The Poetterisation of GNU/Linux

Homer's picture

Poettering LinuxI've found a disturbing trend in GNU/Linux, where largely unaccountable cliques of developers unilaterally decide to make fundamental changes to the way it works, based on highly subjective and arrogant assumptions, then forge ahead with little regard to those who actually use the software, much less the well-established principles upon which that OS was originally built. The long litany of examples includes Ubuntu Unity, Gnome Shell, KDE 4, the /usr partition, SELinux, PolicyKit, Systemd, udev and PulseAudio, to name a few.

I hereby dub this phenomenon the "Poetterisation of GNU/Linux".

The broken features, creeping bloat, and in particular the unhealthy tendency toward more monolithic, less modular code in certain Free Software projects, is a very serious problem, and I have a very serous opposition to it. I abandoned Windows to get away from that sort of nonsense, I didn't expect to have to deal with it in GNU/Linux.

Clearly this situation is untenable.

The motivation for these arbitrary changes mostly seems to be rooted in the misguided concept of "popularity", which makes no sense at all for something that's purely academic and non-commercial in nature. More users does not equal more developers. Indeed more developers does not even necessarily equal more or faster progress. What's needed is more of the right sort of developers, or at least more of the existing developers to adopt the right methods.

This is the problem with distros like Ubuntu, as the most archetypal example. Shuttleworth pushed hard to attract more users, with heavy marketing and by making Ubuntu easy at all costs, but in so doing all he did was amass a huge burden, in the form of a large influx of users who were, by and large, purely consumers, not contributors.

As a result, many of those now using GNU/Linux are really just typical Microsoft or Apple consumers, with all the baggage that entails. They're certainly not assets of any kind. They have expectations forged in a world of proprietary licensing and commercially-motivated, consumer-oriented, Hollywood-style indoctrination, not academia. This is clearly evidenced by their belligerently hostile attitudes toward the GPL, FSF, GNU and Stallman himself, along with their utter contempt for security and other well-established UNIX paradigms, and their unhealthy predilection for proprietary software, meaningless aesthetics and hype.

Reading the Ubuntu forums is an exercise in courting abject despair, as one witnesses an ignorant hoard demand GNU/Linux be mutated into the bastard son of Windows and Mac OS X. And Shuttleworth, it seems, is only too happy to oblige, eagerly assisted by his counterparts on other distros and upstream projects, such as Lennart Poettering and Richard Hughes, the former of whom has somehow convinced every distro to mutate the Linux startup process into a hideous monolithic blob, and the latter of whom successfully managed to undermine 40 years of UNIX security in a single stroke, by obliterating the principle that unprivileged users should not be allowed to install software system-wide.

GNU/Linux does not need such people, indeed it needs to get rid of them as a matter of extreme urgency. This is especially true when those people are former (or even current) Windows programmers, because they not only bring with them their indoctrinated expectations, misguided ideologies and flawed methods, but worse still they actually implement them, thus destroying GNU/Linux from within.

Perhaps the most startling example of this was the Mono and Moonlight projects, which not only burdened GNU/Linux with all sorts of "IP" baggage, but instigated a sort of invasion of Microsoft "evangelists" and programmers, like a Trojan horse, who subsequently set about stuffing GNU/Linux with as much bloated, patent encumbered garbage as they could muster.

I was part of a group who campaigned relentlessly for years to oust these vermin and undermine support for Mono and Moonlight, and we were largely successful. Some have even suggested that my diatribes, articles and debates (with Miguel de Icaza and others) were instrumental in securing this victory, so clearly my efforts were not in vain.

Amassing a large user-base is a highly misguided aspiration for a purely academic field like Free Software. It really only makes sense if you're a commercial enterprise trying to make as much money as possible. The concept of "market share" is meaningless for something that's free (in the commercial sense).

Of course Canonical is also a commercial enterprise, but it has yet to break even, and all its income is derived through support contracts and affiliate deals, none of which depends on having a large number of Ubuntu users (the Ubuntu One service is cross-platform, for example).

What GNU/Linux needs is a small number of competent developers producing software to a high technical standard, who respect the well-established UNIX principles of security, efficiency, code correctness, logical semantics, structured programming, modularity, flexibility and engineering simplicity (a.k.a. the KISS Principle), just as any scientist or engineer in the field of computer science and software engineering should.

What it doesn't need is people who shrug their shoulders and bleat "disks are cheap".

Comments

Anony Mouse's picture

"I've found a disturbing

"I've found a disturbing trend in GNU/Linux, where largely unaccountable cliques of developers unilaterally decide to make fundamental changes to the way it works,"

Isn't that what makes Linux and open source so great? The fact that developers can take a project and adapt it to their own vision.

Since you censored my other comment with your copyright hypocrisy, I wonder if you will do the same with this one.

I'd suggest that if you find projects you disagree with, you simply don't use them. There's plenty of choice out there and another reason why OSS is so great. In your world maybe you want software freedom as long as it agrees with your unique "ideas" - I wouldn't call that freedom at all and I'm pleased to see your type of hypocrisy is limited to a very small audience.

Homer's picture

The "freedom" to screw things up

Having the freedom to modify Free Software doesn't somehow negate my freedom to criticise it if it's crap, nor is it any excuse for making crap software in the first place. I have no power over these people, nor do I aspire to any, therefore I can't force them to stop making crap software, and I can't force them to stop destroying existing software that I depend on. However I can complain about it, especially when there are no viable alternatives.

If you'd actually read and understood the article, you'd realise that, for example, systemd threatens to supplant all existing alternative init systems (and software far beyond the init system too), by means of universal dependency, at which point there will not in fact be any "alternatives".

Before using big words like "hypocrisy", I suggest you learn what they mean first. There's no hypocrisy in criticising crap software, or a rapidly diminishing number of choices, or being subjected against my will by automatic copyright terms.

As for the other comment I supposedly "censored", I didn't, in fact I wasn't even aware there was a comment until now. Because I get an inordinate number of fuckwits like you spewing bile on this site, no comments are published automatically, they go into a moderation queue for review first, but unless I actually log in and look at that queue, I have no idea there are any comments waiting.

Not that I have any particular objection to censorship, in fact I strongly endorse it, just as I strongly endorse removing fuckwits like you from the gene pool.

Anony Mouse's picture

Indeed, We must see it for what it is: a fork of Gnu/Linux.

We have to see it for what it is. Lennart Pottering and his acolytes
who work within other projects are essentially forking Gnu/Linux and
are creating LennartOS.

What should be done is to follow their often spoken refrain: fork
every project that relies on systemd, xyzkit, LennartStuff:
create X.org-concrete (if they go the Lennart way (there's a patch now!))
KDE-concrete, Gnome2 Gnome3-concrete. Security fixes would be
applied, as-well as legitimate bug fixes (all these are often
one to three liners). Otherwise the software would mostly retain
its form. Something familiar, mature, stable.

Remember: Software is much more an art form than a science. The way
it interacts is a choice not a foregone conclusion.

Lennart and his followers use the fallacy that software is a
science to bully all of us into following their direction.

A fork of (all but) linux is need now, it's already happening
on Lennart's Side. We had better meet them in kind and protect our
software system or be subsumed.

Anony Mouse's picture

Is there any way out of this?

Is there any way out of this? Everything seems to be going systemd (apparently they all all-ready went dbus for some reason). There's now a patch for X.org for-which attention is being demanded. The pottering acolytes keep saying "oh well you don't have to use systemd, you can FORK all the projects that rely on it now!". Honestly when and why did the "let's all use some monolithic second kernel and waste as many resources as we can on constructing a new religion" idea take root? I haven't payed attention for a few years but suddenly linux isn't what it always was any more (or is on the verge). It's like a disease of the mind.

There needs to be a fork of the whole "stack" (what the fuck is that, I never heard of a talk of "stacks" years ago) into a pro-unix enclave, and whatever operating system pottering and followers are creating for their own glory. Just like XFree86 was forked, everything beneath (or above?, this stack terminology...) needs to be separated into branches for the pottering followers and the old unix (and old is good) guys.

Pottering is a fucking asshole. I watched him take over a man's presentation, and even hop on stage. The man should have beaten him bloody, it's clear he's never been on the receiving end.

He likes to scream "it's free, you don't HAVE to use it, and you get it for free". A bullet is free too on the receiving end. And one wouldn't have to receive it if one just stepped out of the way!

Pottering and his fans reminds me of the invasion of feminists a few years back. They came on with a bang, claimed they were doing great work, made demands, and they were obeyed to some degree. They didn't create much of anything. They got some open source projects of mine taken down however. They get men kicked out of various projects to this day for saying or believing the wrong thing.

Is there any hope (Please debian, don't force systemd, stay what you always were. And Ian you created Debian, don't let it be taken from you by pottering follwers)
--MikeeUSA--

Anony Mouse's picture

4 Freedoms are for USERS, not contributors.

>but in so doing all he did was amass a huge burden, in the form of a large influx of users who were,
>by and large, purely consumers, not contributors.

I agree with some of what you say and not with others but you just lost me at this quote.

Listen to Stallman speak about the GPL, GNU and freedom and NEVER does he make your statement.
If anything Ive heard him many times say the exact opposite: users DONT have to be developers and what he and others do.

your quote is a mix of condescencion and arrogance..

As a developer, i dont expect users to be contributors.

Homer's picture

4 Freedoms?

Where did I mention the four freedoms?

I'm talking about technical inadequacies driven by misguided popularisation, not licensing.

Also, I don't expect Stallman to make my statements for me, I'm quite capable of making my own, thanks.

And no, I don't expect the great unwashed hordes of ex-Windows users to suddenly become GNU/Linux developers, and I don't want them to, but then neither do I expect actual GNU/Linux developers to slavishly pander to their Windows-centric demands.