Why not? That's what Linus did with GNU. Only the jettisoning never happened.
It's hilarious what a nest of vipers the FOSS community has become. What ever happened to the spirit of cooperation and encouragement to let everyone scratch their own itch?
I think you're very much proving the guy's point that open source is "Quite a sick place to be in". Such vitriol over the description of a system component, that should never even be noticed by an end user on any rational OS.
There is no plumbing below the kernel. systemd runs on the kernel, not the other way around.
Red Hat only has the power to direct development of their own distro. For sure other distros that cut corners by taking Red Hat and customising it will likely follow suit. But there are more distros that are not based on Red Hat than are. For example Debian and Slackware each have their own followers.
Of course Debian also use systemd. But Red Hat has no power to dictate that. Rather it shows a growing consensus on systemd being the way forward.
The ability to fork when unhappy with the direction of a distro was always put up as an advantage of OSS. It seems that was as much of a canard as the "many eyes make all bugs shallow" myth.
So he has somehow managed to get things like the Gnome desktop to depend on it.
Well either he's got some incriminating photos of the Gnome developers, or the Gnome developers looked at systemd and found it's advantages outweighed the effort if would take to move from init.
Why do you think you know better than the Gnome developers what they should use?
Tell me, what power this man has to make other people people use his project as a dependancy? If this was Linus, then OK, but no one else has the power to direct Linux development one way or another.
He has foisted systemd on a bunch of people who don't want it.
How is it possible for a developer fo FOSS software to foist anything on anyone? If systemd is in any distributions, it's because the people who work to produce those distributions chose to use it. And in turn you chose to use that distribution. If you don't like it use a different distribution - or create your own. This is supposed to be the great advantage of FOSS.
Now he expects those same people to send him flowers? People tried polite conversation. Failing that they suggested he take his ball and go home. Failing that, hate mail.
For creating something, that other people can use if they want? Good grief. You are proving he's right. The Open Source community is a sick place to be.
You're determined to prove how gullible you are, aren't you? You post a link to a blog claiming (selected) left wing donations are 10 times higher than (differently selected) right wing donations.
The blog's latest post? 9/11 conspiracy about the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile rather than a plane. http://factworld.wordpress.com...
You're certainly an idiot. And as it turns out not even a useful one to your own side. More of an embarrassment.
You are gullible. You haven't even managed to name a right wing equivalent of the Koch Brothers, but that doesn't stop you believing that they must exist.
You don't understand what "actual data" means. Some bullshit on a libertarian foundation website proves nothing. They are one of the bodies that survive on political donations by people like the Koch Bothers.
You have proved yourself easily convinced by those financed by political funding though.
Thanks for the links. The Washington post article is correct. The Koch Brothers corrupt the political system as an investment to further enrich themselves. George Soros is a philanthropist, giving his money away to help others less fortunate. There is no equivalence.
The second link shows how gullible you are. The vast majority of Koch funding is indirect by design. Many of the lobbyists they fund not publicly revealing who their donors are. New avenues of Koch funding of conservative politics are dug up on a regular basis. They are by far the biggest corrupters of the US political system by their donations.
Out of interest, how would you stop a man who invests his time in making and using tools from being more productive than one who sits on his ass all day drinking beer/vodka?
That's not a capitalist. A capitalist is he who takes the surplus profit from ownership of the means of production as unearned income.
Self-employed people are not automatically practicing capitalism. They may or may not be working within a capitalist system, but their own business is not a capitalistic one, unless and until they employ workers and pay them less than their fair share of the profit.
I'm a man who believes in equal rights and not not stereotyping people on factors they were born with. Men and women do have biologically different bodies and brains. Yet that doesn't mean that either category are a homogenous group that think the same things.
If that makes me a feminist in your opinion, then it's your opinion that is at fault.
I have lived in several countries like that; it's a lousy "solution", because that massively favors incumbents, the political class, and the people who hold the purse strings over funding.
As I said it's a big topic - one we're not going to scratch the surface of here. The 2 big parties alternate incumbancy and already win 100% of elections so no change there. "The Political Class" is everyone who is interested in politics. They *are* the people that should influence elections. And "those that hold the purse strings over funding" is just a matter of getting the legislation right. All three are better than the current situation of the American rich having nearly all the power in US politics.
The only way to eliminate the advantages rich people enjoy is to eliminate rich people.
You're a defeatist or lack imagination.
other forms of power that are even worse: nepotism, corruption, blackmail, etc.
They aren't "worse", they are symptoms of the already existing power exercised by the rich.
What are you talking about? Name the left wing equivalent of the Koch brothers if you think it exists. It doesn't. You are the "low information voter."
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? That's what Linus did with GNU. Only the jettisoning never happened.
It's hilarious what a nest of vipers the FOSS community has become. What ever happened to the spirit of cooperation and encouragement to let everyone scratch their own itch?
I think you're very much proving the guy's point that open source is "Quite a sick place to be in". Such vitriol over the description of a system component, that should never even be noticed by an end user on any rational OS.
It's like religious fanaticism.
That's like saying MS Word isn't a word processor because it has mail merge and exports to HTML.
No, those are your flimsy arguments. I asked why you think you know better than the developers of Gnome what components they should use.
Since you won't answer that, I'll answer for you: You don't.
Yes it is. Hate it all you like, there's no point lying about what it is.
There is no plumbing below the kernel. systemd runs on the kernel, not the other way around.
Red Hat only has the power to direct development of their own distro. For sure other distros that cut corners by taking Red Hat and customising it will likely follow suit. But there are more distros that are not based on Red Hat than are. For example Debian and Slackware each have their own followers.
Of course Debian also use systemd. But Red Hat has no power to dictate that. Rather it shows a growing consensus on systemd being the way forward.
The ability to fork when unhappy with the direction of a distro was always put up as an advantage of OSS. It seems that was as much of a canard as the "many eyes make all bugs shallow" myth.
The honeymoon period is obviously truly over.
So he has somehow managed to get things like the Gnome desktop to depend on it.
Well either he's got some incriminating photos of the Gnome developers, or the Gnome developers looked at systemd and found it's advantages outweighed the effort if would take to move from init.
Why do you think you know better than the Gnome developers what they should use?
"politically motivated"? It's a software component that starts daemons. You have to be pretty sad if you have political objections to that.
Tell me, what power this man has to make other people people use his project as a dependancy? If this was Linus, then OK, but no one else has the power to direct Linux development one way or another.
He has foisted systemd on a bunch of people who don't want it.
How is it possible for a developer fo FOSS software to foist anything on anyone? If systemd is in any distributions, it's because the people who work to produce those distributions chose to use it. And in turn you chose to use that distribution. If you don't like it use a different distribution - or create your own. This is supposed to be the great advantage of FOSS.
Now he expects those same people to send him flowers? People tried polite conversation. Failing that they suggested he take his ball and go home. Failing that, hate mail.
For creating something, that other people can use if they want? Good grief. You are proving he's right. The Open Source community is a sick place to be.
You're determined to prove how gullible you are, aren't you? You post a link to a blog claiming (selected) left wing donations are 10 times higher than (differently selected) right wing donations.
The blog's latest post? 9/11 conspiracy about the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile rather than a plane.
http://factworld.wordpress.com...
You're certainly an idiot. And as it turns out not even a useful one to your own side. More of an embarrassment.
You are gullible. You haven't even managed to name a right wing equivalent of the Koch Brothers, but that doesn't stop you believing that they must exist.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...
You don't understand what "actual data" means. Some bullshit on a libertarian foundation website proves nothing. They are one of the bodies that survive on political donations by people like the Koch Bothers.
You have proved yourself easily convinced by those financed by political funding though.
Thanks for the links. The Washington post article is correct. The Koch Brothers corrupt the political system as an investment to further enrich themselves. George Soros is a philanthropist, giving his money away to help others less fortunate. There is no equivalence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
The second link shows how gullible you are. The vast majority of Koch funding is indirect by design. Many of the lobbyists they fund not publicly revealing who their donors are. New avenues of Koch funding of conservative politics are dug up on a regular basis. They are by far the biggest corrupters of the US political system by their donations.
No, [funding of political campaigns] not a "big topic"
If you think that then you don't appreciate the size of the problem, nor the infinity of possible remedies.
"The political class" has a well-defined meaning.
Fair enough.
The idea that "the American rich have nearly all the power in US politics" has no basis in reality.
You have no basis in reality.
And what was it that gave Linux 0.5% of the desktop market?
Out of interest, how would you stop a man who invests his time in making and using tools from being more productive than one who sits on his ass all day drinking beer/vodka?
That's not a capitalist. A capitalist is he who takes the surplus profit from ownership of the means of production as unearned income.
Self-employed people are not automatically practicing capitalism. They may or may not be working within a capitalist system, but their own business is not a capitalistic one, unless and until they employ workers and pay them less than their fair share of the profit.
They put there cash under somebody else's mattress and are complaining they were robbed?
Hey, they were libertarians. They didn't believe they needed their bank to be government regulated.
If poor people can volunteer their time then rich people can volunteer their money.
Time and money are NOT the same thing. Even if conservatives think they are.
Even if they were, the money given by a rich donor would convert to far more time than any one individual could give.
So you are a conservative and you are opposing net neutrality. So what are you arguing about? You are a perfect example.
I'm a man who believes in equal rights and not not stereotyping people on factors they were born with. Men and women do have biologically different bodies and brains. Yet that doesn't mean that either category are a homogenous group that think the same things.
If that makes me a feminist in your opinion, then it's your opinion that is at fault.
I have lived in several countries like that; it's a lousy "solution", because that massively favors incumbents, the political class, and the people who hold the purse strings over funding.
As I said it's a big topic - one we're not going to scratch the surface of here. The 2 big parties alternate incumbancy and already win 100% of elections so no change there. "The Political Class" is everyone who is interested in politics. They *are* the people that should influence elections. And "those that hold the purse strings over funding" is just a matter of getting the legislation right. All three are better than the current situation of the American rich having nearly all the power in US politics.
The only way to eliminate the advantages rich people enjoy is to eliminate rich people.
You're a defeatist or lack imagination.
other forms of power that are even worse: nepotism, corruption, blackmail, etc.
They aren't "worse", they are symptoms of the already existing power exercised by the rich.
Standardized by who, exactly?
History.
It's clear from the identical letters what is a form letter and what is an individually crafted letter.
You think so? You think it says "form letter" at the top? In actual fact it uses the salutations as if it were a letter directly from the individual.
Why do you think you should be the one who gets to decide how the rest of us communicate with our government?
Why do you think I can't give my opinion on what legislation should be to promote a more healthy democracy? At least I actually wrote it.
What are you talking about? Name the left wing equivalent of the Koch brothers if you think it exists. It doesn't. You are the "low information voter."