If you can't give it to anyone else then it's absolutely not open source. Free redistribution is even the first criteria in the Open Source Definition, which most people, organizations and governments use when defining open source. Simplifying open source to mean just that I can look at the source code therefore it's open source is taking away the very thing that is the core of what open source is.
My concern is that Debian, due to the lack of any long-term supported release of Chromium, will be forced to constantly update Chromium to the latest upstream version in their stable distribution.
Right here and now his job is to develop systemd. Back then he was still in the desktop group at Red Hat and his job was certainly not to fly around and promote his side-project. He was actually in the desktop group up until about a year ago when he moved to the server experience group.
You still don't get it. Just because he works at Red Hat does NOT mean that every single thing that he does when he's not doing his regular work is copyright Red Hat, approved by Red Hat and is set for inclusion in the next RHEL release. He does personal projects too, every single good programmer does that. Some of them takes of, this one did.
But consider for a moment that you're right, that as soon as you've seen a @redhat.com email address in the wild then that is confirmation that it represents Red Hat's official opinion and goals, then how do you explain this? An @redhat.com email back in 2011 that downright criticizes systemd for being too big and too bloated, in 2011! https://lists.fedoraproject.or...
And you know and trust this person and Red Hat management to not lie about it?
Given that they were heavily pushing Upstart at the time, yes.
To me this sounds like an all too convenient artificially created "legend" of the heroic single developer that changed the world. In other words, complete BS.
He has obviously not done it alone, just check the git commit log.
It's his job now in 2015, but we were talking about when systemd was created back in 2010. At that time Red Hat had just adopted Upstart and was initially quite uninterested in systemd. It wasn't until a couple of years later that Red Hat got convinced to adopt systemd, until then he was not payed to work on systemd.
Well, there is no operating system anymore called BSD. BSD was around back in the 80's and early 90's. The free software operating systems that end in *BSD are not one operating system, and they don't share the kernel like the Linux distribution do. They are simply distinct operating systems that has a common historical heritage.
There are at least two alternatives for virtualization on FreeBSD, VirtualBox and Bhyve. I've never used Bhyve but it's designed similar to KVM on Linux.
With the current trend of containerized environments the LTS releases are not necessarily the go-to choice for servers. Since everything about your deployment is automated moving to newer base OS is not really that big of deal in most cases. Getting access to newer versions of software can actually be desirable.
Red Hat did not create systemd. It was created independently and Red Hat only adopted it after it proved itself in Fedora, and it even took a couple of years until Fedora adopted it.
I really don't understand what the problem is. Do you even know what libsystemd is? It's not systemd and it does not force you to run systemd. You can have it installed and still have a completely systemd-free experience. This is *only* a problem if you can't live with having a single package with systemd in its name installed.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't give it to anyone else then it's absolutely not open source. Free redistribution is even the first criteria in the Open Source Definition, which most people, organizations and governments use when defining open source. Simplifying open source to mean just that I can look at the source code therefore it's open source is taking away the very thing that is the core of what open source is.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux uses Chrony by default since release 7.0.
If there are so few differences then why don't they stop distributing the non-free version?
Both Google Chrome and Adobe Flash are non-free programs. Making users stop using these programs would be constructive.
If I understood the bug report correctly this only affects users that uses extensions.
The guy that said "Sounds like another good reason to not use Google spyware" does not have a Debian email address.
You mean that guy?
My concern is that Debian, due to the lack of any long-term supported release of Chromium, will be forced to constantly update Chromium to the latest upstream version in their stable distribution.
They already do this. Just look at the changelog.
So, where is the source code for Chrome? No, not Chromium. Chrome.
Every package is not supported in the LTS distribution. Chromium for example is not supported.
Well, I guess he's been lying to me during the two talks I've heard him say that.
Chrome is non-free so most distributions don't distribute it to begin with.
Chrome is non-free proprietary software. They have never included it in Debian.
Right here and now his job is to develop systemd. Back then he was still in the desktop group at Red Hat and his job was certainly not to fly around and promote his side-project. He was actually in the desktop group up until about a year ago when he moved to the server experience group.
You still don't get it. Just because he works at Red Hat does NOT mean that every single thing that he does when he's not doing his regular work is copyright Red Hat, approved by Red Hat and is set for inclusion in the next RHEL release. He does personal projects too, every single good programmer does that. Some of them takes of, this one did.
But consider for a moment that you're right, that as soon as you've seen a @redhat.com email address in the wild then that is confirmation that it represents Red Hat's official opinion and goals, then how do you explain this? An @redhat.com email back in 2011 that downright criticizes systemd for being too big and too bloated, in 2011!
https://lists.fedoraproject.or...
And you know and trust this person and Red Hat management to not lie about it?
Given that they were heavily pushing Upstart at the time, yes.
To me this sounds like an all too convenient artificially created "legend" of the heroic single developer that changed the world. In other words, complete BS.
He has obviously not done it alone, just check the git commit log.
It's his job now in 2015, but we were talking about when systemd was created back in 2010. At that time Red Hat had just adopted Upstart and was initially quite uninterested in systemd. It wasn't until a couple of years later that Red Hat got convinced to adopt systemd, until then he was not payed to work on systemd.
Fvwm has been around for 22 years so saying 25 years is probably almost correct. It was actually quite popular back in the early 90s.
Well, there is no operating system anymore called BSD. BSD was around back in the 80's and early 90's. The free software operating systems that end in *BSD are not one operating system, and they don't share the kernel like the Linux distribution do. They are simply distinct operating systems that has a common historical heritage.
There are at least two alternatives for virtualization on FreeBSD, VirtualBox and Bhyve. I've never used Bhyve but it's designed similar to KVM on Linux.
That does not mean that everything he does on his spare time is done by Red Hat.
With the current trend of containerized environments the LTS releases are not necessarily the go-to choice for servers. Since everything about your deployment is automated moving to newer base OS is not really that big of deal in most cases. Getting access to newer versions of software can actually be desirable.
Systemd stores a lot of metadata in the journal, not just simple text rows. A custom format allows this to be queried very quickly.
Red Hat did not create systemd. It was created independently and Red Hat only adopted it after it proved itself in Fedora, and it even took a couple of years until Fedora adopted it.
If by by "kill" mean "improve" then yes.
Well, you've had four years of OS updates which is unfortunately much more than most other phones.
I really don't understand what the problem is. Do you even know what libsystemd is? It's not systemd and it does not force you to run systemd. You can have it installed and still have a completely systemd-free experience. This is *only* a problem if you can't live with having a single package with systemd in its name installed.