The problem is that systemd is that is being forcefully pushed to all distros. For instance, by merging udev with systemd. We want to keep all the alternatives available.
I understand your pain, I sometimes don't like the direction things that I use move or the ways they change, but I'm not sitting at the sidelines complaining about being pushed around. I get to use stuff others provided for free, I'm grateful for that and I either fork/change it or move on to something else. I'm not in a position to tell them what they should be spending their time on.
Lennart Poettering could just stop developing and supporting udev any second, that's his personal decision and I couldn't say "he forced me to use windows" and I don't see anybody else could.
Don't like the (maybe) coming systemd dependency for udev? Build the code to set up the bus yourself or pay someone or wait until someone knowledgeable gets sufficiently fed up and builds something. Same for the gnome dependency on systemd: Either accept it or contribute the time to make it work without while retaining the features it has.
Also, Windows can also be forked, by distributing patches instead of binaries. So that argument is a red herring, DOS has been forked before, and every proprietary application, but that doesn't mean I can't ask other developers a bit of respect for those of us who are using other init systems, I will maintain my software, just let me do that. All the discourse about democracy around GNU/Linux wasn't supposed to be summed up as "Fork or GTFO".
Yes, indeed, I do. Because most applications will not unnecessarily depend on systemd, but rather because the dependency provides some (perceived) benefit to the developers. And if the developers decide that the benefit is worth the dependency, they'll do it. And if you want to prevent that future, you need to provide something that offsets the benefit - write the test and compat code to support gentoo, write the docs, provide the money (or other incentive) for the developers to do so. That's how it works. You don't have to do all of that yourself, you can form a group, build your own distro, run a fundraiser, whatever you choose. But you don't get to sit back and complain and hope the world changes for you and neither do I.
There's no democracy in the OSS scene, users don't get to decide what the software they use looks like and even maintainers or other software have no vote. It's more like a market - we use what's best for our personal cause. You pick and choose and the software with the most users will prevail, others either hold their ground or disappear (ConsoleKit).
All this discussion doesn't and won't preclude me from do all the things you said under "preventing the future".
People developing software. For example the gnome folks. You, me. (don't know about you, but I have services that use systemd for starting and supervising the service)
> If GNU/Linux closed its source and went proprietary, you would say exactly the same things: Fork or GTFO.
Yes, actually, yes. If Linus decided that all future development he wants to do is now closed source, I either have the option to fork and continue in the open or GTFO. I'm not the one to decide what he can to in his time. There's be a number of legal issues surrounding that, for example that he can't take the current kernel code, but if he decides that within the given framework he closes his development, fine with me. If Linus decides that he thinks that a deep integration between the kernel and systemd is the way forward for his project, I have to accept that. I may not like it, but unless I do something to change it I can't force it any other way.
The beauty of OSS is that you can exactly do that - take the last public version and make something better, something that's more the way you like it, no matter what the original owner thinks, says or does.
> The beauty of OSS is that you can exactly do that - take the last public version and make something better, something that's more the way you like it, no matter what the original owner thinks, says or does.
Read my previous comment: The beauty of proprietary software is that you can exactly do that - take the last public version, patch it and make something better, something that's more the way you like it, no matter what the original owner thinks, says or does. :)
Why not? Do you pay them for their time? I don't. So who am I, what do they owe me? Nothing. Not even a new free version of linux.
>Read my previous comment: The beauty of proprietary software is that you can exactly do that - take the last public version, patch it and make something better, something that's more the way you like it, no matter what the original owner thinks, says or does. :)
No, actually you can't. You're not entitled to unless you specifically sought a license that permits it. All Open Source Licenses grant you that permission.
> No, actually you can't. You're not entitled to unless you specifically sought a license that permits it
Please take a look at 17 U.S. Code § 117.
No, why? If they port it and even if they provide it closed source binary only, I'd still believe that an open source browser and office packet are fundamentally more in societies interest, but they're certainly entitled to build and distribute IE and Office for linux/unix/catOS and I'm not entitled to tell them to stop. Given the license of pretty much all linux distributions I think nobody would be. Just as microsoft allows the distribution of OpenOffice and Firefox for Windows. They don't have to like it.
>> No, actually you can't. You're not entitled to unless you specifically sought a license that permits it
> Please take a look at 17 U.S. Code § 117.
I'm not going to discuss american law with you, but please note that this paragraph puts severe restrictions on redistribution of copies, while the GPL does not. I'm not a law scholar, much less an american law scholar but I don't think this means what you think it does.
It seems you don't read my comments, because I've edited binaries, and distributed patches of proprietary software, that's not illegal, only I didn't distribute the binary or code without permission. Let me tell you, having systemd source doesn't help me at all because it's a megalithic blob.
Is the GPL a good thing? Yes, BUT just because you license your junk with the GPL you don't deserve a Nobel peace price. You seem to think that had Hitler released a hello world program with a GPL license he would be a saint, and can't be criticized, "fork or shut up", you say?
> As long as you're not distributing the software, you have nothing to worry about.
You're not allowed to redistribute the software, modified or not. GPL or any other OSS license grants you the the permission. (and no, distributing software under GPL does not make you a saint or even a good person. See Reiser)
>> GPL or any other OSS license grants you the the permission
The sysvinit alternatives that I know and use, all use an OSS license, most of them less restrictive (BSD or MIT). I use free (as in freedom) software; that's why systemd is harmful to me, always trying to create incompatibilities with other open source programs lacking a multi-million corporation backer.