> They've certainly called themselves a unix (in the generic, no trademark),
At one point, they probably were a Unix. But Unix as a place and Unix as a goal are two very different things. Both skiers and mountainclimbers find themselves at the tops of mountains.
> When the term "Linux" is used in general, we mean a unix.
You mean a Unix. I mean Linux. There is no "we".
> So yes, refugees from Windows coming over to distros that have always been unix(-like) and trying to change them into the some sort of Windows-like junk is a problem.
I don't believe you. Where are these vanguard Unix-style Linux distros? RHEL? Adopting systemd. Debian? Adopting systemd. SUSE? Adopting systemd. These are distributions from the days of old. They have formed a consensus that systemd-style Linux is the future.
I mean I think it is fair to say that the Linux community is divided on this issue. But characterizing the systemd/dbus/ufs folks as "Windows refugees" is totally inaccurate. Systemd has the backing of important community members of the Linux community.
At one point, they probably were a Unix. But Unix as a place and Unix as a goal are two very different things. Both skiers and mountainclimbers find themselves at the tops of mountains.
> When the term "Linux" is used in general, we mean a unix.
You mean a Unix. I mean Linux. There is no "we".
> So yes, refugees from Windows coming over to distros that have always been unix(-like) and trying to change them into the some sort of Windows-like junk is a problem.
I don't believe you. Where are these vanguard Unix-style Linux distros? RHEL? Adopting systemd. Debian? Adopting systemd. SUSE? Adopting systemd. These are distributions from the days of old. They have formed a consensus that systemd-style Linux is the future.
I mean I think it is fair to say that the Linux community is divided on this issue. But characterizing the systemd/dbus/ufs folks as "Windows refugees" is totally inaccurate. Systemd has the backing of important community members of the Linux community.