[pipy]

Systemd is controlled by Red Hat in a way in which critical system components including kernel haven't been controlled before. Not by single corporate entity.

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

[mateuszf]

> 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.

[baldfat]

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.

[dredmorbius]

I'd be more concerned about RH and its own incentives (look at the clusterfuck that's GNOME) than the US Army specifically.

[pipy]

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...