It stops being funny when you're adding legal treads.

I used to believe in Santa.

EDIT: This is way out of topic, start a new one if you wish to discuss legal stuff (simply mentioning "prior-art" already shows your lack of understanding).

The topic is "The mass exodus if Slackware uses Systemd". So technical every post that doesn't specifically talk about "the mass exodus" is off-topic.

However I think the general consensus is that the topic is systemd and issues that could affect Slackware.

Since your are publicly proclaiming your expertise, why don't you enlighten us. Are you saying that there is an engineering process that has investigated possible patent conflicts with systemd? Because if not and systemd is the subject of a lawsuit, that would surely affect Slackware.

I give up. Discussing systemd is just not worth the aggravation. Unsubscribing.

2 members found this post helpful.

I don't think there is a single piece of non-trivial software that doesn't infringe on multiple US patents. Until systemd (or any other open source software) actually does get sued, a hypothetical discussion is pointless.

Well I suppose there is no one here that can answer the question in the Slackware forum. However, its not hypothetical and its not pointless, patent discovery is usually part of the design phase. So systemd is way past that. I guess it would be incredibly stupid if they didn't investigate this, and LP seems pretty smart so its probably a moot point.

1 members found this post helpful.

I won't be leaving Slackware any time soon. Nor would I consider it just because systemd/PAM/Gnome/etc was integrated into it. Part of it is my trust in Pat and his team, but it certainly isn't blind trust. I research things that I am unsure on and make my own decisions on whether something controversial would end my use of something. There was a similar explosion on the forum when Slackware moved from KDE 3 to 4 and when Gnome was dropped. There will constantly be change in the Linux world, and there is little we, as end-users, can do about it.

I actually welcome many of the features of systemd, even if I hate the way they're introduced or tied in with something else. Faster start-up times? Heck yes! Do I think that Slackware's init is slow and obsolete? No, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't welcome methods that lead to shortened boot times. And I am one who will easily have 100+ days of uptime. Just because I don't restart/shutdown my computer frequently doesn't mean I wouldn't mind it starting up faster.

Easier to manage services? Sure! Yes, I like the straightforward ability to use rc scripts and rc.local to run my services on my computer that I need, but setting up your own rc.whatever can sometimes be a little troublesome. The simplicity in setting up a system service with systemd is a stark difference to what can sometimes be a complex rc script (like with sickbeard -- I had to write in logic to close the service if the curl command to the website doesn't actually shutdown the program).

Easier networking if you don't want to run wicd or networkmanager? For any who have configured a wireless network to autoconnect to a WPA secured network early enough in the start-up so that network services are available when mounting network filesystems, the possibility of making this easier would certainly be nice.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think anything in Slackware is broken, but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement (otherwise why would we get new Slackware versions?). And I'm not for systemd, but I'm for a lot of the features they are bringing to the table even if I dislike how they are going about bringing these features, but that doesn't make me not want them. They are deliberately trying to bring together a lot of services that don't necessarily need to be brought together and they are trying to lock out anybody who has a system different to theirs (not to mention introducing binary logfiles *shudder*). I think that is wrong and goes against the very essence of what Linux is and what it has accomplished over the years. I'm not going to spew the usual Unix thing of one program to do one thing, because, frankly, I think too many people rely on that like a crutch when it hasn't been the case in years. That phrase shouldn't be taken literally by anyone nowadays. I think there was a post from someone earlier on a convoluted way to play an mp3 on the commandline with pipes and redirects that followed the "approach" of a program doing one thing at one time. It was a mess and quite difficult. There is quite a benefit to doing multiple things with one program (to a certain extent).

I'd rather have my word processor have a spell checker rather than me following the strict compliance of that saying and have the word processor and the spell checker be two different programs. I'd like to be able to make music playlists with the same program I use to play my music. I'd like the web browser to be able to both browse the web and download files. I like being able to sort my tables in my spreadsheet without needing to use the sort program. There is a certain level of programs doing multiple things that is acceptable and even recommended. But, I think systemd takes this way too far and is trying to do too many things at once and while doing so, it is explicitly trying to prevent any sort of competition. If competition is stifled, you end up with the possibility of becoming the next IE6.

But, if Slackware eventually moves to systemd, whether it is forced due to requirements from other programs, or even if it eventually wins over Pat and the rest of the team, I wouldn't be leaving Slackware because of it. I'll be happy for the benefits it provides while I'll begrudgingly deal with the things I don't like (just like with the transition from KDE 3 to 4). Either way, it certainly isn't enough to make me leave Slackware.

6 members found this post helpful.

I will say that scripting rc.d services can be a pain, but you have control.

I've used systemd on other distros for two years; I think there's a lot to like about it (and it is reliable at least) but don't think it will make your service problems go away. It isn't particularly consistent on startup dependencies; NFS and network are good example.

If a systemd unit file isn't working, you're stuck unless it's a known problem/solution pair; at least with shell scripts you can hack your way out of it (as admins have been doing for years!). This wouldn't be so bad, but Lennart doesn't particularly care.

1 members found this post helpful.

That's what I'm saying... there is room for improvement. Not just with Slackware, but everywhere. I'm not saying that anything provided in systemd is the best implementation ever, just that there are things in Slackware that aren't necessarily the best/perfect way. I have no doubt that systemd's service manager will have its own quirks and issues that will need to be dealt with, just that there are benefits that the systemd service manager does provide.

It's the same thing that I don't think the way they accomplish the faster starting times are necessarily the best way, but that doesn't mean I don't want faster start times, even if I only restart my computer once every year or so when I update Slackware.

1 members found this post helpful.

Substitute systemd with <favourite software> in the above sentences. Compared to before, are the above statements now more objectionable or just as objectionable as they were before?

On the systemd mass exodus issue - I doubt it will happen. To me it just means configuring and using Slackware in a slightly different way. It's similar to upgrading any other OS - if something changes, I'll adapt.

1 members found this post helpful.

Has nothing to do with objectionable. Look, I don't know your background and you don't know mine. I work for a major fortune 500 company and believe me, we keep on top of patents and licenses. To do otherwise is to expose yourself to litigation. It took several years of analysis, by engineering groups and corporate lawyers just to get Linux in the door to be used in embedded systems. It was a major deal. Also if you recall the SCO fiasco and what happened when the non-tech company Autozone wound up on wrong side of a lawsuit. There are no winners in lawsuits. So given that background, its definitely a concern to anyone who sets up a server inside a corporation whether or not they are exposing the company to a lawsuit - and being coy about such issues in any large company will just get you in deep trouble.

But having said that, I've already conceded that since LP is working for RedHat, there is probably little doubt that RedHat lawyers have already been through this. And with IBM and Oracle in the mix with their Linux derivatives, there's likely enough legal review at this stage.

I hope that clarified my concern.


Shifting gears here, I see this is old but its pretty compelling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-97qqUHwzGM


.

Most companies tell software developers *not* to search for possible patent infringements since damages can be tripled if violated knowingly.

True, you did concede. I didn't think it was fair when you initially wrote "Who is making sure systemd isn't violating any patents" when it doesn't apply only to systemd.

No. They absolutely do not! Not unless its either a extremely stupid manager or they love being on the tail end of litigation. Either that or you're referring to companies outside the U.S., which I have no idea what happens in non-U.S. companies.

That's like saying most people who don't wear seat belts do so because they love the idea of being a paraplegic.

With respect to the original author's question, I think maybe a better question is in order, and possibly the one that should have been asked...

Would you leave Slackware if it abandoned it's founding principles?