RMS Asks About Problems With systemd
HE good news of the day is, RMS is open to feedback – including to criticism – on systemd.
I myself am not a fan of systemd, I think it exists for business reasons rather than for purely technical reasons. Considering the core developers, it’s not a hobbyist or community project.
A friend said to me: “I am not in the mailing list to which RMS sent that message. RMS does not see the forest for the trees. While, yes, the licensing is free, the code is written in such a way that only dedicated (paid) coders with the both the time and the will to sort through the intertwined, uncommented, interdependent base can even consider modifying it. Thus it is able to violate the spirit of software freedom by providing code which is unmodifiable in practice.”
One can modify it, like Linux, but one won’t manage to keep up with further changes and future versions (releases) . With many CVEs to address, any fork of Linux would quickly become obsolete.
Linux is legally “free software”, but in practice it has been sort of monopolies by a collective of large companies. There must be some term to describe such software or phenomenon.
“The license is only the necessary first step,” the friend said. “The code has to be written in such a way that it is also in practice, 1. [usable or] compilable by any reasonably skilled practitioners; 2. readable by any reasonably skilled practitioners; 3. actually modifiable without an unreasonably high barrier to entry…”
“Microsoft’s Poettering’s systemd fails on all three points.”
Wayland has extensions-type abilities, but so does X. So it does not quite change the fact that Wayland can only be developed by few people in a cabal of large companies. Salaried by particular interests.
There are examples of the same further away from the kernel stack and in userspace.
As the friend put it: “Some of the containers and other systems (BigBlueButton) fail on point #1 as well. Point 1 is a prerequisite for Freedom 0, the freedom to run the program for any purpose. Point 2 is a prerequisite to Freedom 1, the freedom to study how the program works and change it so it meets one’s computing wishes.”
At the end, it is all about users controlling their computing and being able to tailor program or rely on others doing so.
Continuing the above: “Overly loquacious, convoluted, uncommented, and interconnected code / modules violate that quite clearly. If one only looks at the license and nothing more then systemd is Free software. However, if one looks at how (if) it fulfills the goals of software freedom then it fails on all fronts. Microsoft must not be allowed to continue to game the licensing.”
“However, I no longer have links to any of the above observations.”






Filed under: 
N the modest local market we buy almost everything. We pay with cash, we enjoy every moment of it unless it’s rainy, and we can return things if they’re faulty (provided we know the vendor and choose a reliable one based on reputation/pedigree/word of mouth).

