> It is better to go with a grass-roots solution, even the one technically inferior, that isn't being influenced by one single vendor or government.
If politics was a problem the most practical way would be to just fork systemd because it has friendly license and is feature rich.
So we don't trust Red Hat because it's customer is the US Army?
I also would say that every critical system components are control by different ententes. BUT don't like systemD you can use any of a dozen options.
Re:Broken by design: systemd
by dredmorbius on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @12:58AM
(#7216049)
I'd be more concerned about RH and its own incentives (look at the clusterfuck that's GNOME) than the US Army specifically.
Sure. I have a gut feeling that GNOME reworking was done solely to make trouble for Canonical.
The Interface Stability Promise [1] by systemd team is just a promise, nothing more. I wonder if Red Hat will keep it if it decides that it no longer serves their bottom line.
[1] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfaceSt...
That's what we know about this company from an old (2007) article:
> “When we rolled into Baghdad, we did it using open
> source,” General Justice continued. “It may come as a
> surprise to many of you, but the U.S. Army is “the” single
> largest install base for Red Hat Linux. I'm their largest customer.” [1]
It is better to go with a grass-roots solution, even the one technically inferior, that isn't being influenced by one single vendor or government.
[1] http://archive09.linux.com/feed/61302