They're open source, but they rely on so much ubuntu-specific infrastructure and patches that it's infeasible to get them running anywhere else.

Cf. the effort necessary to get Unity running on Arch: https://github.com/chenxiaolong/Unity-for-Arch

You have to rip out and replace a lot of software, all the way down to GTK itself, just to make it work.

Sounds like Redhat's systemd: "if you want to run it, you have to replace most everything."

Init systems are, by nature, highly invasive. Systemd's requirements don't fundamentally differ from modern sysvinit derivatives or upstart or whatnot in that regard.

Unity, on the other hand, is a bloody desktop environment. You can install dozens of those (or could, if there were that many) in parallel without any modifications… with the sole exception of Unity.

Systemd replaces a lot more of the system than other init systems - for example, it has it's own journal format, and also has it's own time tools. Other init systems don't. You can't just drop systemd in and get by just with learning it's config language - you have to change the way you do a number of other things, too.

But then again, you don't think that there are dozens of desktop environments. Arch supports nearly two dozen by itself (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Desktop_environment), and that list doesn't include things like fvwm, or tiling desktops like xmonad or i3.

Edit: To clarify, the point being made is "if you have to modify a bunch of stuff, then the software is not free". Systemd requires a lot of modifications - it's not a 'drop in' replacement. Using the same argument, systemd is 'not free'. It doesn't matter how 'invasive' the component is, the argument is about modification effort.

I think the argument is wrong - Canonical patches a lot of things for Unity, but those patches are publicly available and are not done to obfuscate the code. Basically the argument here is that no-one should be allowed to publish free software if it can't be simply dropped into $RANDOM_YAHOO's system.

> Systemd replaces a lot more of the system than other init systems - for example, it has it's own journal format, and also has it's own time tools.

From my own experience, migrating machines from sysvinit to systemd is trivial. Systemd does not need all those optional bits and is happy to work with syslog, ntpd, cron, etc. pp., can pass through sysvinit init files, and so on. If you actually use it instead of relying on fudy reports, it's a breeze to work with.

Recompiling half my desktop, and then recompiling all userspace programs using any of the involved libraries, is much more invasive compared to that.

Another approach is looking at what you have to do when building a system from scratch: Here, systemd's "modification needs" are obviously close to zero (because the system is built around it, you can use journald/timesyncd/etc. from start, or set up rsyslog/ntpd interoperability for systemd). Userland software might, at most, need unit files to use them. Desktop environments et. al. work without dedicated logind support or anything. Unity, however, still requires me to scrape together patches out of Canonical forks of various programs and libraries to get it to work. It's still massively invasive and requires far, far too much effort.

They are open-source, but they only really work on Ubuntu. Upstart is another example, and it's part of why other Ubuntu-specific things won't work on other distros.

Other distros could try to port Ubuntu projects, but why would Canonical accept their patches upstream?

Actually the systemd guys looked at upstart for redhat in the beginning, but choose to rewrite it anyway. That had nothing to do with the Canonical entanglement though.

Though I dislike Unity and Mir, I think RedHats understanding of "Open" Source is a lot more disturbing.. https://lwn.net/Articles/432012

That had everything to do with Canonical entanglement. Canonical would only accept patches to upstart with a contributor agreement allowing Canonical relicensing rights. This made it very difficult for outside contributors to work on upstart (especially redhat funded ones) and that led to resources being made available for investigating what would become systemd and friends.

RHEL 6 (and CentOS 6 by extension) use Upstart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstart#Adoption

Not that I disagree with your comments on Red Hat, but let's get our facts right.

RHEL6 starts upstarts, but doesn't make use of any of the functionality. Everything is sysvinit scripts and zero (upstart) jobs. I was administrating a few RHEL6 machines and had to read elsewhere about the change to even notice it.

The person you responded to is correct though; a large factor in starting systemd was the CLA of Upstart. Above even highlights this; you cannot really say that RHEL6 used upstart in any way.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. It uses upstart to start all the sysvinit scripts, no? I know you can create upstart jobs and they'll get started, I've done that. But you're right, it doesn't make "real" use of upstart, in a sense.

I believe ubuntu is going to change from upstart to systemd soon?

ubuntu is using systemd since 15.04

Unity for example, needs a forked glib to be compiled and work. And only Ubuntu uses this forked glib. I don't know about Mir.

I don't see any Unity-specific patches in the glib package in Ubuntu. What are you referring to?

Too many horizontal dependencies on other Ubuntu stuff. Ubuntu should learn how to properly define interfaces and stack stuff vertically rather than to make ties willy-nilly with other Ubuntu specific stuff.

The spirit of free-software has died now, it no longer has the spark that did during the time of Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds.

As a result, rather than working towards a united goal of empowering users with the power of FOSS tools, we started having these ego battles of "mine vs your distro", "gnome vs unity", "systemd vs upstart", etc.

Its true that Linux has choice and FOSS is all about having choice. But that has gained quite a negative reputation now. Earlier, choice meant: "If you need more features, use X package instead of Y".

Now it means: "Since I have got choice, I'll keep switching my distro every couple years, and since I'm a unity fanatic, why should I keep it compatible with other distros? Everyone should use unity and ubuntu."

Unity and Mir are no doubt open-source, but if you build a automobile engine that fits ONLY to your car and call that engine open-source, what use is it!

You mean GNU/Linux. Where is RMS and what have you done with him!?