Also, the crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. Remember Christianity existed for six centuries before Islam was even invented. So how do you think those "Muslim lands" became Muslim lands?
Tell the Boston bombing victims that nothing like this has happened, or the victims at Fort Hood. This stuff happens in Europe all the time.
Some Muslim clergy talks some crazy into some such attack. Then the media, and the politicians, fall all over themselves to tell the public that the attack has nothing to do with Islam. Then the big story will be that Muslims fear a backlash - as if the Muslims are the victims, and not the aggressors.
We need to stop the PC bullshit. Pull our heads out of our asses, and see Islam for what it is.
> what the hell are they going to get by attacking a mall for god sakes!
To terrorize, an extreme form of intimidation.
Remember "Apocalypse Now" : "Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared."
The idea is to make people afraid of ever offending Islam. To be afraid of getting on an airplane, or shopping at the mall, or drawing a carton, or expressing an opinion. After a while, it because easier to submit to Islam than to live in constant fear.
And it works. It works like all hell. There are 57 Muslim nations, practically all taken by force. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims. No other ideology has grown so fast.
> Ubuntu wasn't a big enough player? That's news to me.
It shouldn't be news to you.
When it comes to big enterprise systems, Ubuntu does not even begin to compare to RHEL. Ubuntu is mostly used by home users who don't pay, and don't need commercial support. Ubuntu is not even it's own distro, it's based on Debian.
Red Hat is a $10 billion corporation that is obligated to increase shareholder value. Monopolizing Linux would certainly increase shareholder value. This is a long term play to get rid of any real competition. Fedora will remain free, Fedora is something like the beta version of RHEL. Red Hat gives away Fedora like Microsoft gives away Windows-10.
Every admin I have ever known, including myself, must adjust to constant change, it's part of the job.
Systemd is not just a change. Systemd is an obvious embrace-extend-extinguish strategy. Systemd is all about Red Hat monopolizing Linux, and forcing vendor lock-in on Linux users.
Once Debian switches over to systemd, Red Hat will have total control. And Red Hat is determined to have systemd everywhere, and to have everything dependent on systemd.
Enjoy those little tricks while they last, they won't last long.
Soon enough, Red Hat will decide that Linux should be standardized on one package management system. Systemd will only work with RPM.
Red Hat will say this was done because of user demand, and that only luddite grey beards are complaining. Red Hat will say that Linux package management was broken, because of two many choices, and this had to be done.
When this happens, there will not be much unique about Debian, so who needs it?
That is like saying "don't like OOXML use something else."
The dominate players have a lot of influence. Red Hat is connecting everything to systemd. Why is udev now part of systemd? Why does Gnome3 require systemd?
What is going to be next? Once Debian goes systemd, Red Hat will have much more control over everything in Linux.
Windows works, use that. Leave real UNIX/Linux people alone.
> Systemd? Couldn't care less.
Then why use Linux? If you don't mind vendor lock-in, and letting a big corporation make your decisions for you, then use a commercial OS. Microsoft does proprietary better than Red Hat.
I think all the systemd advocates should do the same. Either OSX, or Windows.
If you want proprietary, go proprietary. Let a big corporation make your computer decisions for you - it's not worth the bother. Screw log files and the other crap, let the sysadmins deal with that.
If you hate POSIX, and the UNIX philosophy, then please go away, and leave us real UNIX/Linux people alone.
> "There is and was no need for systemd." - if there was no need, it wouldn't exist or if it existed and wasn't needed, it wouldn't be implemented.
Bullshit. Why was OOXML created? Why did LibreOffice adopt it?
Nobody needed OOXML, it's all about vendor lock-in. LibreOffice does not support OOXML because they love it.
You want to know why Systemd is so widely accepted? Read this:
>>
From "SystemD Abomination" Subject Vested interest in control. RedHat and SystemD Date Mon, 17 Nov 2014 04:40:08 +0100
by beaverdownunder:
It should be obvious to anyone that RedHat has a vested interest in making the vast majority of Linux distributions dependent on technology it controls. Linux is its bread-and-butter.
It appears RedHat has realised that, through systemd, it can readily provide preferential support for its own projects, and place roadblocks up for projects it does not control, thus extending its influence broadly and quickly. By using tenuous dependencies amongst its own projects it can speed adoption even faster.
Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.
At this point, they can market themselves as the only rational choice for corporate Linux support -- and this would be perfectly reasonable because they would have effective control of the ecosystem.
Linux (as in a full OS implementation) is an extremely complex beast and you can't just "fork it" and start your own 'distro' from scratch anymore -- you would have to leverage a small army to do it, then keep that army to maintain it. It's just not practical.
At the same time, Linux has matured to the point of attaining some measure of corporate credibility, and from RedHat's point of view, it no longer needs its 'open source' roots to remain viable. RedHat also, understandably, fears potential competition.
Through systemd and subsequent takeovers of other ecosystem components, RedHat can leverage its own position while stifling potential competition -- this is a best-case scenario for any corporation. It will have an advantage in the marketplace, potential customers will recognise that advantage, and buy its products and support contracts.
I hope you can understand why many see this as an extremely compelling case. Arguing that RedHat has 'ethics' and would 'never do such a thing' is immature and silly -- RedHat is a corporation, it exists to profit from its opportunities, just like any other company. To attempt to argue that it would not do so is contrary to what we can assume is its default state.
It's no 'conspiracy theory' to assume that a corporation will behave like a corporation; arguing that it is just makes one look like a naive child. systemd is one large step toward RedHat gaining the ability to reap what it has sewn -- for its benefit and not necessarily ours.
> While it all sounds nice, you do realize 99.99% of the population just sort of wants their computer to work. We don't strictly care too much about your love/despise of some piece of software you didn't pay a dime for, didn't invest any time in writing, and then whine about being used/write love stories to.
Fair point so far.
> This sort of behaviour is exactly why projects like a Linux distro, or god forbid GNU/Hurd, never make it to mainstream software.
WTF? No it isn't it. That does not even begin to make sense.
> I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you want the Linux eco-system to be accepted start by getting rid of Stallman,
Why? How does Stallman's existance hurt anything?
> write some damned drivers, make an easy to use system that doesn't require 5 hours of Googling on how to get a laptop soundcard to work. If you invested half the energy you folks use for whining about systemd into actually making an alternative available you might actually get something done.
WTF? I don't spend 5 hours of googling to get a laptop soundcard to work, and I have installed Linux countless times. As for the advice to "write some damned drivers" yeah, right, every PC user knows how to do that, right?
> If you invested half the energy you folks use for whining about systemd into actually making an alternative available you might actually get something done.
Why should anybody have to? Debian 7 was great, fast and stable. Why is this systemd crap being pushed on us? Why puke all over a great system like that?
Love the parroting of corporate propaganda, right out of Microsoft's playbook: "anybody who doesn't like vista/win8/ribbon/ooxml is just an old fuddy-duddy luddite, all the cool kids love our latest super-cool technology."
> As far as this "UNIX Philosphy", fuck that shit.
If you hate it so much, use ms-windows. I mean it. If you want a proprietary system that controls everything with one big super-complex blob, then use ms-windows and be happy, and leave everything UNIX-like alone.
BTW: the UNIX philosophy is not just dogma, it has a practical purpose and has worked very well.
Slashdot Mirror
The crusades were several centuries ago.
Also, the crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. Remember Christianity existed for six centuries before Islam was even invented. So how do you think those "Muslim lands" became Muslim lands?
Not hate, just total distrust in a company that pulled the same scam many times.
To be fair, other companies do the same thing. Red Hat is doing the same thing with systemd.
Tell the Boston bombing victims that nothing like this has happened, or the victims at Fort Hood. This stuff happens in Europe all the time.
Some Muslim clergy talks some crazy into some such attack. Then the media, and the politicians, fall all over themselves to tell the public that the attack has nothing to do with Islam. Then the big story will be that Muslims fear a backlash - as if the Muslims are the victims, and not the aggressors.
We need to stop the PC bullshit. Pull our heads out of our asses, and see Islam for what it is.
> what the hell are they going to get by attacking a mall for god sakes!
To terrorize, an extreme form of intimidation.
Remember "Apocalypse Now" : "Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared."
The idea is to make people afraid of ever offending Islam. To be afraid of getting on an airplane, or shopping at the mall, or drawing a carton, or expressing an opinion. After a while, it because easier to submit to Islam than to live in constant fear.
And it works. It works like all hell. There are 57 Muslim nations, practically all taken by force. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims. No other ideology has grown so fast.
Tempting offer, but I think I'll pass.
Sadly, the BSDs tend have hardware compatibility issues.
They are great for servers - better than Linux, IMO. But for desktops, and laptops, I don't know if I could recommend a BSD.
I doubt it.
Stuff like "road rage" and domestic violence may be caused by aggression.
But I think most financial/political maneuvering decisions - like war - are mostly made when people are completely calm.
Then there is religion, that is what motivates ISIS and the like.
As I remember, during the 1999 bubble, three digit, and even four digit P/Es were not that unusual.
Non-sense. Most of those distros are based on other distros that use systemd by default.
Furthermore, even Patrick Volkerding has admitted that systemd may become inevitable even for Slackware.
I have been testing FreeBSD lately. For servers, FreeBSD is awesome, beats systemd-linux up and down.
For desktops, sadly, FreeBSD seems to have hardware compatibility issues. They tend to be smaller issues, but annoying none-the-less.
> Ubuntu wasn't a big enough player? That's news to me.
It shouldn't be news to you.
When it comes to big enterprise systems, Ubuntu does not even begin to compare to RHEL. Ubuntu is mostly used by home users who don't pay, and don't need commercial support. Ubuntu is not even it's own distro, it's based on Debian.
Red Hat is a $10 billion corporation that is obligated to increase shareholder value. Monopolizing Linux would certainly increase shareholder value. This is a long term play to get rid of any real competition. Fedora will remain free, Fedora is something like the beta version of RHEL. Red Hat gives away Fedora like Microsoft gives away Windows-10.
You must not know many admins.
Every admin I have ever known, including myself, must adjust to constant change, it's part of the job.
Systemd is not just a change. Systemd is an obvious embrace-extend-extinguish strategy. Systemd is all about Red Hat monopolizing Linux, and forcing vendor lock-in on Linux users.
If that actually works at all, it won't for long.
Once Debian switches over to systemd, Red Hat will have total control. And Red Hat is determined to have systemd everywhere, and to have everything dependent on systemd.
Enjoy those little tricks while they last, they won't last long.
I expect Debian to gone completely.
Soon enough, Red Hat will decide that Linux should be standardized on one package management system. Systemd will only work with RPM.
Red Hat will say this was done because of user demand, and that only luddite grey beards are complaining. Red Hat will say that Linux package management was broken, because of two many choices, and this had to be done.
When this happens, there will not be much unique about Debian, so who needs it?
> Then for f**ks sake, apt-get install something_else and stop bitching.
It is not as easy as that. Systemd is taking over everything.
http://giphy.com/gifs/hungry-systemd-5xtDarAgrjoOrBxSVYk
That is like saying "don't like OOXML use something else."
The dominate players have a lot of influence. Red Hat is connecting everything to systemd. Why is udev now part of systemd? Why does Gnome3 require systemd?
What is going to be next? Once Debian goes systemd, Red Hat will have much more control over everything in Linux.
Windows works, use that. Leave real UNIX/Linux people alone.
> Systemd? Couldn't care less.
Then why use Linux? If you don't mind vendor lock-in, and letting a big corporation make your decisions for you, then use a commercial OS. Microsoft does proprietary better than Red Hat.
I think all the systemd advocates should do the same. Either OSX, or Windows.
If you want proprietary, go proprietary. Let a big corporation make your computer decisions for you - it's not worth the bother. Screw log files and the other crap, let the sysadmins deal with that.
If you hate POSIX, and the UNIX philosophy, then please go away, and leave us real UNIX/Linux people alone.
I am also trying FreeBSD. Sadly, the hardware support seems to leave something to be desired.
The ports system is amazing. Easier to install Linux software on FreeBSD, than on Slackware, from my experience.
FreeBSD is a fast, stable, coherent system. I like the "techie" feel. I don't mind editing a few config files.
> All the criticism of systemd is not strictly from a luddite perspective.
Bullshit. "Insightful" my ass.
At least FreeBSD does not puke over POSIX, or the UNIX philosophy.
At least FreeBSD is not a hostile take-over by a $10 billion corporation trying to enforce vendor lock-in.
> "There is and was no need for systemd." - if there was no need, it wouldn't exist or if it existed and wasn't needed, it wouldn't be implemented.
Bullshit. Why was OOXML created? Why did LibreOffice adopt it?
Nobody needed OOXML, it's all about vendor lock-in. LibreOffice does not support OOXML because they love it.
You want to know why Systemd is so widely accepted? Read this:
>>
From "SystemD Abomination"
Subject Vested interest in control. RedHat and SystemD
Date Mon, 17 Nov 2014 04:40:08 +0100
by beaverdownunder:
It should be obvious to anyone that RedHat has a vested interest in making the vast majority of Linux distributions dependent on technology it controls. Linux is its bread-and-butter.
It appears RedHat has realised that, through systemd, it can readily provide preferential support for its own projects, and place roadblocks up for projects it does not control, thus extending its influence broadly and quickly. By using tenuous dependencies amongst its own projects it can speed adoption even faster.
Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.
At this point, they can market themselves as the only rational choice for corporate Linux support -- and this would be perfectly reasonable because they would have effective control of the ecosystem.
Linux (as in a full OS implementation) is an extremely complex beast and you can't just "fork it" and start your own 'distro' from scratch anymore -- you would have to leverage a small army to do it, then keep that army to maintain it. It's just not practical.
At the same time, Linux has matured to the point of attaining some measure of corporate credibility, and from RedHat's point of view, it no longer needs its 'open source' roots to remain viable. RedHat also, understandably, fears potential competition.
Through systemd and subsequent takeovers of other ecosystem components, RedHat can leverage its own position while stifling potential competition -- this is a best-case scenario for any corporation. It will have an advantage in the marketplace, potential customers will recognise that advantage, and buy its products and support contracts.
I hope you can understand why many see this as an extremely compelling case. Arguing that RedHat has 'ethics' and would 'never do such a thing' is immature and silly -- RedHat is a corporation, it exists to profit from its opportunities, just like any other company. To attempt to argue that it would not do so is contrary to what we can assume is its default state.
It's no 'conspiracy theory' to assume that a corporation will behave like a corporation; arguing that it is just makes one look like a naive child. systemd is one large step toward RedHat gaining the ability to reap what it has sewn -- for its benefit and not necessarily ours.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/16/301
> While it all sounds nice, you do realize 99.99% of the population just sort of wants their computer to work. We don't strictly care too much about your love/despise of some piece of software you didn't pay a dime for, didn't invest any time in writing, and then whine about being used/write love stories to.
Fair point so far.
> This sort of behaviour is exactly why projects like a Linux distro, or god forbid GNU/Hurd, never make it to mainstream software.
WTF? No it isn't it. That does not even begin to make sense.
> I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you want the Linux eco-system to be accepted start by getting rid of Stallman,
Why? How does Stallman's existance hurt anything?
> write some damned drivers, make an easy to use system that doesn't require 5 hours of Googling on how to get a laptop soundcard to work. If you invested half the energy you folks use for whining about systemd into actually making an alternative available you might actually get something done.
WTF? I don't spend 5 hours of googling to get a laptop soundcard to work, and I have installed Linux countless times. As for the advice to "write some damned drivers" yeah, right, every PC user knows how to do that, right?
> If you invested half the energy you folks use for whining about systemd into actually making an alternative available you might actually get something done.
Why should anybody have to? Debian 7 was great, fast and stable. Why is this systemd crap being pushed on us? Why puke all over a great system like that?
Love the parroting of corporate propaganda, right out of Microsoft's playbook: "anybody who doesn't like vista/win8/ribbon/ooxml is just an old fuddy-duddy luddite, all the cool kids love our latest super-cool technology."
> As far as this "UNIX Philosphy", fuck that shit.
If you hate it so much, use ms-windows. I mean it. If you want a proprietary system that controls everything with one big super-complex blob, then use ms-windows and be happy, and leave everything UNIX-like alone.
BTW: the UNIX philosophy is not just dogma, it has a practical purpose and has worked very well.
If so, why?