They were bought by IBM a few years back, but even aside from that they’re a corporation and they care about making money above all else.
It looks like Red Hat is doing its damnedest to consolidate as much power for themselves within the Linux ecosystem.
I don’t think the incessant Fedora shilling is unrelated.
It seems like there isn’t much criticism of the company or their tactics, and I’m curious if any of you think that should change.
@Badabinski @just_another_person @rumschlumpel @propitiouspanda Yes but they are becoming the defaults on many distros. In particular systemd-resolvd is an issue because it enforces the 512 byte limit on txt records. The problem with doing this is many large sites have spf records longer than 512 bytes and fail to break them up into separate txt records, so if you enforce this limit and they initiate mail from one of the truncated hosts, it gets rejected. This is not good and so I’ve worked around this by disabling networkd-resolvd and installed bind9 instead. I’ve actually had no problem with timesync but why re-invent all the wheels? To me it seems Poettering is a control freak and wants to take over my systems.
To be honest, stuff not working when it breaks the standard is unfortunate, but I wouldn’t blame this on the tool that adheres to said standard.
You’re not inconvenienced by systemd-resolvd, you’re inconvenienced by those mail sites doing stuff that doesn’t work, possibly as a result of them needing to do something that was slightly flawed to begin with: using DNS records to possibly hold more data than they can per the spec, which, if I understand things correctly, is because of the limitations of UDP traffic.
Not that that helps you, of course, it’s annoying and I recognise that.
@dnzm Some of us live in the real world where we have customers that expect to receive their e-mail and aren’t interested in the details of a standard, and since prior to systemd this was not an issue, I see no benefit to making an issue. UDP packets can be any arbitrary length up to 65535 bytes (including the header), there is no sound reason for limiting them to 512 bytes.
I, too, live in this fabled real world, and I already mentioned I understand your issue. I just think you’re barking up the wrong tree, but luckily you’re able to work around things, and that’s the most important bit, isn’t it?
@dnzm Yes but why if you’re going to do something to “improve” linux, and honestly the fast parallel start up IS an improvement, but why then go on to try to take over the entire operating system and enforce limits that were not enforced before, or at least why not make it an option?