4 ms·

It is essentially the same "embrace, extend, extinguish" policy that microsoft used to use. The fact that the underlying code is open source apparently doesn't

It is essentially the same "embrace, extend, extinguish" policy that microsoft used to use. The fact that the underlying code is open source apparently doesn't matter too much. If someone else did come up with a compelling alternative init system just make systemd a soft dependency of your desktop environment, and make sure that patching that out requires a lot of active maintenance and ongoing work.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
411111111111111 4y ago
I never noticed they pulled the plug on systemd for the extinguish, when did they do that? And how exactly was any of it an embrace? Redhat was a Linux distribution provider from the start, they didn't take something over in order to destroy it. They just created systemd and provided help to distributions if they were willing to use it. The distributions were fully aware what they were doing when they abandoned Sysvinit, it wasn't a backhanded tactic by redhat. A recent example of something close to EEE is vscode, which is now getting "refactored" to utilize non-open source plug-ins for everything, effectively extinguishing it from a free perspective.
- traverseda 4y ago
  That's not how EEE worked. From wikipedia 1. Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard. 2. Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the "simple" standard. 3. Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions. Systemd is part of "Extend", and what they're extending is the linux ecosystem. Sure, those extensions might make things better in the short term and for some uses cases, but they're now owned by IBM so good luck!
  - 411111111111111 4y ago
    Did you even read what you've quoted there? Redhat didn't embrace a competing product, redhat has been a Linux distribution from the start. They extended it by adding systemd, yes. I said as much before too. They didn't extinguish Linux as their extension continues to be open source and ready to fork. If you're going to argue from the perspective of sysvinit instead then neither embrace nor extend happened. Whatever redhats goal were, it wasn't EEE
    - traverseda 4y ago
      > Did you even read what you've quoted there? Yes, and I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who is familiar with the history. EEE is about a set of anti-competitive practices, ones that are definitely and obviously being used here. Whether they do that with malice aforethought is unknown, and nothing there is illegal by itself, but it is a pretty clear thing they're doing. Microsoft didn't embrace office document editing software, microsoft word was one of the first document editing suites. And yet that is one of the examples in the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish#Examples_by_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... Did microsoft extinguish document editing software? No, they just used their market position to make sure that their implementation was the most dominant. Another key example is "Breaking Java's portability". Do you want to talk about how the move to systemd has effected the various BSDs? Here's a talk about it: https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/ https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_s...
      - 411111111111111 4y ago
        > extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences in order to strongly disadvantage its competitors. But the one qualifying bit for the EEE strategy to work is to remove the open source option, replacing it with something that can only be provided by them. And systemd is open source as far as I know, So the extinguish phase isn't possible in that sense.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

411111111111111 4y ago

I never noticed they pulled the plug on systemd for the extinguish, when did they do that? And how exactly was any of it an embrace? Redhat was a Linux distribution provider from the start, they didn't take something over in order to destroy it. They just created systemd and provided help to distributions if they were willing to use it. The distributions were fully aware what they were doing when they abandoned Sysvinit, it wasn't a backhanded tactic by redhat. A recent example of something close to EEE is vscode, which is now getting "refactored" to utilize non-open source plug-ins for everything, effectively extinguishing it from a free perspective.

traverseda 4y ago
That's not how EEE worked. From wikipedia 1. Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard. 2. Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the "simple" standard. 3. Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions. Systemd is part of "Extend", and what they're extending is the linux ecosystem. Sure, those extensions might make things better in the short term and for some uses cases, but they're now owned by IBM so good luck!
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  Did you even read what you've quoted there? Redhat didn't embrace a competing product, redhat has been a Linux distribution from the start. They extended it by adding systemd, yes. I said as much before too. They didn't extinguish Linux as their extension continues to be open source and ready to fork. If you're going to argue from the perspective of sysvinit instead then neither embrace nor extend happened. Whatever redhats goal were, it wasn't EEE
  - traverseda 4y ago
    > Did you even read what you've quoted there? Yes, and I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who is familiar with the history. EEE is about a set of anti-competitive practices, ones that are definitely and obviously being used here. Whether they do that with malice aforethought is unknown, and nothing there is illegal by itself, but it is a pretty clear thing they're doing. Microsoft didn't embrace office document editing software, microsoft word was one of the first document editing suites. And yet that is one of the examples in the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish#Examples_by_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... Did microsoft extinguish document editing software? No, they just used their market position to make sure that their implementation was the most dominant. Another key example is "Breaking Java's portability". Do you want to talk about how the move to systemd has effected the various BSDs? Here's a talk about it: https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/ https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_s...
    - 411111111111111 4y ago
      > extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences in order to strongly disadvantage its competitors. But the one qualifying bit for the EEE strategy to work is to remove the open source option, replacing it with something that can only be provided by them. And systemd is open source as far as I know, So the extinguish phase isn't possible in that sense.