Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

zapper · 2022-11-28 14:51:08

blackhole wrote:

"You are actually stating what I have been saying for at least the last 10 years - that GPL is not some anti corporate or anti capitalist safeguard, which prevents corporate involvement/takeover. As you have noted, corporations have infiltrated free software and simply pay the people / fund the projects and in doing so achieve control and can steer those projects as they see fit. This also means that"unfunded" projects lack/lose developers and die. One could argue that, if the code were under,e.g. BSD 2 clause, they would just throw some donations at the project, walk away and do their own thing. Who can say for sure. I think that horse has bolted.
All GPL really does in a nutshell is seek to prevent a company (or an individual in fact) from taking code and "turning it proprietary". That's really it."
That is my point, more or less. To be clear, I was speaking of software for the core of the operating system, however, a balance is also needed. Aka, the code needs to be completely permissive for this to be more effective.
"I'm almost certain OpenBSD contains no "non-free" stuff - in fact there are strict policies with regards to that."
Well, you are 90% right, technically, I was speaking of what GNU people call binary blobs and also what they call non-free. But as for the point below:
FreeBSD, I'm not so sure about. I do know they have signed NDAs in the past and I know their focus is on providing something that works rather than something primarily provided to meet some ideological objective. But yes, despite this - one could argue that FreeBSD is "more free" than Linux as it is not funded and controlled by a consortium of "Big Tech". That is ironic, considering all the criticism leveled at FreeBSD over the years by GNU evangelists (while corporations crept in and stole almost everything from under their noses).."
Ironic is putting it mildly given the dbus, systemd and other over-engineered garbage that they have allowed to infect GNU.
They fail to understand that freedom restricting software can appear in other ways besides non-free licenses on said software.
Aka, they care about free licensing, so much they have overlooked that without security there cannot be privacy and withour privacy, freedom is meaningless.
Catch 22...

blackhole · 2022-11-28 16:16:32

zapper wrote:

Well, you are 90% right, technically, I was speaking of what GNU people call binary blobs and also what they call non-free.

There are no "blobs" or firmware distributed with OpenBSD to my knowledge. Firmware is downloaded independently via a tool called "fw_update(8)", this only fetches the missing firmware required by the hardware platform.

Most Linux distributions do something similar.

zapper wrote:

Ironic is putting it mildly given the dbus, systemd and other over-engineered garbage that they have allowed to infect GNU.
They fail to understand that freedom restricting software can appear in other ways besides non-free licenses on said software.
Aka, they care about free licensing, so much they have overlooked that without security there cannot be privacy and withour privacy, freedom is meaningless.
Catch 22...

You're talking about "free in license" vs "free in spirit" (as I call it anyway)? Yes, the point you're making is that the "ethics" of some particular software, is an entirely separate issue to the licence.

Last edited by blackhole (2022-11-28 16:18:17)

Kelsoo · 2022-11-29 14:32:22

https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

"BSD systems
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree firmware blobs.
Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called “blobs,” and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term “blob” means something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD distributions (called “projects” by BSD developers) have the policy of not including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the developers say these distributions “contain no blobs,” it causes a misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.
None of those BSD distributions has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware that might be loaded even by free drivers."

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-11-29 14:48:56

Kelsoo wrote:

https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
In addition, their kernels include nonfree firmware blobs

That is categorically not true for OpenBSD. As blackhole has already mentioned the only non-free component of any OpenBSD system is the firmware, which is downloaded from http://firmware.openbsd.org/firmware/ by fw_update(8). The firmware is *not* part of the kernel and can only be downloaded after installation.

Kelsoo · 2022-12-02 11:22:26

It seem to me that if the firmware is distributable Theo is happy include it.

Theo de Raadt: Quite honestly I prefer chips which have no firmware, and instead use correctly designed hardware logic, which our driver must then drive. Note that most ethernet chipsets do not use a processor, but many scsi chipsets do. Most IDE chipsets do not, but for wireless devices ... it is about half and half. This clearly has to do with the complexity of the data flow problem being dealt with.
But in the end, if we wish to support any such devices, we must be practical. We must accept the risk that there is a flaw in the firmware. (Is that not what many of us have been coping with for years now with Prism wireless chipsets and their firmware update tools?) But the legal climate is a real problem for us -- that is why we must get copyright permission to distribute the firmware images. Once they are distributed... at least the device works.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-12-02 16:28:57

An unreferenced quote talking about "firmware images" in a vague and general sense doesn't really seem to support a claim that the OpenBSD kernel contains blobs.

Perhaps try OpenBSD yourself? The system is installed in a pristine, blob-free state but on first boot the hardware is checked and any firmware that is needed is downloaded and installed. It is an automatic process but it only works if the machine has an internet connection. OpenBSD is pragmatic about non-free firmware because if the user didn't want blobs then why do they have hardware that requires it?

So the fact remains that the OpenBSD kernel does not contain blobs and nor does an installed system. The only time blobs are added is if required and if the machine is connected to the internet.

Debian will include non-free firmware in the official bookworm release, which is not something that will ever happen with OpenBSD (IMO).

Evenson · 2022-12-03 12:52:56

Head on a stick, ive tried openbsd before. When you say

"The system is installed in a pristine, blob-free state but on first boot the hardware is checked and any firmware that is needed is downloaded and installed. It is an automatic process but it only works if the machine has an internet connection."

Ive not experienced this, I always thought I needed to manually use fw_update? I tether my phone for an internet connection after installation with shell command in xterm su -c 'dhclient urndis0' then do su -c 'syspatch & fw_update'

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-12-03 13:37:47

If you have to configure your phone connection manually after first boot then the automatic method would not have had a connection available to download the firmware.

Evenson · 2022-12-03 14:41:05

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

If you have to configure your phone connection manually after first boot then the automatic method would not have had a connection available to download the firmware.

So openbsd automagically installs firmware blobs as long as you set up an internet connection during installation setup? Are you sure?

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-12-03 15:20:12

From the FAQ:

For licensing reasons, some firmware cannot be directly distributed with OpenBSD. The fw_update(8) tool will automatically download and install any missing firmware, but this requires a working internet connection.

https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#WifiOnly

EDIT: and please sed 's/SystemD/systemd/' in your signature. TIA.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2022-12-03 15:21:50)

Evenson · 2022-12-03 15:26:47

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

From the FAQ:
For licensing reasons, some firmware cannot be directly distributed with OpenBSD. The fw_update(8) tool will automatically download and install any missing firmware, but this requires a working internet connection.
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#WifiOnly
EDIT: and please sed 's/SystemD/systemd/' in your signature. TIA.

So Kelsoo is correct && no. SystemD is a unix virus.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-12-03 15:29:06

No, Kelsoo is not correct. The FAQ clearly states that firmware is *not* included with OpenBSD, and hence the kernel is blob-free.

And my comment was in respect of the spelling rather than any philosophical argument.

Evenson · 2022-12-03 15:32:31

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

No, Kelsoo is not correct. The FAQ clearly states that firmware is *not* included with OpenBSD, and hence the kernel is blob-free.
And my comment was in respect of the spelling rather than any philosophical argument.

If you automatically install firmware blobs during installation with an internet connection then this is a very grey area. I dont care how you think systemD should be spelled, get over it.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-12-03 15:40:38

It's not grey at all. The FAQ and installation guides make clear what will happen. And if the user is so against non-free firmware why do they have hardware for which it is a requirement?

Any hardware that doesn't load firmware blobs from the operating system has them implanted at the factory instead so it's not like blobs can be avoided with modern components like hard drive & motherboard controllers.

get over it

Never!

Evenson · 2022-12-03 15:44:11

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

It's not grey at all. The FAQ and installation guides make clear what will happen. And if the user is so against non-free firmware why do they have hardware for which it is a requirement?
Any hardware that doesn't load firmware blobs from the operating system has them implanted at the factory instead so it's not like blobs can be avoided with modern components like hard drive & motherboard controllers.
get over it
Never!

Your post makes as much sense as me taking the time to reply to it. Goodbye.

Last edited by Evenson (2022-12-03 15:46:10)

Kelsoo · 2022-12-03 20:54:14

apologies Hoas for forgetting the link.

Theo de Raadt quote ref:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060603230017/http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550

There's a lot I like about the BSDs technically but IMHO ethically they suck donkey balls. Particularly their "acceptable licenses" which has a very anti GPL/copyleft and with a strong pro proprietary stance. They are blood suckers with no real care about freedom issues. The free software user is like some chained peasant fed on enough crumbs to keep barely alive so as to feed the resident vampire. This is easy to see in their "goals" where they are actively trying to remove the GPL. No doubt because if affects their corporate funding. There is no ethical aim in any BSD and there never will be.

--------------------

https://www.openbsd.org/goals.html

"Integrate good code from any source with acceptable licenses. ISC or Berkeley style licences are preferred, the GPL is not acceptable when adding new code, NDAs are never acceptable. We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to. There are commercial spin-offs of OpenBSD. "

----------------------------------
Now on the surface this seems very open and transparent. But what drives this why do they even bother sharing their source code when they clearly want to support closed source proprietary systems. Well the answer is pretty obvious really. The original code is from publicly (government so tax payers dollar) funded educational and military institutions. They had no choice. As the importance of the software grew so did the Proprietary interest and funding and so the never ending circle began.
-----------------------------------

Re the BSD take on: “acceptable licenses”

"GNU General Public License, GPL, LGPL, copyleft, etc.
The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code.
While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it. As a consequence, no additional software bound by the GPL terms will be considered for inclusion into the OpenBSD base system.
For historical reasons, the OpenBSD base system still includes the following GPL-licensed components: the GNU compiler collection (GCC) with supporting binutils and libraries, GNU CVS, GNU texinfo, the mkhybrid file system creation tool, and the readline library. Replacement by equivalent, more freely licensed tools is a long-term desideratum."

------------

In short the BSDs are happy to use the libre GNU utils to build their system but then want to obliterate it. Not just from their code base but entirely just like Google. Fuck em I say. They just want to destroy libre software and them no doubt revise their shitty license and we’ll all be stuck in shrink wrapped proprietary purgatory al-la Microsoft again.

------------

The idea that the GPL is anti commerce is beyond absurd and nothing more than FUD. Anti proprietary slaveware yes, anti commercial never.

-----------

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware

Commercial software
“Commercial” and “proprietary” are not the same! Commercial software is software developed by a business as part of its business. Most commercial software is proprietary, but there is commercial free software, and there is non commercial nonfree software.
For example, GNU Ada is developed by a company. It is always distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, and every copy is free software; but its developers sell support contracts. When their salesmen speak to prospective customers, sometimes the customers say, “We would feel safer with a commercial compiler.” The salesmen reply, “GNU Ada is a commercial compiler; it happens to be free software.”
For the GNU Project, the priorities are in the other order: the important thing is that GNU Ada is free software; that it is commercial is just a detail. However, the additional development of GNU Ada that results from its being commercial is definitely beneficial.
Please help spread the awareness that free commercial software is possible. You can do this by making an effort not to say “commercial” when you mean “proprietary.”

-----------------

Non free firmware is a minor concern in running any BSD. The major issue is it's funded and driven by proprietary loving companies and so shackled to their needs and desires. No-one but the most deluded libertarian fuckwit would think this is an advancement in peoples liberty.

PS. SystemD sucks almost as much as it part of the same disease. :-p Thank fuck I'll be dead before I'm forced between choosing that and going back to pen and paper and a megaphone for unfettered communication.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-12-03 23:02:21

Thank you for the extended reply. I always enjoy reading your posts.

For the record I do agree that the GPL is superior to the BSD-style licenses but that really has nothing to do with blobs. Their code is still open even if you don't like the terms of redistribution.

I'll leave the licensing argument itself to blackhole (if they can be bothered). I'm not very good with that sort of thing.

blackhole · 2022-12-06 13:50:42

I'm not sure there's any sense discussing licensing. I'm also not going to discuss OpenBSD much, let alone defend it. Kelsoo quotes gnu.org and has clearly made up his mind already.

Kelsoo wrote:

Non free firmware is a minor concern in running any BSD. The major issue is it's funded and driven by proprietary loving companies and so shackled to their needs and desires. No-one but the most deluded libertarian fuckwit would think this is an advancement in peoples liberty.

When it comes to funding - it's clear that Linux has been a massive commercial effort, developed and funded by a consortium of "Big Tech", including Microsoft, IBM, Red Hat and google, to name just a few, for many years now. That's an indisputable fact. I actually don't think that makes the Linux kernel any "worse" in terms of functionality however (we are all hypocrites, all reaping the rewards and it runs on the hardware we want it to run on). Corporate influence, funding and developers on the corporate payroll is now intrinsically woven into Linux eco system.

Most of OpenBSD's funding however comes from it's development of OpenSSH, rather than the OS itself - though it could be argued that OpenSSH is permissive licensed for the very reasons you've stated above. I vaguely recall a quote from Theo de Raadt actually criticizing the corporations using OpenSSH for their own profit and contributing nothing back. You could quite rightfully say "well, duh...". I think corporations taking permissive licensed code for profit and contributing nothing back is a very valid concern - I also think corporations buying off and hijacking GPL licenced projects to the extent that they effectively run the show and then steer development to suit their commercial interests is equally valid.

systemd exists to suit commercial interests for example... Linux distributions and other projects were steered towards and then railroaded into systemd, due to the sheer inertia of corporate reps within multiple free software projects. Without corporate control, something like systemd would never have happened.

I actually believe that de Raadt truly subscribes to the permissive licensing philosophy (rather than being some corporate stooge/sell out as you seem to suggest) in the same way that someone like Stallman believes in the copyleft licenses. In my opinion neither camp are ready to accept that with enough money and power and buying off the right people - both licenses become almost irrelevant. The "freeness" of a project, really depends on the project leaders and developers working on it. If they can resist the "man from Microsoft/google" and his big bag of money, the project remains "free", if they can't, then you have yet another "open source" project.

Around 85% of code contributions to the Linux kernel come from those in the corporate employ. For example, you have working video hardware nowadays, due to AMD and Intel engineers who are paid to develop Linux drivers for their hardware (the 'BSDs also port this code, but it's primarily developed for Linux). With a project like OpenBSD, the overwhelming majority of the contributions to it's kernel would come from volunteers - and it's a tiny project by comparison.

The kernel code contributed by AMD and Intel to the Linux kernel is not GPL'd, but released under a permissive license similar to the MIT license. But a big part of that effort comes in the form of proprietary, but redistributable, binary only firmware, which is loaded onto and runs on the device itself (as headstick has already explained). The driver is free - the firmware needed for the driver and hardware is not - thus it's not actually "free" at all - it's all about manipulation and careful selection of "free" licences to meet a commercial end.

x86, also the main focus of Red Hat, SUSE and Canonical, is strongly tied to Microsoft - who have long standing secret deals with the hardware manufacturers (OEMs) to ensure Microsoft Windows exclusivity on consumer PCs. Red Hat, SUSE and Canonical are all "Microsoft partners" - who work in a "cartel" with Microsoft and ensure that Microsoft's ownership and total control of the consumer PC market is never challenged.

Last edited by blackhole (2022-12-06 13:59:20)

Kelsoo · 2022-12-09 15:06:56

Blackhole ^

I would say I agree with most of that. Many licences are not used in the spirit they were written. I see gpl3+ code where the copyright holder will offer "bespoke licencing" i.e. proprietary. Which is why I like gpl code copyright to be assigned to the FSF and even that’s by no means perfect.

Stallmans approach of treating un-updatable firmware as hardware was a fudge in my opinion but necessary for the time, though I suspect ultimately detrimental it was better than the situation have now where firmware is closed and upgradable. Further locking down hardware.

I saw the Linux Kernel removed scrolling from the console recently. Just as I'm gearing up for life in a console because the desktop is becoming so locked down with corporate systems. I foresee the value of older computers increasing as new hardware becomes more and more enslaved.

Theo de Raadt may also believe in the spirit of permissive licencing. Being a free/libe-software supporter I could understand why the word permissive was chosen, it sound like it's liberating you but by it's very nature "open source" means "closed source" equally as much so enslaving you too.
I always think of the FreeBSD devs getting upset with Apple switched to OSX took their code and gave little back. Apple don’t operate in the same spirit.

At the end of the day I don't want to be enslaved by proprietary software so that's why I have leaning towards the four freedoms no matter how imperfect.

aluma · 2022-12-09 20:45:21

Book
ecclesiaste
or Preacher
"9. What was, is what will be; and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun."

At the risk of expressing the view of an ordinary user.
All this is reminiscent of the debate around Christianity, "Who is the most faithful follower?"

In fact, the user needs an OS with a "human" interface, working "out of the box" to run user programs.
Sense from advanced distributions that work mainly in the console or for which you must first find out and download the necessary drivers?
This is used by others, compare installing debian and Q4os for example.
Although, on the other hand, the diversity of Linux inspires optimism, stagnation is worse.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-12-09 21:18:33

aluma wrote:

Sense from advanced distributions that work mainly in the console or for which you must first find out and download the necessary drivers?

Device problems with De{vu,bi}an are usually caused by firmware rather than drivers, which is what the last few posts have been about.

The official Debian bookworm release ISO images will include the non-free firmware needed to make devices work out-of-the-box, just as they do in distributions such as Ubuntu.

aluma · 2022-12-10 07:01:36

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

aluma wrote:
Sense from advanced distributions that work mainly in the console or for which you must first find out and download the necessary drivers?
Device problems with De{vu,bi}an are usually caused by firmware rather than drivers, which is what the last few posts have been about.
The official Debian bookworm release ISO images will include the non-free firmware needed to make devices work out-of-the-box, just as they do in distributions such as Ubuntu.

Yes, you are right of course.
The news about Debian and non-free drivers came across to me, it would be a reasonable solution. to my mind.

PS. As a user, I don't care what the OS is missing when I can't install it.
Here's a recent example of a Slackware 15 dd image being loaded on one computer. On the other, neither he, nor through grub, nor with ventoy wants to boot.
And the image of Salix 15, recorded by dd, is loaded on both without problems.
Echoes of holy war...

zapper · 2022-12-11 21:53:15

blackhole wrote:

zapper wrote:
Well, you are 90% right, technically, I was speaking of what GNU people call binary blobs and also what they call non-free.
There are no "blobs" or firmware distributed with OpenBSD to my knowledge. Firmware is downloaded independently via a tool called "fw_update(8)", this only fetches the missing firmware required by the hardware platform.
Most Linux distributions do something similar.
zapper wrote:
Ironic is putting it mildly given the dbus, systemd and other over-engineered garbage that they have allowed to infect GNU.
They fail to understand that freedom restricting software can appear in other ways besides non-free licenses on said software.
Aka, they care about free licensing, so much they have overlooked that without security there cannot be privacy and withour privacy, freedom is meaningless.
Catch 22...
You're talking about "free in license" vs "free in spirit" (as I call it anyway)? Yes, the point you're making is that the "ethics" of some particular software, is an entirely separate issue to the licence.

Yeah, that would be accurate, although, the whole GPL licensing thing, might be a bad idea in general... depends on one specific thing:

Would this enable companies if the non-core stuff was BSD licensed, but the apps sometimes weren't ever gpl licensed, etc... to more easily break unix-like security?

If that's a no, then I unfortunately would be all-in for this thought process. On the other hand, I wonder if at some point, corporations, just try to trash that too at some point? Especially given specific circumstances, such as the "systemd" approach. I think its too late to put that rabbit back in the hat and keep it there. Truth to be told, I wonder if the rabbit is down the hole so far, that it is in a subterranean cavern...

That being said, OpenBSD devs might know something I don't about this issue?

I hope?

zapper · 2022-12-11 22:13:23

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

From the FAQ:
For licensing reasons, some firmware cannot be directly distributed with OpenBSD. The fw_update(8) tool will automatically download and install any missing firmware, but this requires a working internet connection.
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#WifiOnly
EDIT: and please sed 's/SystemD/systemd/' in your signature. TIA.

Tell you what, I will consider calling it systemD, under one condition...

If they change the meaning from Daemon, to Destructive

Only then, will I consider this...

I am sure I will be waiting till either:

A: The earth ends or more likely the human race is extinct and not the world, or the universe itself, similar...
B: Till I die/or am in a vegetable state, hopefully not...
C: the "redhat way" dies a horrible terrifying death, although something other joke will be made, if they develop something more twisted and venomously impossible to escape.
D: Someone trolls the hell out of them and makes an edit, hacks their service, in which case it won't stay that way very long and I will only stop temporarily.
E: The Climate gets bad enough, that people are forced to debloat the web and the world and these rich expletives are dealt with severely, etc..
F: Some combination, or something unknown
G: Some combination of the above.
Not sure which of them will actually happen of the above, but pretty sure if it were to happen, I will be very old and it might not matter by then.
I would prefer to be a pessimist, but the world is tragically, prideful to the point where it gets its confidence from exploiting others, or the world, or just being stupidly evil in so many ways...
Why else do people who already have so much damn money, to the point of being billionaires, want more money?

At some point, they won't be able to spend it all, or gain that much more power that it means anything...

So yeah, that is all.

blackhole · 2022-12-12 14:37:16

Kelsoo wrote:

Stallmans approach of treating un-updatable firmware as hardware was a fudge in my opinion but necessary for the time, though I suspect ultimately detrimental it was better than the situation have now where firmware is closed and upgradable. Further locking down hardware.

Stallman's stance on firmware at the time, was based on there not really being a lot of this kind of firmware in circulation and as a "boycott" of hardware vendors who develop proprietary firmware. Nowadays, that boycott makes very little sense, as this kind of firmware has increased more than tenfold and much of it is proprietary. The "elephant in the living room"of firmware, is within the CPU itself - so anyone with any concerns about any firmware doing anything nefarious should start looking there. With that running on most CPU's, worrying about other firmware is largely pointless.

Kelsoo wrote:

I saw the Linux Kernel removed scrolling from the console recently. Just as I'm gearing up for life in a console because the desktop is becoming so locked down with corporate systems. I foresee the value of older computers increasing as new hardware becomes more and more enslaved.

You mean these?

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=50145474f6ef4a9c19205b173da6264a644c7489
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=973c096f6a85e5b5f2a295126ba6928d9a6afd45

It's been over two years. The code was not being maintained (so he says).

You may be better off looking into using something like tmux or screen.

The officially official Devuan Forum!

#26 2022-11-28 14:51:08

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#27 2022-11-28 16:16:32

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#28 2022-11-29 14:32:22

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#29 2022-11-29 14:48:56

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#30 2022-12-02 11:22:26

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#31 2022-12-02 16:28:57

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#32 2022-12-03 12:52:56

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#33 2022-12-03 13:37:47

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#34 2022-12-03 14:41:05

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#35 2022-12-03 15:20:12

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#36 2022-12-03 15:26:47

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#37 2022-12-03 15:29:06

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#38 2022-12-03 15:32:31

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#39 2022-12-03 15:40:38

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#40 2022-12-03 15:44:11

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#41 2022-12-03 20:54:14

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#42 2022-12-03 23:02:21

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#43 2022-12-06 13:50:42

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#44 2022-12-09 15:06:56

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#45 2022-12-09 20:45:21

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#46 2022-12-09 21:18:33

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#47 2022-12-10 07:01:36

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#48 2022-12-11 21:53:15

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#49 2022-12-11 22:13:23

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

#50 2022-12-12 14:37:16

Re: Lennart Poettering (Systemd) Lands at Microsoft After Leaving Red Hat

Board footer