years ago i left open source for free software.
open source has one major play that it uses to suck in (well, suckers): "we are like free software, except more reasonable!"
what does "more reasonable" mean? it means that reasonable people eventually stop standing for anything on their own, and let the majority tell everyone else what to think. in other words-- reasonable = agreeable = herd mentality = corporate, as it turns out. open source is more reasonable because it shuts up and lets the "grownups" (enterprise) do the talking.
this completely flips the idea that the user is free and challenges user autonomy as "impractical" and ideological.
whereas systemd completely goes against user autonomy. it is an init system too hopelessly complicated to be maintained by anyone but salaried employees (this isnt literally true-- the linux kernel is pretty complex as well.)
but the technical side of systemd is pointless to get into, because youll never win the political argument against it (wait for why) because the foundation of any political debate about is "shut up, you dont know what youre talking about."
you cant win a debate with people who ignore one side of it. there is no debate. you "lose" the moment youre honest and theyre condescending and dishonest.
so the next step is to prove theyre being dishonest, right? but not with an argument-- same problem, same outcome.
at this point, they start saying youre crazy or paranoid. and it never gets better, because youre dealing with institutionalised narcissism.
the entire attitude of systemd and its proponents is "you have no choice anyway, so shut up and stop whining." that hasnt changed in literally years.
anytime this attitude is encountered, you have to realise that the people showing it are actively against software freedom. they couch this in terms of "we free, you cant tell us what to do" but THIS ISNT HONEST due to being one-sided: they can tell you what do, but you cant tell them what to do-- you cant even tell them to stop pushing you around.
thats the #1 lie you need to watch for.
the second lie is "we arent forcing anyone."
well, you have no choice-- but you arent being forced. this is the if-by-whiskey fallacy of systemd, in which they are constantly working (this can be shown, but not "proven" but shown adequately) to remove your choices. the whole stated goal is to make distros the same. theyre dissimilar because of choice. but hey...
when you talk about choice theyll say youre free to do whatever. when you talk about freedom theyll say its ideological. (yeah but this is free software we are talking about, so its pretty weird to be calling freedom an ideology as if thats automatically unreasonable. unless theyre dishonest.)
and as for the rest of it-- the on and on and on and on...
bottom line is this: experts are not always right. einstein was not always right. torvalds waves his arms and says "hey! im not always right!" but its basically impossible for you to be wrong all the time.
anyone who treats you like youre always wrong is probably lying. and theres as least one condition that explains all this behaviour, which is clinical narcissism.
narcissists do not care about you.
narcissists do PRETEND to care about you.
narcissists do not care or consider that you might be right-- ever.
narcissists do absolutely everything based on controlling people, even when its profitable to give up control (to their own detriment.)
because control is worth more than profit.
in this regard, clinical narcissists are one-man monopolies. open source will always provide them with an opportunity.
the image of being right and the image of success, the popularity and fanbase comes first.
thats corporate. thats monopoly. thats control. and thats narcissism.
once youve established why systemd is a perfect campaign for monopolies to hurt software freedom-- once youve read about the halloween documents and microsoft using eee as a weapon against all competition, then you have some choices:
1. you can get into the technical / freedom problems caused by systemd. there are other non-related problems such as the github purchase that show that microsoft is still doing a REALLY GOOD job at fighting software freedom like the threat that it is to their business model. no one here actually thinks that this has changed. all thats changed is that theyve moved their troops onto our soil (i dont mean with systemd. i mean with github.)
2. you can write to the fsf and ask them to reconsider endorsing systemd. if you can get them to realise that systemd is part of an eee campaign, they will resist it more. thats a pretty big "if" though. theyre leaning on "its free software, an thats good enough for anybody." but this is not true.
3. you can stop waste your time arguing with narcissists. theyre tough to spot (because most people think narcissism is just an inflated self, when its really a complete objectification of all other humans from the narcissists perspective and a complete pathological unwillingness to admit ones own real imperfections) but you can argue with them for years, and it doesnt change. go for a decade-- it doesnt change. because youre the only person actually arguing. they are just stating and restating that theyre right.
4. you can look for solutions
5. you can avoid software that is designed like systemd is. that means most of the garbage from freedesktop.org for that matter.
systemd isnt going to be the last thing thats like systemd. its one campaign (albeit the one that probably hurts us the most so far.)
and there should be a name for serious threats to free software that the fsf doesnt consider threats-- threats that fly under their radar.
i call these threats "redix."
redix doesnt exist as an alternative to posix, redix changes posix from the inside and leaves you with only redix.
why redix? it could be red hat, it could be redmond. but posix (even without perfect compliance) has helped to hold the ecosystem together for this long, and the lie of the corporation is this:
"if we take this over, it will get better support. customers will get better support."
yeah, i used to use a thing called central point anti virus. microsoft purchased it and it became microsoft anti virus.
big companies buy stuff, use it and then when they drop support, its gone.
systemd is just lost ground. but its the fsf you have to convince, not the systemd fanbase, if you want better resistance to systemd. the systemd fanbase just likes being on the side thats "winning." to them, that will always be the big companies. and red hat is definitely one of the crown jewels of open source. so is systemd.
despite being a "work of opinion," this post is also released as cc0/public domain per this license/waiver: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/