On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 19:40:46 +0200 Bernard Rosset via Dng <dng@lists.dyne.org> wrote:
> Although all very interesting theories (even some being plausible), > and although I am inclined to believe any (*any*!) explanation, even > the oddest, as to *why* this systemd monstruosity exists, all I see > here is conjecture and/or opinions presented as facts. > > I would gladly take anything that would connect any wild theory to > something remotely looking like a fact or a proof when talking about > knowledge. I can't give you proof, but I can give a strong piece of evidence: http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/10/interview-with-red-hat-cto-brian.html Search for the word "complexity", read that paragraph and the next one. These two paragraphs, written by the then CTO of Redhat, shows that Redhat had a motive to complexify Linux. Because of their $20.5 billion market capitalization, they obviously had the means to complexify. And because they controlled the second most influential distro, they had the opportunity to complexify, if they could get Debian and Ubuntu to take the bait. Somebody mentioned that Redhat wanted to morph Linux into their desired image so there would be only one Linux and Redhat would be its expert. I find that perfectly believeable, and it isn't mutually exclusive with their wanting to inject complexity to keep their trainers and consultants busy. Circling back, IBM very well might have different plans, and if so, a few hundred letters to IBM might things go quicker. SteveT Steve Litt Author: The Key to Everyday Excellence http://www.troubleshooters.com/key Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stevelitt _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
