Mordikan

Mundane tasks weren't really the focus. This was a debate between Redhat and the Linux old guard where the points were all based on the extremes. They follow different ideas on how tools should work, though. Init systems focus on doing one or few things but doing them very well (the traditional UNIX approach). Systemd is a suite of many moving parts to accomplish a whole range of tasks (more modern). Init is mostly just bootstrap and services, but systemd is that plus networking, plus user sessions, plus logging, etc etc. More moving parts means increased complexity and more chance for failure. Systemd as a suite then becomes a potential single point failure where init based systems would not be. Scripting for either can be involved, but generally speaking init is/was easier to write things for.

I think most users today focus on Redhat's control and not putting too much faith in one setup for diversity's sake rather than the other points, but the original debate really was a philosophically based one. There isn't a right or wrong on these, but some really interesting history.

I think for those people it boils down to systemd being an init system that does more than an init system maybe should. Combine that with it being more complicated to work with and with Redhat not really being that open to feedback.

Honestly, most of your selling points while completely valid don't matter in this case I think. The problem is that is a repair business doing work for non-technical people and those are technical selling points. For example, my wife is allergic to tech. She wouldn't care about dual-booting or telemetry. She just wants the simplest possible solution that she doesn't have to think about. She's bored having to listen to me talk about projects/work and while she has to have a PC for daily life, that doesn't mean she wants to have to have it. She just needs it and needs it to be easy.

The biggest selling points to her would be:

1. It just works
2. She doesn't have to relearn things (meaning the layout and where to click on things)
3. It runs her stuff (literally all browser based applications)
4. Her files and pictures are there

That's it. I think the biggest positive sell to repair shop users would be "its just like Windows". They don't need it to be better, they just need it to be the same.

Ok, this is your summarized argument: Accel is going to gut the company and run it into the ground because that's what they do, but they haven't ever done that, but they could, so they will, so that's the same as doing it, although they haven't, but it will happen in the end because that's what they do, but they don't.

Its not a strawman if what you say is in fact a weakly constructed idea. Its just a weakly constructed idea then. Its nothing but vague generalizations and "what ifs" you posted. Let me just put it this way: evidence or stfu.

ME: So, even if Accel doesn't do that, which they haven't done that, they are still guilty of doing that.

YOU: Not what I said.

YOU: What you’re apparently not getting is that even if it’s not happening right now, it will in the end.

So.. even if Accel doesn't do that, which they haven't done that, they are still guilty of doing that. You have no argument, just strong feelings.

Is there an actual example you can provide of Accel doing that

So... if all VC money does, then you can provide an example of Accel doing this... right? So, go ahead and do that now.

So, even if Accel doesn't do that, which they haven't done that, they are still guilty of doing that. Ok, yeah. That's some solid irrefutable logic you got going there. I think I'll go back to arguing this with commenters who are a little less emotional and more grounded in real world points about the topic.

Is there an actual example you can provide of Accel doing that or is this more an emotionally driven statement you have?

Historically, Accel has never pushed acquisition. On the contrary, they do the opposite. Its why they VC fund over 300 companies, but you've never heard of them. That's not to say they couldn't, but they haven't ever acted in that manner previously so logically it would be safe to assume that trend continues with Tailscale. I think that's important here: its not about ability its about intent. If as a organization you give funding to another organization (even non-profits) you exercise at least some control over them as they are dependent on that money to function. This is actually a point other commenters have made in regards to Headscale. Headscale is maintained by a Tailscale employee. As they fund him personally, they can exercise some control over him as he depends on that money/employment. Again, even their comments circle back to ability vs intent. Tailscale could influence their employee, but would they? That's where a lot of the VC argument goes. Its just speculation as what a group could do, not what they would do.

Does The Linux Foundation have complete control over Linux?

You're the one who said it, though.

Tailscale builds on top of the Wireguard protocol, LF builds on top of (through grants/scholarships) the Linux OS. You can't argue that it doesn't matter that LF doesn't have control over the underlying technology, but then argue that it does matter in Tailscale's cause.