rainbow29822

4 ms·

1.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
Embrace and extend is a fundamental part of the OSS model. That's what you're supposed to do: pick some OSS, make some custom add-ons to it, then upsell it to your customers. The license encourages everyone to do this. Tons and
2.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
Of course they were influenced by the author of programs they use. They were also influenced by Linus Torvalds when they decided to use his kernel. I don't see any problems with this. That's what you do when you make something tha
3.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
If you're only talking in hypotheticals then they're already optional and replaceable. Someone just needs to do the work to replace them. You're missing that these parts have to get replaced for a practical reason. Not just
4.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
>Libc and linux kernel are good solutions to well defined problems: a standard C library, and a kernel That's subjective. I've talked to a lot of Windows users who all say Linux is a terrible solution for them. I don't thi
5.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
>systemd should be an optional package on all distros. Why? Should glibc also be optional? What about the Linux kernel? What about apt-get? You can technically replace those things but it's a ton of extra work, almost like shipping
6.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
I don't understand this comment. Systemd is a lot of small tools with a specific scope that do their job well.
7.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
That would be the distro's problem, not systemd. Any of those utilities are going to be optional, the distro has to consciously enable them and ship them in a package for it to make it to you at all. A lot of commenters seem to misunde
8.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
>But you can't choose your window decorations, themes, desktop panels independently anymore and get a somewhat matching look and feel. It's only Gnome island, KDE/Plasma island, and hacker-minimalist island. Maybe take tha
9.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
You mean the distros broke it by not toggling that option. As you can read from the parent comment here, that "convention" was also broken and causes issues in Debian. There's no solution here that isn't going to break s
10.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
You don't have to fit anything in your head. I often find myself consulting the index at `man systemd.directives` to remember things: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.dir... In lo
11.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
That's a pretty negative way to make an innocuous statement: that it's expensive to make an OS. You can't expect Red Hat (or any other Linux company) to maintain backwards compatibility forever for every single possible proje
12.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
>It was killed because of the Red Had power behind Systemd. That is an absurd, untrue conspiracy theory. Whoever told you that should be ashamed. The author of Upstart said that it died because of a restrictive CLA. Read the thread linke
13.
by rainbow29822 4y ago
That isn't "political power" it's called knowing your audience and knowing what they want. The audience here is Linux distribution upstreams who also participate in Freedesktop. The other alternatives had ample time to t