Poettering (a Red Hat employee) is not the source of the problem in the modern Linux ecosystem. Red Hat is the problem. Red Hat has almost complete control over freedesktop.org (xorg, DRI, cairo, mesa, wayland, systemd, dbus, PulseAudio, Gstreamer, xft) and GNOME (this includes all its applications and GTK+) and has a massive influence over the Linux Foundation and many GNU projects. Red Hat is a for-profit corporation so any action they take will only be for their own benefit and NOT yours. Regardless of whether their software is "FOSS" or not, they've slowly been redesigning the core design of Linux so that they could restrict your usage of it to their products, making you dependent on them. GNU/Linux should be renamed Red Hat OS, as it's essentially impossible to escape their tentacles on it.
As long as redhat/cia doesn't own the corperation of GNU or FSF the people are ok because their GPLv3+ patents will not be changed to close source. I would hope someone wrests mesa away from them though because that has alot of history inspite of it's crappy design. Everything else(wayland included) can die in a fire and be built new from the ground up. I did not know poettering was a redhat/cnnigger employee. Also it's funny (((they))) named it redhat instead of whitehat......
Christian Cruz
Red Hat employee here. This doesn't really make any sense since all of Red Hat's products have a free upstream.
You'll see them (us) and IBM influencing standards for that reason though; like Java 9 modules. I'm pretty sure the JBoss people wouldn't mind breaking compatibility with JBoss modules as long as certain existing functionality is still possible.
Bentley Williams
Sure you are.
Logan Martin
A free program can still be malicious. In this case, Red Hat has been making a conscious effort to integrate more and more of their shit together, while also killing off the competition, forcing other distributions to use their shit and infiltrating community projects. GTK3 and GNOME3, for instance, have received a lot of criticisms since their release, and Canonical even tried to contribute with it's ideas to them; but RH rejected all their code, rejected all the criticism, and then leveraged from GTK's popularity to force most distributions to include GNOME3 and, eventually, systemd. RH is cancer for GNU.
Zachary Hughes
I can't say that I know much about what you're referring to, but it kind of makes sense that when Canonical is off in Mir/Unity land and Red Hat pays more developers to do upstream work on GNOME shell, that it would end up more aligned with the Fedora project's goals than anything else.
Christian Cook
Are you the namefag too?
Caleb Lopez
I don't consider anything made by a corporation as open source. I'm not even using some Stallman definition or whatever you guys use. All I care is that the software works acceptably (unlike anything that has a hamburger menu or 50 "abstractions") and I can read/modify the source. Same problem with Mozilla and whatever garbage from Google. Even Microsoft makes "open source" these days. Redhat code is such garbage in terms of security, it's like the shit enterprise Java devs make, they just have no clue about anything. Even Google's shit has better security than redhat's, although it's still shit.
Joshua Cox
Speak the devilscnniggers name and he shall appear.
Naa them uniting the open source community is fine even the integration of programs. It's the distribution that needs to stay decentralised. Say redhat came to own all domains that distribute open source software such as github and GNU net. They then would be compiling all binary packages that you download. Unless your using something like gentoo which has it's own problems they could backdoor the binaries. Yes you could feasibly compile everything yourself without the backdoors in code you see. But that's a pain in the ass and normiefags aren't going to do that.Let alone know about securing your code from being edited while it compiles i.e verification.
