They were bought by IBM a few years back, but even aside from that they’re a corporation and they care about making money above all else.
It looks like Red Hat is doing its damnedest to consolidate as much power for themselves within the Linux ecosystem.
I don’t think the incessant Fedora shilling is unrelated.
It seems like there isn’t much criticism of the company or their tactics, and I’m curious if any of you think that should change.
It definitely makes me suspicious, considering they’re a standard ‘money above all else’ company (though they’re better at playing the long game than some other companies) operating in a fascist state. They don’t seem to abuse their power much, yet, but that can change rather quickly.
I do think there are quite a few linux users and developers who are suspicious of Red Hat, they are a small-ish but pretty vocal minority. Suspicion of Red Hat was a major reason why systemd was so controversial.
No…systemd was controversial because it complicated an entire ecosystem and caused lots of growing pains for very little payoff at the time. SysV was fine for many, but now so is systemd, and it’s solved many growing pains for distro maintainers.
@just_another_person @rumschlumpel The idea of replacing system-V init with an init system capable of parallel start-ups in an era where multi-core CPUs became the norm makes sense. If it had stopped at this I would have been fine with it.
But it then goes and takes over DNS and in a way that breaks some mail sites that have spf records in a single record longer than 512 bytes which is officially against the DNS standard but which bind9 was fine with, then it had to take over system time keeping, and then user home directories, and then it wants to containerize everything.
The original Unix and by extension Linux philosophy was make one tool to do one thing and make it do it well.
Systemd by contrast is now one bloatware that wants to do everything and doesn’t do everything well. It does perform it’s function as a new init well.
I think systemd has moved desktop and server Linux towards being more BSD-like … and I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing.
Maybe we’ll end up needing an X11 -> Wayland sort of transition where there are protocols instead of “an implementation.”
However, I’ve yet to see systemd be meaningfully detrimental. Are distros a little less different? Yeah. Has it made my life easier when I need to go between distros? Also, yeah.
I think on some level, we’re just getting to a more mature Linux desktop and server … and as a result consolidating on stuff that really doesn’t have strong reasoning to be different.
I mean, systemd-networkd and systemd-timesyncd are both completely independent and are not required by systemd. I use connman and chronyd on my arch box and systemd gives not one fuck.
There’s still some totally valid concern to be had over how bundled a lot of this stuff is, but it’s not all one big blob.
@Badabinski @just_another_person @rumschlumpel @propitiouspanda Yes but they are becoming the defaults on many distros. In particular systemd-resolvd is an issue because it enforces the 512 byte limit on txt records. The problem with doing this is many large sites have spf records longer than 512 bytes and fail to break them up into separate txt records, so if you enforce this limit and they initiate mail from one of the truncated hosts, it gets rejected. This is not good and so I’ve worked around this by disabling networkd-resolvd and installed bind9 instead. I’ve actually had no problem with timesync but why re-invent all the wheels? To me it seems Poettering is a control freak and wants to take over my systems.
Yeah, I’m with you all the way — no shade to OP, but the question has a flawed premise. I think the majority opinion is that they’re both an asset and a liability. They’re a huge contributor to the ecosystem and have done a lot of practical good, but I also think the community will turn on a dime if the suits overstep into FAFO territory.
(All that said, fuck Lennart Poettering. Dude couldn’t design a plan to get himself out of a paper bag.)
Honestly I don’t really see the systemd hate
Unless they system has less than 64mb of storage I wouldn’t use anything but systemd
I appreciate systemd at a high level, and use it all the time, but Nanook’s comment in this thread is dead on the money in my book:
https://lemmy.world/post/30945123/17510444
The CLI interfaces for PA and SysD are janky/verbose af and make it hard for beginners to do simple things as well. E.g. try wiring up a virtual device with
pacmdthat fuses your desktop audio and mic output into a combined source using only the man pages, or putting together a fresh service from memory without looking up any directives.E: even better example, compare how easy it is to set something up to run in cron vs. a systemd timer.
There are pros and cons to verbosity and to using many files vs one.
Cron needs a special tool to edit it because you can break a bunch of stuff trying to edit another, very easily, and by accident.
The commands themselves when I was first learning I found easier to remember than things like dmesg or /var/log/ … they all follow similar conventions and aren’t so chopped up short that you can’t guess what they do by looking at them.
Similar to how most people don’t prefer 3 letter variables in code … I’m glad we’ve largely moved on from 3 letter commands. Granted, if you use them a lot you should definitely make your own three letter aliases in your preferred shell scripting language.
I don’t disagree with OP at all, though. Just because it’s a minority doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Sorry, bad phrasing on my end. I agree the community should suspicious, but I think the flawed premise in
is that there is consistent, well-founded criticism and has been this whole time. And even though the vocal folks are a minority, a lot of people feel ambivalent about the relationship rather than viewing it favorably.
All companies (and people for that matter) are “money above all else.” If you don’t have income you are in trouble.