> They don't have the push to constantly changing stuff around for the sake of things like systemd and net-tools.

I assume you forgot a word here and intended to write "changing stuff around for the sake of changing things"?

I just want to set the record straight: systemd solves the startup-dependency problem. Yes the old default init scripts worked fine for your system (that probably had very few services installed other than vanilla defaults), but it was insufficient for handling the exploding cascade of dependencies when service1 depends on the network, service2 depends on the graphical subsystem, service3 (the wifi daemon) can restart the network, etc. People tried in vain, hacked nasty rc.init scripts for years, until Poettering took matters into his own hands.

I will stop there because I dont know the whole history behind it, but I just take issue with the attitude that systemd in particular is just kids messing around with the latest-new-thing. Some of that does exist in the Linux sphere, even worse, with some maintainers putting inappropriate images and political messages in their apps[1]. But systemd - as with wayland - solves a problem that had been brewing a long time.I suppose you could almost think of it as a fix for developers instead of end users? I'm not compelling you to use it, just disputing your final point.

[1]. https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/18izmt4/clarifyin...

I don't really agree, because it works totally fine on BSD. I do think the Linux init system was a bit less advanced than BSD's though.

PS: I don't like Wayland either for that matter :) At all. My ideal would be an X12 with the X-Windows foundations but modified for modern realities.

> systemd solves the startup-dependency problem

And that's perfectly fine. My problem with systemd is that it didn't stop there; it became this giant monolithic thing that Linux hangs off the edge of. That's Poettering's sin.

I’ll never understand what that guy did that got all of you in such a frenzy. Because Stallman or Torvalds are such socially apt and charismatic people, or what? Yet all those systemd opponents out there don’t seem to have a particular problem with them.

Poettering might have opinions on what Linux should be that don’t overlap with yours, but systemd solves actual problems and works better than any init script shenanigans that came before. If you don’t agree with this premise, I call your proficiency with Linux into question (don’t take this in spite, please, it’s in no way meant personally).

Well, both Linus and RMS have attracted their share of controversy. In the case of Linus, while you may not always agree with him, there seems to be broader support for his engineering choices. He has multiple projects that have dominated their spaces on their own merits. Whatever you think of Stallman, there is no denying his historical contribution.

For myself, I am more bothered by RMS. Although I know Chimera has shunned GNU for technical reasons, I would personally prefer a world where all GNU software has been replaced by alternatives. In my view, we would be better off to be free of RMS and the politics he has created around around “GNU / Linux”. The GPL itself is an important option in Open Source and, while it is not my favourite, I wish it and the projects that adopt it much success. However, the GNU Project itself is becoming an impediment ( my views only of course ). Luckily, the GNU project represents quite a small list of software projects despite the way people talk about it. Replacing GCC, Glibc, and Coreutils would be enough. Of these, the most damaging and the hardest to replace is probably Glibc.

Anyway, my intent is not to trigger people with such opinions in this thread. I do not want them to reflect badly on Chimera. My only reason for chiming in is to illustrate that Poettering is not unique in collecting detractors.

Finally, systemd did solve real problems at the time. There are other solutions now though so let’s not render them inoperable. Also, not everything systemd wants to be now is better than the alternatives or even what came before. Not liking systemd does not mean wanting to go back to init scripts.

Btw, the system I use most daily uses systemd. I also use it in a project at work although, there, we have a strange bug “rarely” at shutdown that systemd is implicated in and I wish it ( and is ecosystem ) were easier to understand. So again, I find the Chimera approach attractive.

I generally just don't want to see anybody being attacked for the work they do; I'm fine with people criticizing RMS, since that's generally because of his views that deserve to be condemned, but I wish to see no hostility towards maintainers of GNU projects or systemd

the GNU codebases may have their issues (but not always; there are some very high quality ones), but that's still not a reason for personal attacks, and frequently the maintainers are just trying to do their best and don't deserve any of that shit

ideally I'd like to see an ecosystem where all the projects are represented, where the projects collaborate, adapt ideas from each other, and strive for portability and interoperability so that compatibility problems do not exist and so that users have the greatest freedom in terms of both hardware and software; but I guess that may be too much to ask

Amen to that and thank you for the response.

I do not really mean to criticize anybody myself. My venting is more about GNU advocates criticizing others, campaigning against collaboration, or trying to lay claim to vast swaths of software they did not write. Although I am very pro-Open Source, it also bothers me when too much abuse is heaped on commercial vendors that do contribute lots of code ( even code I don’t love ). At least, I prefer the complaining stayed technical.

Thank you again for your contributions. I hope I continue to enjoy your choices. Good luck either way.

I'm not a fan of Stallman either. I think he focuses too much on the legalese around licences. Personally I don't care about licensing very much at all. I ignore all licenses and terms & conditions anyway (and to be perfectly honest; who actually reads them?)

Nor commercial involvement (e.g. RedHat/IBM or Ubuntu) for that matter. This is why I'm better off with BSD anyway because there's so much less commercial involvement.

And Linus yes he can be abrasive but usually I would agree with him more.

> I call your proficiency with Linux into question (don’t take this in spite, please, it’s in no way meant personally).

Well I'm certainly not very good with Linux anymore since I've used it less and less recently, gravitating more towards the BSDs. So that's not a bad point, I know how to start and stop systemd services and a bit on how to get logging back etc. But the point is, I never really wanted to learn something new. I've used FreeBSD since version 6 and it's hardly changed at all. And it works totally fine for me. But "being good with Linux" is not a goal for me anyway. I don't currently need it for my career anyway.

In the mean time I've been on Macs, but I really really abhor the way that Apple is constantly changing things around on me too (they are far worse at this than Linux) and they are consumerising the OS rapidly. So when I went back to FOSS I decided to go for BSD for this reason.