemd during the initial phases of it being forced down everyone's throats. However, one thing one never heard from its proponents were technical reasons for 1) why it was needed and 2) how it improved anything. All the proponents brought to the game were name calling and appeal to novelty. The real reason for systemd seems to be that IBM took an interest in M$ dream of decommodifying Linux as per the attack outlined in Halloween Documents from 1998. And now, with the acquisition of Lennart, M$ seems to have achieved it's old goal of decommodifying GNU/Linux.

3 members found this post helpful.

Say what you like, but IMHO I have never regarded the so-called "Halloween Documents" as credible.

This is really not "a war to be won," because no single technology can possibly "win" it. Microsoft and Apple and IBM and Oracle and a great many others have all poured millions of dollars into the financial support of "open source" projects, and all of them have reaped benefits. Linux runs on far more hardware platforms than every other available operating system, and everywhere it runs in more-or-less the same way. In so doing, it fills a gap that could not otherwise be fulfilled in a financially-sustainable way. Virtually every device that we use today – including our cars – relies upon open-source technology and defies the arguments supposedly set forth in these "documents."

They Halloween Documents are really quite credible: 1) M$ acknowledged their authenticity, 2) M$ actions over the years have closely matched the strategy outlined there.

It is only a war as long as M$ exists. For the sake of argument we'll refer to it as a company, but it does not really behave like one. Anyway, prior to M$ there were a lot of software companies doing business successfully. There was also a good selection of operating systems. M$ pulled some really dirty tricks against IBM, which IBM appears not to have learned from, to eliminate OS/2: they promised to write applications for it to keep IBM from getting applications elsewhere, and then reneged on the contract at the 11th hour to ensure that there were no applications for OS/2. Instead, M$ had used all that time to secretly prepare those applications for Windows NT. BeOS was last closed source operating system which had a chance against M$ and even it could not "peacefully co-exist with Windows". M$ is the problem. Systemd was harnmful enough on its own, and now the most hostile entity in business basically owns it and controls the direction it goes.

2 members found this post helpful.

@Turbocapitalist: Perhaps the conditions that you have just described explain why "open source, Linux, and so forth" came to be as a viable and sustainable business proposition. The fundamental problem that was finally recognized, with regards to so-many otherwise worthy operating systems, word processors, and so forth was that they were closed.

The basic problem was simply: finances. The traditional financial model required you to carry the entire burden yourself. That turned out to be too much to bear: "software development is prohibitively expensive." The only viable strategy turned out to be to create "a rising tide lifts all boats," then to differentiate your market offerings above that.

Microsoft continues to be a strong contender – and, rightfully(!) so – because they offer many tightly-integrated software stacks which, by the by, "are damned good!" They earned their millions honestly. And, Microsoft Windows® is the foundation. So be it.

What all of this really has to do with "systemd," I really don't know.