Originally quoted as from another forum (not named, though).
This reminds me of Microsoft paying De Icaza to attack Linux from the inside with the Mono trojan horse. Now, it is Red Hat (no doubt directed by their customer Fed Gov) directly attacking the simple, modular, do-one-thing-right Unix design philosophy and replacing it with the far-reaching, metastatizing blob that is SystemD. Why? To bake-in impossible to find, intentional backdoors and vulnerabilities as designed by Poettering and the rest of his paid-off coven.
No, this isn't directed by the federal government. There is no benefit to the government. This isn't Windows with its proprietary code. It is still open source with thousands of eyes upon it.
RH has huge contracts to supply Linux software to the feds, with support, which is where the big money comes in. A large percentage of those contracts are with the military. The last thing the military wants is an OS with backdoors, especially when the developers are scattered around the globe. Poettering is in Germany, for example.
It is more likely that RH is trying to lock down future federal Linux contracts by "engineering" a semi-proprietary version of Linux that they control or effectively control. Support contracts almost always require a demonstration of in-depth subject knowledge by the bidder's employees. RH can simply say we know that intimately, we wrote it. That would put them in the catbird seat for future contracts, essentially guaranteeing they would get the work.
It's about the money, as usual.
This reminds me of Microsoft paying De Icaza to attack Linux from the inside with the Mono trojan horse. Now, it is Red Hat (no doubt directed by their customer Fed Gov) directly attacking the simple, modular, do-one-thing-right Unix design philosophy and replacing it with the far-reaching, metastatizing blob that is SystemD. Why? To bake-in impossible to find, intentional backdoors and vulnerabilities as designed by Poettering and the rest of his paid-off coven.
No, this isn't directed by the federal government. There is no benefit to the government. This isn't Windows with its proprietary code. It is still open source with thousands of eyes upon it.
RH has huge contracts to supply Linux software to the feds, with support, which is where the big money comes in. A large percentage of those contracts are with the military. The last thing the military wants is an OS with backdoors, especially when the developers are scattered around the globe. Poettering is in Germany, for example.
It is more likely that RH is trying to lock down future federal Linux contracts by "engineering" a semi-proprietary version of Linux that they control or effectively control. Support contracts almost always require a demonstration of in-depth subject knowledge by the bidder's employees. RH can simply say we know that intimately, we wrote it. That would put them in the catbird seat for future contracts, essentially guaranteeing they would get the work.
It's about the money, as usual.