On 12/01/2018, Steve Litt <slitt@???> wrote:
>
> I don't think the definitions of free software and open source
> anticipated a form of obfuscation so powerful that a simple computer
> program couldn't de-obfuscate it. Probably because they didn't
> anticipate success to the point where a commercial company would devote
> five or ten top notch programmer salaries to creating and maintaining
> the obfuscation method.[1]
>

While I clearly declare that I do not dispute your point about
SystemD's code, your claim that its code is obfuscated, can only be
viewed as an opinion without actual references to its code. You, as a
critic, have also to explain why and how code is obfuscated.

The limited number of times I read, trying to modify, SystemD's code,
there weren't any obvious code obfuscations. The part that I
successfully, compiled and actually used is libsystemd0. I
immediatedly understood that the first part of functions was checking
whether SystemD was installed exiting the function immediately in the
event it wasn't installed. Together with easy to replace functions I
also found other functions that required more thought, but I cannot
say that I found any deliberate code obfuscation.

I investigated my system to find which functions from libsystemd0 were
required for my installation to work using nm and ldd.