A Promise IBM/Red Hat Could Not Keep
Developed and led by a Microsoft satellite
A very long time ago, back when Flatpaks were relatively new, I complained to Red Hat staff about Systemd dependencies. They then said they would resolve this. And they did. But how long for?
Now it's back.
And it's getting worse!
Some people say that Flatpak 2 might end up requiring Wayland, but some others dispute that claim - a claim we're unable to verify at this time (Jorge Castro, who spent ages at Canonical, said future Flatpak “removes all prior legacy tech, X11, init systems no one is using.” By "legacy" they mean non-IBM or non-GAFAM). Yes, IBM's Wayland! This is monoculture - it is a trap. IBM is building a proprietary-esque UNIX-like system, and even the UNIX or POSIX principles are abandoned along the way.
Microsoft Canonical has similar but competing ambitions:
"Fedora," Benjamin Henrion (FFII) said, means "no money for IBM, they promote software patents."
If you don't agree with them on patents or Wayland or Systemd or their opaque packaging formats, they will call you terrible words. At the very least ageism.
For those who aren't afraid of slurs and insults, the general direction seems rather clear:
"Flatpaks go Ad Hominem to advance the encroachment of Microsoft's Systemd onto the community at large," an associate has noted.
Those are very bloated and controlled by Microsoft satellites as well as IBM staff.
Are we even allowed to criticise Flatpaks without being called names? That latter thing is a very Systemd thing and here we see an intersection between Systemd and Flatpaks.
"The team behind Flatpaks is adopting Systemd's methodology of ad-hominem attacks to misdirect people away from any technical discussions," we are told. "They look like they plan a lot of CoC-waving too. Something political is going on there..."
In my personal experience, IBM/Red Hat and GAFAM/LF (Linux Foundation) insist on a CoC that would be something along the lines of, rape is OK as long as your employer pays the LF. Then all is forgiven, just don't strangle women to the point where they die. Telling them to kill themselves is still OK with the CoC.
Crazy world we live in...
In relation to IBM, or Red Hat at least, I've argued that CoCs are all about optics, e.g. pretending that some technical position is "nazi" or that intolerant/racist companies are in fact protecting minorities. If they resort to these misleading tactics, then the best way to tackle this is to point out the messenger's hypocrisy, e.g. IBM and The Holocaust.
An associate has said this is "all about control, not so much optics."
"But yeah, the origins are somewhat relevant but there is enough modern physiocracy there to point out instead, the old stuff is only worth a footnote now unless a clear line connecting the past and present can be shown. IBM's CEO ("Arvind the Great") and his ties to the far-right government (also his predecessor's, Ginni) help show not much has changed, except the marketing/optics. IBM's and Microsoft's present is something to take note of, "but the focus should be remain on the current, ongoing transgressions," we're told, "with the old stuff only there to show that it is the established core of the company's culture" (it started with eugenics a century ago).
We're also remind that "Flatpaks are bloat, too" (not just problematic due to a lack of control, a lack of freedom).
If nobody speaks out against monopolistic technology (which may as well include some parts of GNU/Linux), it'll easier to marginalise and even ban critics. Such that they won't even be visible anymore. █