Quoting Steve Litt (slitt@???):

> > Steve's is a classic non-testable paranoid
>
> It would be testable if we could put on the witness stand under oath
> somebody who attended the meetings that decided to push systemd.

I mean, of course, testable in the real world.

Meanwhile, a skeptical observer would note at least two serious problems
with your ad-hoc conspiracy hypothesis: (1) Over a decade, exactly zero
departed Red Hat employees have spilled the beans on such an alleged
conspiracy. (Threatening ex-employees with litigation over violating
their employment confidentiality agreements doesn't actually work very
well, especially given robust means of publishing corporate details
without personal attribution.) (2) You didn't bother to tell a credible
story about RHAT revenue, etc., i.e., how your alleged conspiracy makes
non-fantasy business sense.

RHAT/IBM's business model has been an open book since August 1999, when
RHAT went public. Since then, it's been pretty obvious why they did
what they did. When I shave the post-2010 Poettering history using
Occam's Razor, I find that the parsimonious answer to why they adopted
in RHEL and CentOS his system glue to be super-obvious: It's partly
about their move into container-oriented cloud computing, e.g., his
systemd code's utility as a cgroups manager. Among other things,
IBM/RHAT famously haven't given a tinker's damn about 'Linux desktop
computing' since the late 1990s, by contrast.


> Conspiracies happen.

So do untestable conspiracy theories. ;->


> Now here's a fact. If Redhat were on trial for foisting systemd upon the
> world, you'd better believe the prosecutor would bring up the link I
> proffered earlier in this thread as evidence of motive.

I'm curious whether such a legal action would get dismissed _first_ for
lack of standing, or for failure to state a cause of action. Oh, right:
You don't actually understand civil litigation at all.