From my understanding that was due to a long-running design philosophy clash between the systemd people thinking Docker should be using systemd primitives to manage things like unit startup/shutdown/etc., and the docker people wanting to use their in-house implementations so as not to depend on systemd (and thus rejecting PRs trying to change docker behavior to use systemd). I don't think it's fair to use that as an example of toxic behavior on either side, they each had their motivations, and a consensus needed to be reached for both projects to proceed. From what I can tell that debate seems to be old news these days and I haven't seen as much clashing between those teams. I am not a developer on either side though, this is just from the perspective of a user who follows the Github issues.
And what drove my attention to the "I don't accept systemd patches" was the need to run systemd in docker container. Which by digging a litte bit about I found it will be possible in non priviledged mode, but docker didn't want to merge it.
I don't see anything philosiphical with that, it's just plain refusal to cooperate in any way with a potential compentitor.
This was several years ago, now this is not an issue anymore, but it's still telling of the toxic corporate culture Docker had back then.
nikisweeting|5 years ago
zaro|5 years ago
I don't see anything philosiphical with that, it's just plain refusal to cooperate in any way with a potential compentitor.
This was several years ago, now this is not an issue anymore, but it's still telling of the toxic corporate culture Docker had back then.