this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2026
30 points (96.9% liked)
Linux Questions
4078 readers
1 users here now
Linux questions Rules (in addition of the Lemmy.zip rules)
- stay on topic
- be nice (no name calling)
- do not post long blocks of text such as logs
- do not delete your posts
- only post questions (no information posts)
Tips for giving and receiving help
- be as clear and specific
- say thank you if a solution works
- verify your solutions before posting them as facts.
Any rule violations will result in disciplinary actions
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I find that to be a pretty weak argument given that the Linix foundation is funded almost exclusively by big tech
It is almost as if they have a incentive to support the thing that makes them billions of dollars
No, you're misunderstanding me. They aren't trying to kill Linux.
Rather, they are trying to add a walled garden to it that they can use to drive out hobbyists and privacy enthusiasts.
I think they might just be supporting something that serves their use case well. Both those companies manage massive amounts of servers that benefit from systemd being what it is.
If it wasn't useful for them it wouldn't make sense to invest money in it. I am not trying to make the argument that this is some kind of single minded hatred playing out.
With that said, how is Linux improved by having a single " init system " effectively steered by the worst of big tech? Systemd is becoming harder to get away from and reducing interest in alternatives.
Yeah no that is definitely the case. As OP said, alternatives are good. I just think that having a single init system everywhere is not what they're trying to accomplish, they're just investing in what they want to use themselves.
Though I guess in the end what they're trying to do is not really what matters, what matters is what actually happens. And to that end I'm really glad that void and company still maintain alternatives to systemd.
I don't think it's a good idea to ascribe any benevolence to Systemd, though.
they are intentionally suppressing alternatives: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2010-September/000391.html
They have used their size to force others to work around their idiosyncrasies, causing outages and reducing security of a majority of Linux systems around the world.
I have used systemd extensively for work in huge multi tenant environments, and I am in no way saying it just sucks and has no benefits.
I am saying that accepting it as-is will lead to Linux becoming a locked down, big tech owned slopfest.
I don't see any evidence of that
Do you think Microsoft ever tried to use a tactic of embracing a competing technology, extending their influence over it, and then using their leverage to extinguish the threat?
If yes, do you think they have stopped doing that currently?
Do you think Google and Microsoft are currently aligned with the technocratic destruction of EU and US legal status quo?