On Tue 31 March 2015 10:10:28 Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> So here is my plea to stay to what you actually *really* perceive. Stop
> assuming intentions. Especially stop assuming bad intentions. I think that
> systemd developers essentially mean it good. They have no evil plans to
> take over the world or do harm to others. Instead they believe that what
> they do is worthwhile.
>
> Of course its totally and perfectly okay not to agree with that.

While I generally agree with the reasoning of your post, I still feel to point
out that it is not only OK but actually PC and mandatory to question the
motivations and goals of those who introduce a new idea or concept. Otherwise
you're always late and only can react on the fallout (intentionally ambiguous
wording). When I read terms like "cancer" and "infect" then I don't only
relate them to the binary on my system but also to the social aspects of the
whole issue that you mentioned (distro maintainers all too cheerfully adopting
systemd, lots of fanboys claiming linux never really worked before systemd
came along, and generally the idea that freedom would mean some company can
take the joint effort of generations of developers into a new direction decided
upon by only a dozen of members of systemd cabal¹ ), and I think in that
context those terms describe pretty accurately what's happening.
Regarding any master plans behind systemd: they are less obvious to some than
they are to others, but it seems there been sound arguments that - no matter
if intentional or not, planned or not - systemd movement *will* actually
*implement* a drastically changed "ecosystem" that looks much favorable for RH
and takes away freedom of general linux community. What's the use in trying to
refrain from blaming RH for *intentionally* trying to 'achieve world dominion'
when actually what systemd cabal does is evidently establishing exactly that,
at least long term?

/j

¹ http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html