Peter Duffy said on Thu, 25 Nov 2021 13:51:18 +0000

>I've said it before and I'll say it again. All this could have been
>avoided - if systemd had been made optional from day 1. People who
>liked it could use it; people who didn't like it could use something
>else. Email traffic to the systemd developers would tend to consist of
>genuine problem reports and requests for enhancement, rather than hate
>mail. So there would have been no need for the systemd team to
>barricade themselves behind a wall of silence and arrogance. And
>systemd itself would gradually improve. Massive win-win in every
>conceivable way. The scary thing is that LP and co. must see that as
>clearly as anyone else.

The following is my opinion. I didn't sit on the Redhat board of
directors, but neither did anyone on this list or the Debian-Users
list, as far as I know.

Redhat wasn't looking for a win-win. They were looking for a
win-it-all, and that meant that traditional Linux, and all its
adherents, lost. When systemd was starting to be foist on the world,
Redhat was a vendor of support and training. You can't make very much
on support and training for an easy technology. Only by complexifying
Linux could they grow their business.

Now I'll show you the smoking gun, which actually happened several
years before systemd. Click the following link and search for the word
"complexity" in the following URL:

http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/10/interview-with-red-hat-cto-brian.html

I quote then-Redhat CTO Brian Stevens: "Red Hat's model works because
of the complexity of the technology we work with."

Systemd fanboiz are quick to point out this statement had nothing to do
with systemd because it was uttered at least 3 years before systemd
development began. From my viewpoint, whether it was about systemd or
not doesn't matter. As they say in the courtroom, his statement "goes
to motive". Redhat's model works only in the face of complexity.

So Redhat finds PoetterPinhead with his gigantically complexified and
dismodular "init system" so rickety it needs constant fixes, hires him
and about 6 others to keep the albatross running, and sics it on Linux
in order to complexify Linux so there's more demand for Redhat's
consulting and training.

Meanwhile, view any video with PoetterPinhead. He thrives on conflict.
With his albatross welded into Linux, he gets a chance to argue to his
heart's content. He gets paid to travel the world putting people down.
He's in heaven.

So although what you write about the fact that making it optional would
have lessened the drama and conflict is correct, that was never going
to happen, because lessening drama and conflict was never the goal.

SteveT

Steve Litt
Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful
Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques