Hi Jörg,

Am Dienstag, 31. März 2015, 10:40:14 schrieb Joerg Reisenweber:
> 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?

I do think the polarity which systemd triggers is way more *social* than
*technical*, as I outlined in a thread to systemd-devel I started in
September 2014[1]. So I agree with that.

Yet, I still do not think that any bad intentions are behind it. Sure,
there are intentions. But ultimately I do not *know* them. Yes, it seems
to me that systemd upstream developers have a different view on how a Linux
system should look like than what I am used to what it looks like. In
above thread at some time Lennart was calling me "Now you are being a
dick" instead of continuing the discussion, so I think there is a limited
acceptance for even discussing a different way to put Linux systems
together. And more so a total resistance to discuss and address any
*social* issues.

Yet, I do think genuinely systemd upstream developers believe that what
they do is good and worthwile for Linux (and not only RedHat).

I also do not agree that it is RedHat´s intention to take over Linux
completely. They can´t anyway. They just do not have the power to do it.
Sure, RedHat is the biggest commercial Linux distributor. Sure as such
entity I bet it has the goal to raise its profits even more. Sure also they
employ Lennart meanwhile and the drove systemd adoption.

But I do not think there are any bad or evil intentions or even any "we
are the only ones who decide what goes into Linux" intentions behind it.

On any account I do think that it is a *total waste of time* to speculate
about intentions. Every single moment, every single minute can be spend in
a more effective way on the goal of having a systemd free system instead.

So I stop this here now.




Its just that a part of the current Linux users and developers!, including
upstream kernel developers as I found out do not agree to this new way to
put a Linux system together. A part of the Linux users and developers may
also not agree with the way systemd upstream handles the feedback it
receives which is the social issue. And thats fine.

I do not think that any terms like cancer, infection or cabal are any
helpful there.


What I perceive as the most pressing social issue around systemd and
systemd upstream, but also partly systemd Debian packagers is the complete
refusal to treat some bug reports and some kind of feedback in a way that
actually *acknowledges* the feedback. See the "wont fix" on the Google
nameserver thing, see some systemd related bug reports on freedesktop, see
the comment on Linus to Kay Sievers about the debug kernel command line.
Linus put it really bluntly. I bet you can find his post easily.

That is the most severe social issue: Some systemd upstream developers and
systemd debian packagers do seem to believe sooooo much that their way is
right, that they do not even consider that a different oppinion could be
valid *at all*. And if one brings this up as a social issues they
completely refuse to discuss it. I experienced this myself on systemd-
devel before I unsubscribed there again. I experienced this myself on own
systemd related bug reports I filed with Debian.

Aaron put some social considerations in his blog about the four paths in
October 2014[2].

So yes, I agree systemd is at least as much a social issue than a
technical one.


But that makes my point even *more* important. I think it is very
important to *model* a different social behavior.


[1] [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity
and resistance:

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/thread.html


[2] http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2014/10/four-paths.html

--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7