Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Alexander Vdolainen]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 12:00:09 AM EEST Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    > If systemD is be hard to replace, that is a kind of lock-in.  But it
>    > isn't _vendor_ lock-in.  systemD, like most free software packages,
>    > is not tied to any particular vendor.  Indeed, the usual concept of
>    > "vendor" for free software is not applicable to free software at all.
> 
>    Sorry Richard, but it is really a vendor lock-in. As you know there is
>    only one _upstream_ of systemd and that upstream is a company. Systemd
>    software is developed by that company, and as you also know is that
>    contributions, patches and bug reports coming from outside that company
>    are frown upon. People reporting issues are even met with hostility.
> 
> Since it is free software, it would be easy for anyone to create
> another such project.

and yes and no, btw I cannot agree with you at this point. It's a relatively 
big project. And if someone decides to fork it he/she will fail with that, 
since it's unequal competition. And again, systemd is invasive in many ways 
(that's why forks such as eudev, elogind and might be some wrapper libraries 
are exist).

> 
>    In conclusion: systemd is a _vendor_ lock-in. Fortunately Guix/Shepherd
>    are not (yet??) using systemd, but they use e.g. eudev and elogind.
> 
> When Wolfgang and I designed GNU dmd (I don't know how much GNU
> shepard has change from that, which is why I'm refering to it by its
> original name), the idea was in some sense quite similar to how
> systemd works.

it's not so good to compare idea vs implementation :)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.