If seriously, can someone explain to me the difference in attitude towards systemd and linux kernel? Almost all arguments against systemd stay valid, when applied to linux kernel, but I don't recall people campaining for decades to delete Linus and replace linux with Hurd or Minix3.
The article even mentions the elimination of seats on the linux foundation's board for "community" members, and the increase in seats allocated to corporate members.
The linux foundation today is pretty much completely controlled by corporate interests.
Linus is still the benevolent dictator, but as time passes, and Linus finally retires, unless something changes the future of control of the linux kernel will go farther and farther from it's roots as a user/contributor project in the "free software" spirit.
To provide a definition of the primary difference between "open source" and "free software" development models: Free software development is primarily by a group of users, for themselves and other users. Open source is a business model of using community s/w development for a project that is ultimately intended to be sold for profit.
One is development of software by a group of users for their use, the other is commercial product development. That's not to say that product development is inherently evil, but it does have very different objectives compared to s/w developed by users for their own use.
Linux started as a free software project where contributors were users, and has morphed into an open source product development project.
The Linux kernel is much stricter about hacky patches and regressions. This has led to beef between the kernel and system developers in the past. The famous "I'm f*cking tired of your code" was directed at a systemd developer.
While searching through the systemd issues, i noticed various form of that issue (systemd spamming logs) still persist. And Lennart doing their "you are holding it wrong"... nothing has changed since Linus' rant.
Approach to the project maintenance really seems to be a significant difference, thank you. It would not account for most of the early attacks (when systemd was not adopted so wildly yet), nor the types of arguments ("unix philosophy", or "corporate takeover" like in this article)
I mean, Linus is not known for mincing words or avoiding beef either.
Is the style of personality (Linus/Lennart) at play?
I mean, this is some doctorate degree on internet sociology level of beef here.
When systemd broke tmux (which isn't a Linux project, but ported from OpenBSD) and instead of reverting or fixing their own bug, systemd devs went to the OpenBSD folks and asked them to work around the bug that they caused themselves. This is ragebait-level insolence:
If seriously, can someone explain to me the difference in attitude towards systemd and linux kernel? Almost all arguments against systemd stay valid, when applied to linux kernel, but I don't recall people campaining for decades to delete Linus and replace linux with Hurd or Minix3.
Is it a political thing? A cultural thing?