One software freedom that Stallman does not mention is the freedom *not* to use the program because you dislike or don't want it for some reason
Free software tends to be flexible, have clear boundaries, split responsibilities, and replaceable components, thanks in part to openly defined protocols and formats
Proprietary software tends to want to lock you in into their freaking ecosystem, and even if they adopt an open standard, it's a part of an E-E-E strategy
@bugaevc I wonder what you think about systemd
@Wolf480pl I'm a fan of systemd actually :) it is free software and it is quite modular, contrary to some beliefs. Different distros ship with different sets of systemd components. Wouldn't hurt for it to be even more modular, such as supporting elogind (being able to use logins without systemd the PID 1) upstream.
Last time I checked, systemd had no open standards (maybe except unit file format). libsystemd's API is the only thing you're supposed to depend on, and the communication methods used for socket activation, startup notification, communication between udev and systemd, communication between systemd and logind, etc. are declared as implementation details and subject to change without notice.
Also, things like systemd-networkd, systemd-resolved, systemd-timesyncd, etc. look to me like a blend of EEE and scope creep.
>Most public APIs of systemd components are even exported as clearly documented D-Bus interfaces
Ok, could you please point me to something docunenting how udev interacts with systemd? I've always wondered how this works and how hard it'd be to reimplement the whole multiseat thing without systemd.
Welcome to your niu world ! We are a cute and loving international community Ｏ(≧▽≦)Ｏ !