[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
I've left off [email protected] and [email protected] since I am not sure this is pertinent for them. I disagree with your analysis of freedom issues in regard to systemD and GNOME. systemD is a non-GNU free program, which was developed to replace other non-GNU free programs. Whether to use it in the GNU system is, as you say, a technical issue only. I don't see a reason to be concerned about the matter. I've seen people criticize it for being monolithic -- not following the Unix design philosophy -- but since I was never particularly an adherent of the Unix design philosophy, it is not clear to me that that is a reason to object to systemD. I agree with Franta's proposals such as a standard API, but that's a change in systemD, right? It would ne necessary to discuss it with the systemD developers. > It would > be a great „selling point“ if we can say: „we can provide same useful > features as systemd but with just a fraction of its complexity and in a > modular way (so you install only features, you need)“. That is a good thing to work on. Since systemD is free software, and not an injustice, we are not going to denounce it or reject it. But we can aim to do better. Regarding Gnome, the main technical question is GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3. GNOME 2 is a 1990s PC-style graphical interface, while GNOME 3 resembles a tablet's interface. I and many other hackers prefer GNOME 2, but I'm told lots of users like GNOME 3. It seems to me that it is good to have both of them. -- Dr Richard Stallman Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
