They said it, but it was no coincidence that Bill Gate's dad was a very good lawyer and Microsoft did very well from day one. There's a long list of clever tricks, from a MITM thing between the DOS developer and IBM to offering Spyglass royalties for every copy of Internet Explorer sold ($0). Using legal loopholes to dominate the market and lobbying to close them before others can use them is a lot of what MS has been about.
RedHat appears to applaud his goal of taking over linux userspace since if it works they'll effectively own it, and Poettering is a big wheel in maintaining the Fedora and RHEL distributions himself.
Ah - the appeal to authority without citations now since the lie was too obvious and didn't work. What exactly is it that he said in those two talks that gave you the impression? Are you sure you heard it correctly or are you putting words in his mouth and making a false appeal to authority? Getting paid to work on your pet project and getting paid to travel and promote it is something to be proud of. Redhat were most definitely behind him on this one and treated it as a professional project and not a "side project".
His name is Lennart Poettring, I just rudely refer to him by his first name because I can spell that without looking it up. He likes to change things, even things that are pretty solid (eg. *nix networking). He's been doing it ever since he left school. That's not a bad thing, the problem is a lot of his work has been rushed out unfinished by people in Gnome (pulseaudio, NetworkManager) and RedHat (NetworkManager, systemd). Now there's been a lot of bugs with systemd over the last five years, which makes sense for a new project, however many have been in what should be "stable" systems if it wasn't from gnome and redhat politics meaning the golden boy gets to put his stuff in before it's really ready. His goal, from his blog, is unashamedly to replace everything at what MS Windows people would call the "service" level - good luck to him with that, but IMHO it should be as functional as what he wishes to replace before we get it shoved down our throats.
Are you getting why this discussion is happening now or is there something I need to clarify a bit more?
Yes, your petty little strawman you decided to set up in my name is indeed wrong. What a pathetic creature you are. Stepping in and pretending I'd said one thing and not what I'd actually written then claiming some win in some childish game - so congrats - you win your little game of mass debate. I just wish you'd mass debate over somebody else instead.
Only by people like Lennart who have their own thing to promote. Systemd is a solution in search of a problem. Upstart was all about getting laptops to start very quickly but hibernate renders that less relevant. Embedded systems and tablets can start very quickly without going anywhere near the bloated (for tiny systems) 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.
Because it was his main project. Take a look at his blog and you'll see how many places he visited to speak about systemd in 2010 alone.
Why are you persisting in this attempt to mislead on a topic that really should not be worth lying about? Are you hoping people will not remember details or look things up and will take your word for it, and somehow give you the jollies for tricking people?
If I was him I'd actually be proud that RedHat was supporting it right from the very start, so I really do not get why you think it matters so much.
Except it WAS. RedHat were paying for him to fly around and promote systemd in 2010. It was his JOB. Why are you continuing after being caught out in a lie?
Still going? What's the point of jumping into the middle of a conversation and showing you have zero respect for the posters involved?
I'm going to assume this was written in lieu of a cogent counter-argument to the ideas I wrote in my post
When I explicitly wrote otherwise? You started off with pretended stupidity, so, as I indicated above, there's no reason to take anything after that total lack of respect seriously.
That could be it, from the following quote I get the idea that he thinks he could have made a better linux than Linus: http://www.zdnet.com/article/lennart-poetterings-linus-torvalds-rant/
"If Linux had success, then that certainly happened despite, not because of this [Torvald's] behavior. I am pretty sure the damage being done by this is quite obvious, it not only sours the tone in the Linux community, it is also teaches new contributors to adopt the same style, but that's only if it doesn't scare them away in the first place. In other words: A fish rots from the head down."
What I just do not get is the host of fanboys that turn up to insist that all software that started before 2010 is shit and we should just get out of the way and swallow anything new whether it works or not.
why isn't there a movement among kernel-development-minded Linux Admins to change
Because the old system is not seen as broken, Lennart just wants something that's not as old as he is. Change for the sake of change which has led to some very unusual choices (eg. binary log files that get corrupted via race conditions which still have not been dealt with). Lennart was pushing systemd HARD for immediate adoption in 2010 when it could barely do anything - speaking all over the place with RedHat paying the airfare. The drive is more political (as in office/club/group politics in case someone wants to pretend to misunderstand that) than practical.
Fedora - was working then broke again. Systemd is a moving target and things do break from time to time, which you would be aware of if you have the exposure to it that you pretend to have. How did you go converting init scripts to it - oh you haven't even done that much before putting yourself up as an authority?
Being prevented from possessing a small class of items is obviously different from complete prohibition which was discussed above. If you are going to pretend to be so stupid so early in a post then I suggest not wasting so much time writing a long post that is not going to be read beyond the point of pretended stupidity. Maybe you were doing it to build a strawman in my name - I don't care - if you start with fake stupidity you are just wasting your time.
Fri Jun 13 2008 Lennart Poettering lpoetter@redhat.com http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/sourceforge/s/sl/sl7-i686-project/yum/FEDOREL7/FULLMISSING/libcanberra-gtk2-0.30-5.el7.i686.html
A bit more honesty would be appreciated instead of making shit out and then adamantly insisting that it is real. What agenda do you have here that you think is worth lying for?
http://www.webupd8.org/2010/11... Well, Lennart Poettering, a RedHat developer replied to Linus Torvalds on a maling list with an alternative to this patch that does the same thing
He's been employed by RedHat to develop systemd for several years - thus RedHat is creating systemd or you could say he's creating it for RedHat. You would have been aware of that if you were following the issue at all instead of just making an assertion in ignorance. We're supposed to be setting a good example here instead of blatantly lying to the kiddies and making shit up to push some utterly trivial agenda. I don't get what the agenda is - hero worship of a drama queen who pretends to have a loose grip on reality just to push a point? http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?107338-Lennart-Poettering-On-The-Open-Source-Community-A-Sick-Place-To-Be-In/page11
It's his paid time and there been plenty of press about his progress, especially the RedHat newsletters I've been getting every month or so. I really don't get why you have chosen to assert something as a truth when you clearly are unaware of the situation.
I'm using it and learning with each thing that breaks. Most recent was zfs and there were a few before that. If it hasn't ever caused you any trouble I doubt you've been using it much.
Always has. Not sure what you think it means, you haven't said.
There was another political gun enthusiast on this site a few weeks back who went on at great length on a very long thread about how it didn't mean "well equipped and trained" as we both agree it does. I was just referring to that but I've forgotten what handle he goes by. I was putting up an example of an idiot railing about the amendment instead of a reasoned argument - non-idiots shouldn't take it personally. Let's not go near prohibition since that's an extreme and a guns are a wide range of tools that some people need to use and others want to use for sport and should be able to. Regulation is a very different story to prohibition, and since idiots like the NRA are off with the pixies demanding everyone should be able to have their own AK47 and a nanny state should put security guards in schools to protect kids from those AK47s then self regulation is not working - it's needs to be discussed at a different level than "I want!". We certainly need to get away from the cretinous "but we need to a gun so we can overthrow the government" shit.
Neither was India despite some evil acts going on. Getting the point that it's not worth going back a couple of hundred years to explain why a bus driver today is an evil bastard?
That just makes my point that only selective reading is applied since "well regulated" is deemed irrelevant and now not even "militia" is considered to matter. It's seen as a right with zero responsibility despite the obvious consequences we see at regular intervals.
First minute of powder metallurgy 101 - asbestos, why it kills people and how your finely divided stuff can kill you too unless you take steps to make sure it does not. Thus everyone who works in this sort of "nano" research is very aware of the issue you seem to think they are not aware of.
Slashdot Mirror
They said it, but it was no coincidence that Bill Gate's dad was a very good lawyer and Microsoft did very well from day one. There's a long list of clever tricks, from a MITM thing between the DOS developer and IBM to offering Spyglass royalties for every copy of Internet Explorer sold ($0). Using legal loopholes to dominate the market and lobbying to close them before others can use them is a lot of what MS has been about.
RedHat appears to applaud his goal of taking over linux userspace since if it works they'll effectively own it, and Poettering is a big wheel in maintaining the Fedora and RHEL distributions himself.
Ah - the appeal to authority without citations now since the lie was too obvious and didn't work. What exactly is it that he said in those two talks that gave you the impression? Are you sure you heard it correctly or are you putting words in his mouth and making a false appeal to authority?
Getting paid to work on your pet project and getting paid to travel and promote it is something to be proud of. Redhat were most definitely behind him on this one and treated it as a professional project and not a "side project".
His name is Lennart Poettring, I just rudely refer to him by his first name because I can spell that without looking it up. He likes to change things, even things that are pretty solid (eg. *nix networking). He's been doing it ever since he left school. That's not a bad thing, the problem is a lot of his work has been rushed out unfinished by people in Gnome (pulseaudio, NetworkManager) and RedHat (NetworkManager, systemd).
Now there's been a lot of bugs with systemd over the last five years, which makes sense for a new project, however many have been in what should be "stable" systems if it wasn't from gnome and redhat politics meaning the golden boy gets to put his stuff in before it's really ready. His goal, from his blog, is unashamedly to replace everything at what MS Windows people would call the "service" level - good luck to him with that, but IMHO it should be as functional as what he wishes to replace before we get it shoved down our throats.
Are you getting why this discussion is happening now or is there something I need to clarify a bit more?
Yes, your petty little strawman you decided to set up in my name is indeed wrong.
What a pathetic creature you are. Stepping in and pretending I'd said one thing and not what I'd actually written then claiming some win in some childish game - so congrats - you win your little game of mass debate. I just wish you'd mass debate over somebody else instead.
And other stuff but that was the one three weeks ago.
Only by people like Lennart who have their own thing to promote. Systemd is a solution in search of a problem.
Upstart was all about getting laptops to start very quickly but hibernate renders that less relevant. Embedded systems and tablets can start very quickly without going anywhere near the bloated (for tiny systems) systemd.
Because it was his main project. Take a look at his blog and you'll see how many places he visited to speak about systemd in 2010 alone.
Why are you persisting in this attempt to mislead on a topic that really should not be worth lying about? Are you hoping people will not remember details or look things up and will take your word for it, and somehow give you the jollies for tricking people?
If I was him I'd actually be proud that RedHat was supporting it right from the very start, so I really do not get why you think it matters so much.
Except it WAS. RedHat were paying for him to fly around and promote systemd in 2010. It was his JOB.
Why are you continuing after being caught out in a lie?
Because the old system is not seen as broken.
When I explicitly wrote otherwise? You started off with pretended stupidity, so, as I indicated above, there's no reason to take anything after that total lack of respect seriously.
That could be it, from the following quote I get the idea that he thinks he could have made a better linux than Linus:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/lennart-poetterings-linus-torvalds-rant/
What I just do not get is the host of fanboys that turn up to insist that all software that started before 2010 is shit and we should just get out of the way and swallow anything new whether it works or not.
Because the old system is not seen as broken, Lennart just wants something that's not as old as he is. Change for the sake of change which has led to some very unusual choices (eg. binary log files that get corrupted via race conditions which still have not been dealt with).
Lennart was pushing systemd HARD for immediate adoption in 2010 when it could barely do anything - speaking all over the place with RedHat paying the airfare. The drive is more political (as in office/club/group politics in case someone wants to pretend to misunderstand that) than practical.
Fedora - was working then broke again.
Systemd is a moving target and things do break from time to time, which you would be aware of if you have the exposure to it that you pretend to have.
How did you go converting init scripts to it - oh you haven't even done that much before putting yourself up as an authority?
Being prevented from possessing a small class of items is obviously different from complete prohibition which was discussed above.
If you are going to pretend to be so stupid so early in a post then I suggest not wasting so much time writing a long post that is not going to be read beyond the point of pretended stupidity. Maybe you were doing it to build a strawman in my name - I don't care - if you start with fake stupidity you are just wasting your time.
Fri Jun 13 2008 Lennart Poettering
lpoetter@redhat.com
http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/sourceforge/s/sl/sl7-i686-project/yum/FEDOREL7/FULLMISSING/libcanberra-gtk2-0.30-5.el7.i686.html
A bit more honesty would be appreciated instead of making shit out and then adamantly insisting that it is real.
What agenda do you have here that you think is worth lying for?
He's been employed by RedHat to develop systemd for several years - thus RedHat is creating systemd or you could say he's creating it for RedHat. You would have been aware of that if you were following the issue at all instead of just making an assertion in ignorance.
We're supposed to be setting a good example here instead of blatantly lying to the kiddies and making shit up to push some utterly trivial agenda. I don't get what the agenda is - hero worship of a drama queen who pretends to have a loose grip on reality just to push a point?
http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?107338-Lennart-Poettering-On-The-Open-Source-Community-A-Sick-Place-To-Be-In/page11
Pretending to be a soldier without a soldiers responsibility isn't very "conservative" is it? It's about being a cowardly asshole.
Saying you are "part of a militia" and not serving is the cowardly part. It's about having something without the responsibility that comes with it.
It's his paid time and there been plenty of press about his progress, especially the RedHat newsletters I've been getting every month or so. I really don't get why you have chosen to assert something as a truth when you clearly are unaware of the situation.
I'm using it and learning with each thing that breaks. Most recent was zfs and there were a few before that. If it hasn't ever caused you any trouble I doubt you've been using it much.
There was another political gun enthusiast on this site a few weeks back who went on at great length on a very long thread about how it didn't mean "well equipped and trained" as we both agree it does. I was just referring to that but I've forgotten what handle he goes by.
I was putting up an example of an idiot railing about the amendment instead of a reasoned argument - non-idiots shouldn't take it personally.
Let's not go near prohibition since that's an extreme and a guns are a wide range of tools that some people need to use and others want to use for sport and should be able to. Regulation is a very different story to prohibition, and since idiots like the NRA are off with the pixies demanding everyone should be able to have their own AK47 and a nanny state should put security guards in schools to protect kids from those AK47s then self regulation is not working - it's needs to be discussed at a different level than "I want!". We certainly need to get away from the cretinous "but we need to a gun so we can overthrow the government" shit.
Neither was India despite some evil acts going on. Getting the point that it's not worth going back a couple of hundred years to explain why a bus driver today is an evil bastard?
That just makes my point that only selective reading is applied since "well regulated" is deemed irrelevant and now not even "militia" is considered to matter.
It's seen as a right with zero responsibility despite the obvious consequences we see at regular intervals.
First minute of powder metallurgy 101 - asbestos, why it kills people and how your finely divided stuff can kill you too unless you take steps to make sure it does not. Thus everyone who works in this sort of "nano" research is very aware of the issue you seem to think they are not aware of.