Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Migrating a Router From Linux To *BSD?

An anonymous reader writes I'm in the camp that doesn't trust systemd. You can discuss the technical merits of all init solutions all you want, but if I wanted to run Windows NT I'd run Windows NT, not Linux. So I've decided to migrate my homebrew router/firewall/samba server to one of the BSDs. Question one is: which BSD? Question two: where's some good documentation regarding setting up a home router/firewall on your favorite BSD?
It's fine if the documentation is highly technical, I've written linux kernel drivers before :)
(Got a question? You can Ask Slashdot, too.)

232 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. pfsense by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Informative

    subject says it all.

    runs from very small disk (I use a 4gb m-sata ssd) and has a great ui, is a superb firewall and is bsd based. used to be the old openwall code.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:pfsense by IMightB · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Love PfSense doubleplus from me as well. However, I don't understand the blatant systemd misrepresentation/hatred

    2. Re:pfsense by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pfsense is listed on these as well. If you don't want a turn-key like solution, but want something secure, use OpenBSD.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:pfsense by 00Monkey · · Score: 1

      Definitely pfSense! You can build your own router with parts from PC Engines.

      Link: http://pcengines.ch/

    4. Re:pfSense by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Answer to #1: pfSense (http://www.pfsense.org/)
      Answer to #2: pfSense (http://forum.pfsense.org/)

      See, wasn't that easy?

      Even though pfSense can act as a Samba server, I'd put the firewall and Samba server on separate hardware. The Alix or APU from PC Engines board makes a nice low power firewall.

    5. Re:pfsense by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yep "migration" is as easy as blowing out the Linux OS and installing pfsense.

      In fact I am suprised that anyone would have rolled a linux router when pfsense has been around for a very long time and is a standard.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:pfsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      PfSense is a must if you are running ESXi topologies.

      SystemD hatred is pretty simple. A large amount of untested, potentially unsecure, unaudited code was placed at the core of Linux's userland, and forced on end users (enterprise IT shops) without any real testing or feedback by end users.

      RedHat has bet the farm on SystemD... if/when it has security issues (it has network connections, so in theory, it can be remote rooted), it can cause a mass flight from RHEL and downstreams. The gain? Little to none, from the end user point of view.

      I am keeping fingers crossed, and hoping someone forks the cash for an audit of the code... Oracle and Microsoft are waiting in the wings for mainstream Linux distros to fall on their face if something does break.

    7. Re:pfsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's because the whole systemd thing is the latest in a line of trends where entire distros are being drastically changed rather than getting forked into something new. Ubuntu's Gnome thing caused a lot of people to basically write it off and move back to Debian, only to now find the same people responsible with the crappy Gnome changes have subverted the Debian core as well. Instead of forking Debian with the new systemd paradigm, Debian is rolling it in as the default. And since systemd touches so many different things, it's not really easy to get rid of.

      One of the common defenses from systemd devs is something along the lines of "why are people so upset over it? SystemD is still new and they should give it time to play out before judging it." Which is exactly the kind of reason you *dont* put it in a live mainstream distro known for stability until after years of testing and positive results in a fork.

    8. Re:pfsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      THIS! Seriously. I need choices, not choices made for me.

    9. Re:pfsense by gatkinso · · Score: 5, Informative

      >> I don't understand the blatant systemd misrepresentation/hatred

      It is a complex and fairly large chunk of code that "fixes" a nonexistent problem, it flies in the face of Unix philosophy, and the author has a pretty bad track record.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    10. Re:pfsense by gmack · · Score: 5, Informative

      PfSense is a must if you are running ESXi topologies.

      SystemD hatred is pretty simple. A large amount of untested, potentially unsecure, unaudited code was placed at the core of Linux's userland, and forced on end users (enterprise IT shops) without any real testing or feedback by end users.

      RedHat has bet the farm on SystemD... if/when it has security issues (it has network connections, so in theory, it can be remote rooted), it can cause a mass flight from RHEL and downstreams. The gain? Little to none, from the end user point of view.

      I am keeping fingers crossed, and hoping someone forks the cash for an audit of the code... Oracle and Microsoft are waiting in the wings for mainstream Linux distros to fall on their face if something does break.

      You do realize that most of the systemd addon daemons run
      1. As a completely separate process
      2. With the minimum permissions need to do their job.
      3. The stuff with network connections are definitely optional..

      I know they have some network things that they optimized for containers but they don't seem general purpose so I don't run any of them on the servers I'm testing systemd on. So far the only actual Systemd issue I've had is that it screws up pulse audio on one of my machines (works fine on the laptop screws up on my desktop).

    11. Re:pfsense by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 2, Informative

      The version of pf that ships with pfsense is positively ancient

      FreeBSD's PF is essentially an actively maintained fork which doesn't follow the upstream closely anymore. It has its own set of functionality like being SMP and VIMAGE capable.

      http://networkfilter.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/security-openbsd-vs-freebsd.html#network

      There is a good bit of misinformation on that page.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    12. Re:pfsense by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering it's the third major Unix to try fixing this problem, I don't think the problem is nonexistent or invented. Solaris came up with SMF, and OSX came up with launchd, basically to fix the same problem, which is that tangles of shell scripts are unmaintainable, buggy shit.

    13. Re:pfsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it's the dependencies thats a real problem. There are separate projects out there that literally do every single thing systemd does without making it un modular and non posix compliant and have code that is readable. Then you have some major projects like gnome where are going to require systemd. Its not a big deal for BSD though. some developers are almost done with systembsd which emulates systemd without actually installing it allowing the depend software to be used without inheriting things like PAM for authentication and other things that are not liked and not actually giving control of the system over to it.

    14. Re:pfsense by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      A large amount of untested, potentially unsecure, unaudited code

      Sounds like software to me. Bash was unsecure and unaudited. So I guess you're in csh land now?

    15. Re:pfsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's a good description of why Gnome uses systemd-logind.
      https://mail.gnome.org/archive...

    16. Re:pfsense by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Funny

      You do realize that most of the systemd addon daemons run

      across their goddamned lawns, it would appear.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re:pfsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Solaris lost favor due to crap like SMF because no one could really troubleshoot it when it broke as well, and OSX is no longer server friendly. If you want to talk about buggy shit, look at the two examples you just brought up. Systemd solves desktop problems, not server or embedded problems, it only causes problems in those realms.

    18. Re:pfsense by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Systemd is actually *really* easy to get rid of, you just have to be willing to do without Gnome and other packages that depend upon it.

      Please provide a step-by-step list of the commands needed to remove systemd from CentOS 7 "minimal install", or a pointer to such a list.

      I have now been told literally dozens of times that "you don't have to install systemd", but no one has yet to back that up with steps for an install without it, or how to remove it from an existing install.

    19. Re:pfsense by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      So far the only actual Systemd issue I've had is that it screws up pulse audio on one of my machines

      That is karma if I've ever heard of it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:pfsense by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      PfSense is a must if you are running ESXi topologies.

      And why is that?

    21. Re:pfsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      systemd has been live in Arch Linux for three years before debian adopted it with no problems. It *has* been proven. I don't know how much longer its supposed to wait. Oh, and it actually works better than sysvinit.

    22. Re:pfsense by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do. And I get patches for it every couple of weeks, often with a large number of CVEs fixed.

    23. Re:pfsense by sclark46 · · Score: 1

      However, I don't understand the blatant systemd misrepresentation/hatred

      About 80% of the hatred comes from the bandwagon effect. I'll bet the vast majority of the haters have no idea who Poettering, only he's some bad guy we have to hate. The other 20% of the hate comes from graybeard sys admins who know the unique file formats of the 1000 different config utilities Linux has traditionally had and are either afraid to learn anything new or afraid that they might not be so indispensable at their jobs.

      What systemd does is give a single consistent way of configuring the system. You want security nightmare, how about the 1000's of freaking shell scripts that call each other in a giant mass of spaghetti to configure a traditional Linux system.

      One of the great benefits of systemd is that it is written in C and not a giant mess of shell scripts. With C, you actually get COMPILE TIME CHECKING. With these dammed shell scripts, you have no idea if they work up until they run, and you have no idea what execution path they could go through. Shell scripts are fine a glue code for user programs, but give me something with some static checking like C for critical components.

      Have you actually looked at any of these shell scripts? The largest one in F14 is less that 400 lines and they are all straight forward to read. Where is the tangled mess and when have they ever not worked for you?

    24. Re:pfsense by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 1

      400 lines of shell script is just absolutely ridiculously long. These shell scripts co-mingle configuration with business logic, a recipe for disaster. I'm not blaming them, they are a product of their time, the 1970's, back when shell scripts were the only option for configuring a system. Before we had a declarative rule based system of configuration. And then hack upon hack upon hack got added to these shell scripts.

      Its the same idea as concatenating a bunch of strings together at run-time to create a sql query. Sure, its quick, dirty but is a security disaster (ever hear of SQL injection). As apposed to having some proper stored procedures in the database itself, and only sending and receiving parameters and data from the database.

      A tangled maze of shell scripts was perfectly acceptable in the 1970's but we need to move beyond this, we need to move to a grown up rule based system that cleanly separates business logic from configuration parameters.

    25. Re:pfsense by armanox · · Score: 1

      Then maybe they should have tried using SMF or launchd.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    26. Re:pfsense by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      So far the only actual Systemd issue I've had is that it screws up pulse audio on one of my machines (works fine on the laptop screws up on my desktop).

      You win Irony of the Week award.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    27. Re:pfsense by troff · · Score: 1

      Set up your systemd box. Edit your fstab so that a device you'd normally define as "noauto"-mount is left out and tries to automount when not there.

      The crap which had to be gone through to identify and fix that? May this bring more understanding to you.

    28. Re:pfsense by rahvin112 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Would you like a burp and a nap too?

    29. Re:pfsense by gmack · · Score: 2

      That's pretty interesting considering it was designed for servers to begin with. Servers are far more likely to have weird dependencies on boot such as root drive over the network or worse yet, boot drive over clustered file system over the network and where Debian said they are losing share due to not being able to support some of the larger server configurations.

      For the embedded space, it either uses less memory than the current setup, or you are rolling your own init and don't care about systemd at all.

    30. Re:pfsense by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      It is a complex and fairly large chunk of code that "fixes" a nonexistent problem

      I have to disagree with you, there. Unix-type systems have needed a new, dependency-based init system for at least 20 years, now. I'm amazed it took as long as it did to replace. I won't argue that systemd breaks the Unix philosophy of doing one thing well, and suffers from some overreach, but at least someone took some initiative.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    31. Re:pfsense by kenaaker · · Score: 1
      Or, have one drive in a RAID setup go down that happened to have a swap space on it that wasn't actually used.

      Had to boot the install media to get out of that mess.

    32. Re:pfsense by sjames · · Score: 1

      And this article is an example of someone who has not chosen to run it.

      As for really easy, don't worry, they're hard at work remedying that! That's where the hate comes in. The tendrils keep trying to embed themselves into more stuff.

    33. Re:pfsense by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      So it does do one thing, and evidently it does it quite well.

      No it doesn't. It does at least 2 things, one of which I most definitely don't want, and doesn't do it as well as what it replaced.

    34. Re:pfsense by epine · · Score: 1

      I have now been told literally dozens of times that "you don't have to install systemd", but no one has yet to back that up with steps for an install without it, or how to remove it from an existing install.

      apt-get install OpenBSD

      OpenBSD has the best internal documentation, but has relatively weak SMP and narrower hardware support than FreeBSD, neither of which should matter for a vanilla router.

      I've heard good things about pfSense, but haven't used it myself.

      If you want to dabble with ZFS for a NAS server as well, then I'd just start with FreeBSD which is what I'm presently using for my firewall (the few internet facing services are jailed or priv-sepped), despite having previously used a separate OpenBSD since 1998. For a ZFS box, it's a heck of a lot smarter to have ECC memory, though.

      I totally hear you on the current Linux trend to make radical architectural change on the mainline branch with hardly any prior communication or heads up to the existing user base.

      Come with me, little kiddie ... this won't hurt a bit.

    35. Re:pfsense by Cramer · · Score: 2

      Then you end up with sysvinit AND various bits of systemd installed at the same time. A lot of shit lists systemd as a requirement, thus It. Will. Be. Installed. It's like plymouth on Ubuntu (splash screen crap); it's buggered into to a thousand things so it cannot be removed. (you can choose not to run it, but it's always installed.)

    36. Re:pfsense by Cramer · · Score: 2

      SMF pre-dates the Oracle purchase. I used Solaris 10 on exactly ONE system. After a few weeks of dealing with SMF (and the lie that it replaces all the shell scripts -- hint: it doesn't; it just hides them somewhere else) I installed linux and microwaved those DVDs. Too much like the windows registry. Too easy to leave all manner of crap in it. Far too easy to "hide" shit in it. Too much bloat and always running shit.

      I know a lot of UNIX(tm) admins. None of them like what became of Solaris. SMF was an attempt to fix what wasn't broken. ("if it's not broken, break it.")

    37. Re:pfsense by igloo-x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Out of curiousity I decided to take a look at a typical init file on this machine, running Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.

      I chose apache because it was at the top of the list. The file is 410 lines long. Within the first 5 lines of code, we're in to this cryptic, barely readable shit:

      SCRIPTNAME="${0##*/}"
      SCRIPTNAME="${SCRIPTNAME##[KS][0-9][0-9]}"

      The file also appears to be sourcing variables left, right and centre. User-editable init config options have to be spun off into files their own directory (in this case /etc/defaults/apache2). They can't go in the init file itself because they evidently have to be updated by the package manager all the time. It's hardly any wonder with gems like SCRIPTNAME="${SCRIPTNAME##[KS][0-9][0-9]}" all over the place.

      Then you've got the usual shitting of PID files out to persistent storage, and the same logic of checking them when starting or stopping the service - which is duplicated each time, in each init file for each service, along with the same basic shit each script has to do to determine it's environment.

      I'd actually proved my suspicions within about 5 minutes of opening a few files.

    38. Re:pfsense by chriscappuccio · · Score: 1

      oh really? you mean the many years after the early realtek chip was maligned, still avoid them?

    39. Re:pfsense by chriscappuccio · · Score: 1

      The funny thing about "FreeBSD's PF is essentially an actively maintained fork which doesn't follow the upstream closely anymore" is that, on a Soekris net6501, PF is all-around faster with OpenBSD 5.7-beta (current snapshots) on a SINGLE core than FreeBSD PF is on multiple cores.

    40. Re:pfsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This!

      SMF, launchd, and systemd are all complex, opaque systems. And on servers they have very little value because servers don't have nearly as many complex interdependencies. Sure, maybe you need PostgreSQL to be up before your webapp server, but it's not like PostgreSQL, in turn, has any dependencies. (Not even networking, unless you're trying to bind to a particular interface.) And let's not forget, inetd has had socket activation for _decades_, yet no widely used server software bothers with it, despite inetd being available everywhere, at least at one time--OS X seems to have dropped it.

      SysV init.d/ and BSD rc.d/ scripts may be less cool, but they're _scriptable_. Shell code may be a little baroque, but it's a turing-complete fixed target--all modern unix-like systems have shells which are nearly completely compatible with POSIX standard. (I've submitted a few bugs here and there, mostly for esoteric stuff.) And you don't need to edit C code, get it committed to SMF/launchd/systemd, roll a new release, and pray people upgrade before you can fix a small niggling bug in the semantics of what you're trying to do. (Yes, SMF/launchd/systemd permit you to keep using init.d/. But the question isn't what you can do, it's what the tool is supposed to be used for.)

      For some reason vendors like RedHat and SUSE spend years implementing ridiculously complex shell-code startup frameworks, rather than with working C developers to fix-up their daemonization logic in main(), which would obviate the need for almost all of that crap. So RedHat and SUSE are complaining about the viability of a strategy which was dumb from the get go.

      There are deficiencies in SysV/BSD start up model. Nobody is claiming that it's remotely perfect. But nobody has tried to fix them directly (e.g. process descriptors to fix the PID file/signaling race conditions). Instead, vendors have thrown the baby out with the bath water.

      Where systemd really shines isn't in startup. It's in desktop integration, and particularly event notifications and broadcasting, which really boils down to plug+play and DBUS.

      All the other stuff that systemd has added, including iptables integration, is logic that could be added _anywhere_. But systemd developers, as RedHat employees who have the power to make sweeping changes on the RedHat platform, are in a privileged position to be able to implement something and integrate it with the rest of RedHat's ecosystem. Good for them, and good for their users. But when you have that kind of power without any concern for portability, then you end up being a design monopolistic like Microsoft or Sun, and you're going to be prone to implement huge, brittle frameworks that don't age very well.

      I'm not just a talking head. I write and use production network software that builds and is regularly run on Solaris, OS X, Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD. So I have a little experience when it comes to dealing with the problems and dilemmas of process and service management, not to mention portability. Dealing with this stuff is nowhere near as hard as it was 10 or 15 years. These days it's like a walk in the park. Systemd offers very little value from my perspective.

      Other than the desktop, where I see systemd being welcomed the most is with sysadmins. But (and I can say this as a sysadmin in my early career), sysadmins pine for magical solutions because they don't actually understand how the underling system works. System administration is the epicenter of cargo cult culture. By papering over this stuff and making it seem simple (containerization... so simple now!), sysadmins feel empowered. But the only thing which will keep systems more secure and more stable is simplicity, and systemd is in no sense a shift in that direction.

      Except, perhaps, by getting rid of the horrendous shell libraries written by sysadmins and package maintainers who were unable to dive into C and fix things properly. Yet by relying to heavily on cgroups, systemd is to a large degree making the same mistake. Both st

    41. Re:pfsense by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      OpenBSD has the best internal documentation, but has relatively weak SMP and narrower hardware support than FreeBSD...

      And FreeBSD in turn has weaker SMP and narrower hardware support than Linux. However, "learn by doing" :)

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    42. Re:pfsense by swamp+boy · · Score: 1

      *nix might not be a good fit for you. Right or wrong, *nix has been this way forever. I doubt there'll be an overnight conversion to something different (even if deemed 'better').

    43. Re:pfsense by Teckla · · Score: 1

      So software written in C is bad now? What if you find a bug in the kernel, or in ls? You do know that ls is also written in C?

      The application domains for which C is an appropriate choice has been shrinking for a few decades now. For example, C is not memory safe and pretty error prone. For those application domains where security and/or reliability trump maximum performance and/or low resource usage, languages other than C are probably appropriate.

    44. Re:pfsense by buchanmilne · · Score: 2

      (it has network connections, so in theory, it can be remote rooted)

      [root@buchan-laptop ~]# ps auxww|grep systemd|wc -l
      12
      [root@buchan-laptop ~]# netstat -plant|grep systemd
      [root@buchan-laptop ~]#

    45. Re:pfsense by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

      it's the dependencies thats a real problem.

      Which dependencies exactly? About the only new dependency vs. the previous init system on this distro is: dbus

      There are separate projects out there that literally do every single thing systemd does without making it un modular and non posix compliant and have code that is readable.

      Please provide a link or a name for one project that has at least all of the useful functionality that systemd has.

      Then you have some major projects like gnome where are going to require systemd. Its not a big deal for BSD though. some developers are almost done with systembsd which emulates systemd without actually installing it allowing the depend software to be used without inheriting things like PAM for authentication and other things that are not liked and not actually giving control of the system over to it.

      And GNOME developers will just ignore any bugs related to functionality not available on BSD and just stubbed in systembsd ...

      I have systemd on all of my personal linux boxes (my laptop, wife's laptop, media player, NAS), and it hasn't introduced any issues while resulting in all machines booting faster and provided many more features.

    46. Re:pfsense by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

      Have you actually looked at any of these shell scripts? The largest one in F14 is less that 400 lines and they are all straight forward to read. Where is the tangled mess and when have they ever not worked for you?

      RHEL6:
      $ wc -l /etc/rc.sysinit
      662 /etc/rc.sysinit

      RHEL5:
      $ wc -l /etc/rc.sysinit
      980 /etc/rc.sysinit

      This is what systemd actually *replaces*.

    47. Re:pfsense by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Please provide a link or a name for one project that has at least all of the useful functionality that systemd has.

      It should never have been in one project to begin with. Do one thing. Do it well. It's an init system that is trying to be an OS.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    48. Re:pfsense by vanye · · Score: 1

      And emacs is an editor trying to be an OS.

      Make emacs the replacement for init. It would at least have support from 50% of the community and able to use it.

      Fingers crossed I'll be dead before RHEL 6 is EOL...

    49. Re:pfsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or 'daemontools', which worked well. The reason it never took off was because Dan J. Bernstein decided to invent his own "special" license, which no one else could stand to work with, and because ht tended to widdle all over POSIX and basic system standards such as the file system hieriarchy. And because his funky license, you had to publish *source only*, you couldn't publish binaries modified from his source even with the patches published.

      And the result is.... systemd instead.

    50. Re:pfsense by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      btw, the hardware I'm using is kind of neat. its fanless atom N2800. an intel board that is low profile mini-itx and has an onboard dc-dc so you give it 18v (from an external brick) and that's the whole psu story. onboard is an msata port and I have a 4gb sandisk halfsize ssd that runs pfsense. the m350 case has an adapter that takes a right angle pci-e card adapter and you can use a decent chipset pci-e card for your 2nd nic. the first nice is a nice intel chip. no fans, decent speed and has been stable for years at a time, for me.

      mini-itx fanless and intel gig-e chips for nics are the things to look for, imho. there are i3 chips that are 35w and with a good case, you can run them fanless, too (htpc case with heatpipes). if you need an i3, you can do that and still be silent (that matters to me).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    51. Re:pfsense by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      " I don't understand the blatant systemd misrepresentation/hatred" - because it capabilities are mis-understood and you know how shit happens when people make comments and their mind up on incorrect statements. its just a load of idiot posters who know nothing of the subject, thinking they are making informed comments on something.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    52. Re:pfsense by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Re-install a version that doesn't use it and then (Centos 3 or something) apply all the updates to all the software removing any references to systemd or use Gentoo/Slackware - the choice is yours.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    53. Re:pfsense by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      What are the "at least 2 things" that systemd does?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    54. Re:pfsense by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      Out of those scripts, how many do approx the same things i.e. how much duplicated scripting across all the scripts? "Start, Stop, Restart" quickly come to mind

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    55. Re:pfsense by maestroX · · Score: 1

      which is that tangles of shell scripts are unmaintainable, buggy shit.

      And how exactly is this fixed by a binary blob with extensions closely tied to hardware, daemons, kernel, kernel features and even specific kernel versions at that?
      I agree the init.d isn't sexy and sometimes kludgy (hello networking), but at least over the last 20 years or so I could upgrade, tune kernels supporting available libc without dropping to an emergency shell or other boot issues.
      Why not try and make a piece of software dealing with deficiencies AND keeping benefits; a less invasive and more cooperative piece of software?

    56. Re:pfsense by udippel · · Score: 1

      For your ID (low) you seem to be very modern; 4 GB is 'very small'? ;-)

      To me, personally, I used floppyfw for years. Okay, that's Linux-based, though on 1.44 MB. Then I went over to BSD-based m0n0wall, the precursor of pfsense, and run it from a - much too large - 256 MB Flash.
      While pfsense is out for me, due to it huge (okay, in my notation) demand on RAM. My Soekris 4801 has a mere 128 MB of it, which is more than enough for m0n0wall, though below the requirements of pfsense.

      Since I can fully recommend m0n0wall, and used it with almost no intervention and no trouble at all (except of the initial setup which is somewhat ambiguous), I am confident that pfsense is doing fine as well.

    57. Re:pfsense by udippel · · Score: 1

      What misrepresentation?
      I as ex-sysadmin kind of love systemd on my desktop; for the simplicity. From own experience I know that at times my desktops prop up some 'failed to start services - do you want to report - ...'-messages that are non-reproducible, occur rarely, and despite of digging into them never revealed actual problems. On the desktop they are nothing but an emotional disappointment about the state of FOSS.
      One thing, however, is sure: I wouldn't for my life have trusted my servers to such a monolithic all-invading conglomerate of evolving software. If I were still sysadmin, and were sitting on Linux, I'd avoid systemd like the devil.

    58. Re:pfsense by udippel · · Score: 1

      apt-get install OpenBSD

      I wonder if I was to mod you up for insightful or funny.
      But that aside, I wished it was as easy as that. Really. Theo is not going to like that, neither.
      For the home router, at least, you are right with the lousy SMP support. I wished there was an OpenBSD equivalent for m0n0wall / pfsense. Installing OpenBSD is much too much for a small home router, e.g. on a Soekris box.

    59. Re:pfsense by udippel · · Score: 1

      This is 100% insightful. I have no mod points.
      Systemd is great for me on the desktop; and yet not necessary. Systemd is a no-no on the reliable server (it isn't even 100% reliable on my desktops). I suffered from the Solaris SMF a decade ago.
      As sysadmin, if my init scripts don't run, I could troubleshoot one by one (if ever I wanted, though I rarely had to), SMF didn't give me that privilege. And systemd wouldn't neither.

    60. Re:pfsense by udippel · · Score: 1

      Your low ID proves that you mean what you stated, I guess. My ID is much higher, though I think I've been in the business for a similar amount of time. And I can fully second what you wrote. Both passages.
      But since I have no mod points, I can only second you here in writing. Especially I love the comparison to the Windows registry. Though systemd is not much different from that dreaded registry, alas.

      When I was sysadmin, be it on Windows, *BSD or another *nix, my (personal) nightmare would be my incapacity of troubleshooting a problem by myself, and instead filing a support request. Therefore, Windows was the first platform I left. Because, if I can't locate and rectify the trouble due to my lack of knowledge, I hate myself; though I can live with it. However, if I can't locate and rectify the trouble by design of the manufacturer, I could throw myself into the dustbin. Because all my efforts to improve, study, experiment would be in vain by definition of the software providers. Be they in RedMond or RedHat.

    61. Re:pfsense by udippel · · Score: 1

      What systemd does is give a single consistent way of configuring the system. You want security nightmare, how about the 1000's of freaking shell scripts that call each other in a giant mass of spaghetti to configure a traditional Linux system.

      With this, and the rest of your post, and with all respect: Do you know what you are actually talking about; or are your arguments based on a philosophical base of hearsay?

      $ ls -l /lib/systemd/system | wc -l
      52
      makes it already some fifty files.

      And how does one file look like?
      $ cat sudo.service
      [Unit]
      Description=Provide limited super user privileges to specific users
      [Service]
      Type=oneshot
      # \073 is ';' which needs to be part of the find parameters
      ExecStart=/usr/bin/find /var/lib/sudo -exec /usr/bin/touch -d @0 '{}' \073
      [Install]
      WantedBy=multi-user.target

      Oh wow! What a beauty, totally easy to understand and maintain!

      How much worse is the old style:
      $ cat sudo
      #! /bin/sh
      . /lib/lsb/init-functions
      N=/etc/init.d/sudo
      set -e
      case "$1" in
          start)
                      # make sure privileges don't persist across reboots
                      if [ -d /var/lib/sudo ]
                      then
                                      find /var/lib/sudo -exec touch -d @0 '{}' \;
                      fi ;;
          stop|reload|restart|force-reload|status) ;;
          *)
                      echo "Usage: $N {start|stop|restart|force-reload|status}" >&2
                      exit 1 ;;
      esac
      exit 0

      I think I am a convert!

    62. Re:pfsense by unrtst · · Score: 2

      Systemd is actually *really* easy to get rid of, you just have to be willing to do without Gnome and other packages that depend upon it.

      If you aren't willing to make that choice, then you have chosen to run with it.

      Statements like this are one of the many reasons people get pissed about systemd. I can't tell if this is just a really good troll, or if you seriously believe that and are ok with it, but I suspect that latter just because of apparent mindset of pro-systemd folks. So, assuming the latter...

      You're saying systemd is easy to get rid of, if you get rid of all the things that now depend on it, and those that will in the future. Logind, for example, which means Gnome, which means other gnome stuff, and that's just one branch of the tree (though probably the most prominent at this time). That's just ridiculous for a desktop app or a display manager (gdm/xdm/kdm/etc) to depend on a specific init system (it doesn't directly, but GDM depends on logind, which depends on systemd). How about an example...

      What if KDE started depending on something similar but different than logind, and it depended on a different init system. If that happened, I couldn't have one user using gnome and another using KDE using fast user switching on the desktop. That'd require a bunch of compatibility stuff to be in place... which is actually something those two groups (and others) have been working hard at for years (ex. shared "start" menus, session management, audio multiplexing (arts/esd/pulse), etc).

      Regaring gnome+logind+system, I found this to be a good read: https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitte...
      It sort of argues that gnome doesn't need systemd. However, it acknowledges that:
      * GNOME 3.8 doesn't directly require logind
      * ... but GDM assumes (requires) an init system that will also clean up any process it started. Basically, it needs a feature that is more-or-less unique to systemd.
      * If logind is required/included, GNOME did NOT intend for this to mean systemd was also required. However, their assumption that logind was independent from systemd changed since systemd v205 due to cgroups kernel change.
      * similar stuff continues regarding session management, wayland, etc etc

      Those are, IMO, huge red flags. A very large project starts making many parts dependent on some (currently) independent project (logind). Then logind/systemd inject some dependencies, and now gnomes intent is screwed - they're essentially depending on a specific init system now. How is that a good thing?

      FWIW, I'm NOT saying that:
      * gnome shouldn't be free to develop as it wishes
      * systemd shouldn't be allowed to do what it's doing
      * users shouldn't be free to use this stuff
      * distros shouldn't be free to choose these things ... but why is it so difficult for so many people to understand why this pisses off many many people? Seems pretty obvious for many reasons.

      Personally, I think many of the distros have failed us with this integration. It shouldn't have been allowed to be the default until, at the minimum, compatibility layers were available (ex. uselessd). Maybe have some forks that made it the fully integrated default, but debian... ouch. It's parts are actually more of a problem than systemd itself... there should be a logind alternative, or it should be capable of running without systemd (same goes for all the other "modular" parts). I'm not saying the devs should be forced to do this; I'm saying distros and users shouldn't accept it as the default until that flexibility is in place.

      Sorry that this has almost nothing to do with *BSD, except that it lacks systemd.

    63. Re:pfsense by trigggl · · Score: 1

      Install Gentoo without the Gnome profile or any profile with "systemd" in it. Don't install anything that pulls systemd in.

      I had to switch from Gnome to KDE. I tested Gnome3 and systemd. Hated them both. There are a lot of apps (or there were) that don't support the systemd init. Writing my own scripts is not something I care to do for systemd.

      --
      Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
    64. Re:pfsense by Marillion · · Score: 2

      The worry isn't the new processes. It's the systemd process itself. I'll grant that having systemd pre-reducing privileges is better than expecting the daemon process to reduce privileges on its own. At what point will running systemd without networking be essentially non-optional due to widespread community adoption? I feel many of the worries of the parent of your post are still valid.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    65. Re:pfsense by randomencounter · · Score: 1

      I've been opting out from Gnome for ages, and I just had to uninstall Pulseaudio on a Fedora 21 installation to fix audio there (premature deployment by Canonical, my ass), so what constitutes "easy choices" for me might not be conceivable for others.

      I've just never been the sort of person to impose my somewhat ascetic tastes in computing on others.

      --
      Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
  2. pfSense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.pfsense.org/

  3. OpenBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.bsdnow.tv/tutorials/openbsd-router

    1. Re:OpenBSD by grub · · Score: 2

      I should have added: If you are serious about your security, move your samba service inside to another box. Keep this machine as a device to move packets securely.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
  4. Re: Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Experience usually leads to a realization that you don't know everything... Asking others is a good way to increase your available options from the few you are comfortable with to include ones you might not know exist.

  5. Re:Uh. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Funny

    He said he's written drivers. He didn't say they compiled or worked.

  6. Re:pfsense - aka crappy old pf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why use an ancient version of pf when you can use the latest version? http://www.bsdnow.tv/tutorials/openbsd-router

  7. Two machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would first seriously consider seperating your router/firewall from your file server. As for preferred BSD, it would be OpenBSD for the router/firewall and FreeBSD for the file server.

  8. Or Slackware, Gentoo, or Devuan by dpilot · · Score: 5, Informative

    The three distros in the Subject line do not use systemd, though Gentoo does offer it. They may well be the dig-in-the-heels distros that will stay that way, driven by people like you. Moving to one of those distros is a smaller/easier move for you, and doesn't preclude moving to a BSD in the future.

    Years back I thought about moving my server to OpenBSD, based on reputation. However after some thinking I realized that potentially the safest server is the one you know best how to administer. I was probably better off knowing how to administer Linux well across my home cluster than to divide my efforts. I know OpenBSD is supposed to be "secure by default", but don't know how I might accidentally mess that up by mis-applying Linux knowledge to it.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Or Slackware, Gentoo, or Devuan by I4ko · · Score: 1

      Actually MicroTik routerOS beats those, but I second pfSense. Just decrease the timer interrupt frequency on older hardware and you are in business.

    2. Re:Or Slackware, Gentoo, or Devuan by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      This. IMHO, the whole point of Linux has always been the unlimited possibilities for customization, so I don't get this recent trend of threatening to leave Linux altogether because _some_ distros use Systemd _by default_.

      Personally, I had a brief stint with NetBSD around 2003, and I was momentarily hooked by the Unix purity after all these flashy mainstream Linux distros. However, I soon learned I can a lot of the same experience with all the Linux goodies (such as hardware compatibility) by running Gentoo, so that's what I've used ever since.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:Or Slackware, Gentoo, or Devuan by Anrego · · Score: 1

      This. IMHO, the whole point of Linux has always been the unlimited possibilities for customization

      The problem in my opinion is a noticeable shift in this mentality over the last several years.

      At some point, mass adoption became the big goal, and the spirit of flexibility and building a better mousetrap started to lose ground to standardization and making things more user friendly. Linux is basically morphing into an open source Windows clone bit by bit. This is probably good for humanity and all, but for many it's the opposite of what drew us to Linux in the first place.

      In particular, systemd is the ultimate culmination of this new mindset. Systemd is a big, all encompassing beast where you can't easily swap out components and where many packages are gaining direct or indirect dependencies on it, making it hard to run a systemd free system. It may work better and be more user friendly, but it's the antithesis of the original Linux spirit.

      As to using a distro that doesn't have systemd as a default, as a former Gentoo user I can tell you it's not that simple. Systemd is undoubtedly the most disruptive thing to hit gentoo in awhile. Simply specifying -systemd use flag isn't enough, I had to straight up blacklist packages and then uninstall/replace a bunch of packages with non-systemd requiring alternatives and fix the respective breakage. I don't use gnome, however a few gnome libraries got pulled in as dependencies of various things, and it was a huge headache to clean that shit out. Meanwhile slackware has straight up dropped gnome3 because it's too much of a pain to make it work without systemd. On Debian, gimp, a graphical editing tool, has an indirect systemd dependency!

    4. Re:Or Slackware, Gentoo, or Devuan by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      On Debian, gimp, a graphical editing tool, has an indirect systemd dependency!

      Gimp depends on dbus, and Debian build dbus so that it depends on libsystemd.
      Libsystemd is a client-side library for interacting with systemd, if it's installed and running.
      It's not an init system. It doesn't even depend on it.

  9. Re:Uh. by Dr+J.+keeps+the+nerd · · Score: 2

    We know it's you, Linus!

  10. Re:Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm a different AC, but went through a similar thing then systemd chased me off to BSD. I went with FreeBSD because it seemed to have the best userland of the options. A similar as BSD is to Linux, you still go from being fairly comfortable (I never wrote kernel drivers, but I used gentoo for about a decade and considered myself fairly confident) to feeling like a newbie again. You have to google every basic thing. It's usually a matter of "oh, in FreeBSD I use this to configure that", but there's still a lot of it and it takes time to feel comfortable with how the system works again.

  11. Re:Uh. by sysadmn · · Score: 1

    He said he's written drivers. He didn't say they compiled or worked.

    So he was just puttering around?

    --
    Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
  12. Re:Too stupid to understand routing, but smart eno by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    Too stupid to understand routing, but smart enough to write kernel code? Something doesn't add up here.

    Can't you recognize click-bait when you see it?

    Heaven knows slashdot needs click-bait, what with the crap they have been doing to their layout in the last 2 days. Right now it's utter crap on Safari 6.1*, but sometimes its good and other times it's worse. And sometimes its borked on Safari 8 and even IE 11. It's as if Dice has never heard of testing on a test system and not testing on production.

    *And yes I am still there because of 32 EFI, and yes I know there are ways to get >Lion running on 32 bit EFI, but it is not a priority right now.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  13. Two things by Richy_T · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) Don't run your fileserver on your router/firewall. You're asking for problems.

    2) Not all Linuxes run Systemd (Yay Slackware). I have nothing against the BSDs and they are probably better for networking anyway.

    Personally I have Tomato on my firewall/router and use Slackware for my server needs. Serves me pretty well.

    1. Re:Two things by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Actually router/firewall + fileserver makes perfect sense in home setting.

      Becasue no home users have any valuable data... By the way, can I get your router IP address please?

    2. Re:Two things by mlts · · Score: 2

      The ideal is to have the router on its own bare metal, perhaps sitting on a hypervisor (Xen, ESXi, pick your poison), so if the router's VM gets compromised, the bare metal hardware cannot be attacked (video cards can be reflashed, even keyboard firmware can be augmented.) Plus, if snapshots are used, it can be restored from a snapshot if need be. Modern type 1 hypervisors can be well locked down so that compromise from a VM is extremely rare, especially if the management port cannot be touched from any of the VMs on the hypervisor.

      Another possibility is to use vSwitches and have your fileserver be a VM, with the PFSense instance being connected to the VSwitch that the external Internet NIC is on, as well as an internal VSwitch for the file server, and the internal LAN. One can get fancy from there, and create three vSwitches so one can have a working DMZ. The advantage of virtualizing everything is that hardware changes are easier, and "oh shit" mistakes can be partially mitigated by wise use of snapshots.

    3. Re:Two things by steveg · · Score: 2

      Sure. No problem.

      It's 10.7.7.34

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    4. Re:Two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      10.7.7.34 - my god, you're in North Korea?

    5. Re:Two things by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      1) Don't run your fileserver on your router/firewall. You're asking for problems.

      Really? What problems might you be speaking of? I've been running router+firewall+CIFS file server on the same box for at least a dozen years, never had a problem yet.

    6. Re:Two things by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      In Sony Entertainment, North Korea's in YOU.

    7. Re:Two things by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I did too and never had any problems. I just heard of a few exploits of various things that made me uncomfortable with the idea.

    8. Re:Two things by Rob+Bos · · Score: 1

      127.59.103.1.

  14. Re:Let me Google that for you.. by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    > You may have written linux kernel drivers before, but apparently you have never encountered this thing called Google?

    Yes. Google. With all kinds of things tossed together both good and bad. Just because something is on Google, it doesn't mean you can trust it. The Internet is a great conduit for spreading nonsense.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  15. and when BSD moves to systemd... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not sure why all you systemd haters feel the need to say "If I wanted Windows, I'd run Windows". I don't know the technical details, but I assume systemd as a Linux init system is nothing like Windows - except maybe for the fact that it's not based on a bunch of shell scripts. If you're a Linux fan, I'd be surprised if the only reason you like Linux is it's script-based init system.

    Anyway, I assume the various distros that are switching to systemd are doing it for a reason - and that reason isn't to make it work more like Windows. I assume it's to make it work - i.e. resume from suspend reliably, etc. And if they find that necessary, what makes you think the maintainers of BSD aren't going to run into the same walls that the systemd approach circumvents? Then what are you gonna do?

    So sure, if systemd doesn't need its 'tentacles' in an area, complain about that. Maybe your distro won't use that component. But as it stands the systemd flame wars are veering into conspiracy theory territory - and that's rarely a good thing.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    1. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      ...what makes you think the maintainers of BSD aren't going to run into the same walls that the systemd approach circumvents?...

      If they do (and that's a big if, as I'm not convinced they will), then I would expect the BSD maintainers to arrive at a better solution.

    2. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by ahodgson · · Score: 5, Informative

      The comparison to Windows NT is because systemd insists on binary logs, takes over vast chunks of functionality that it has no business touching, and makes it basically impossible to debug problems. It makes the experience of administering the server much more like administering Windows than administering Linux should be.

    3. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by seepho · · Score: 1
      I'm curious about that comment, too. The only thing I saw was this line on wikipedia...

      In April 2014, Linus Torvalds expressed reservations about the attitude of a key systemd developer towards users and bug reports. In late April 2014, a campaign to boycott systemd was launched, with a website listing various reasons against its adoption.

      In an August 2014 article published in InfoWorld, Paul Venezia wrote about the systemd controversy, and attributed the controversy to violation of the Unix philosophy, and to "enormous egos who firmly believe they can do no wrong." The article also characterizes the architecture of systemd as more similar to that of svchost.exe, a critical system component in Microsoft Windows with a broad functional scope.

      Just seems like classic "compare any software I dislike to Windows" kind of stuff, but I'd love to hear from someone who is more familiar with it.

    4. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by ahodgson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only if you're an idiot who can only point and click gui buttons and whose solution to any problem is to reboot.

    5. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by muep · · Score: 2

      I have very little experience of the logging functionality of windows. During the small amount of looking I did, I did not find it similar at all to using journald. And on the other hand, with journactl, the way the log content is usually presented in syslog-like plain-text form inside less. Which basically is the same as what I'd use when dealing with a system that uses plain-text logs. So I guess that someone who has not tried journalctl might get a pretty inaccurate view of how it is like, if he just hears somewhere that it is like the windows logging system.

      Also I have not really noticed systemd making things impossible to debug. I can agree that there are things that are harder, but there is also stuff that become much easier than with systemd. And in my experience, debugging problems on a systemd-using system is usually basically the same as on one that has no systemd.

      I have no actual experience of administering a windows system except in the common personal desktop system scenario. But as far as I can tell, there is little reason to claim that GNU/Linux with systemd would be closer in experience to Windows than GNU/Linux without systemd.

    6. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> If you're a Linux fan, I'd be surprised if the only reason you like Linux is it's script-based init system.

      For me at least, its not the only reason but its certainly one of the big benefits. I like being able to non-ambiguously see and control exactly what is really going on, and to even be able to run those scripts individually in a sandbox if I want.

      I also really like plaintext system log files, having to now use some commandline tool to continually create them first is nothing but a giant pain in the ass.

      For me at least, Systemd takes a lot of simplicity and usability away, with nothing even close to a correspondingly sized gain in other benefits.

    7. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OpenBSD is written by ideological security and clean code "freaks". If they make a SystemD like system, it will be beautiful, simple, and bulletproof
      FreeBSD is written by SysAdmins. They know what they want and the eat their own dog food. If they made SystemD, it would be something that is better in every possible way over the old system.

      In the cases of BSD, the end users and the programmers are one and the same. That is not true for most Linux distros. The whole GPL mentality separates programmers and users, and that separation has leaked into many parts of the Linux community.

    8. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why all you systemd haters feel the need to say "If I wanted Windows, I'd run Windows". I don't know the technical details...

      "Well, there is your problem." :) So, some reasons people think it in Windows like. Binary logs. Monolitic code base. Absorbing other functions and projects. (Like putting NAT in init? Really?) Top down design decisions.

      I think that last one is the big one. Early on in development, some people raised some concerns. They were told "Your Wrong! "Trust us!" and "You are just afraid of change." That combined with the fact that the lead's last project, Pulse Audio, was a nightmare for a very long time leavs us with no confidence at all that this will be handeled well.

    9. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by steveha · · Score: 5, Informative

      systemd insists on binary logs

      My understanding is that SystemD makes binary logs for its own purposes, and that the binary features include indexes so it can very quickly answer queries like "what were the last ten things logged by Apache?"

      However, SystemD permits continuing to run a time-tested conventional log daemon. The current recommended way to get network logging is to run rsyslog.

      Some hard-core SystemD haters are still not happy, because the log events flow through SystemD on their way to the conventional log daemon.[1]

      takes over vast chunks of functionality that it has no business touching

      I'm not certain this really is the case. SystemD is a collection of services, and each one has a specific area of concern. The actual technical analyses I have read suggest that the basic design of SystemD is sound, and that it is doing things that people want to be done. For example, SystemD allows the graphics system (X.org) to run as a non-root user.

      One criticism of SystemD that may have some validity: that the only documentation is whatever the source code contains this week. SystemD is being developed at a rapid pace and documentation may be suffering. This is one reason I am glad for projects like UselessD... they will force the SystemD interface to settle down a bit and be documented a bit better.

      But I'll say it again: from what I have read (in technical analyses) the basic design of SystemD seems to be sound. The Debian technical committee that evaluated the situation concluded that SystemD was the best choice for Debian. (Then the politics blew up but that's another story.) Do you think that the Debian technical committee spent months evaluating SystemD and were just wrong about it? (That's not to say that SystemD is perfect. But something can be imperfect and still be the best choice for the future.)

      makes it basically impossible to debug problems

      I will not comment on this because I have no experience with SystemD yet. I have seen comments like this multiple times.

      Perhaps, even if SystemD is the future, it should be adopted slowly and carefully in the present. Debian "jessie" has SystemD as optional which seems like a very good thing to me.

      [1] I think that's probably an overreaction... if Red Hat can't get SystemD to reliably pass through log events, that would imply a level of brokenness that would preclude the widespread adoption that seems to be taking place.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    10. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by muep · · Score: 1

      Jues FYI, even on a systemd-using system, it is possible to install a traditional syslog and have it maintain plain-text logs for you. At least CentOS 7 seems to even default to a configuration that runs rsyslog producing plain-text logs and with journal files only in non-persistent store under /run.

    11. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      If you want simplicity then systemd is exactly what you're looking for. Take a look at just about any .service file. It's miles easier to read an understand than the corresponding LSB init script.

    12. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      systemd doesn't reduce complexity, all it does is hide it away where you can't see it anymore (even if you need to).

    13. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by mvdwege · · Score: 2

      Jordan Hubbard, you know, that guy that has a little influence in the FreeBSD project, seems to think that systemd is a pretty good idea (Slideshare transcript).

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    14. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      Here's the source code. Just go and have a look.
      http://cgit.freedesktop.org/sy...

      So it's C instead of shell, the same programming language that probably most of the software you're running is written in anyway.

    15. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Informative

      Below is a great explanation as to why systemd is like windows.

      From "SystemD Abomination"
      Subject Vested interest in control. RedHat and SystemD
      Date Mon, 17 Nov 2014 04:40:08 +0100

        by beaverdownunder:

      It should be obvious to anyone that RedHat has a vested interest in making the vast majority of Linux distributions dependent on technology it controls. Linux is its bread-and-butter.

      It appears RedHat has realised that, through systemd, it can readily provide preferential support for its own projects, and place roadblocks up for projects it does not control, thus extending its influence broadly and quickly. By using tenuous dependencies amongst its own projects it can speed adoption even faster.

      Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.

      At this point, they can market themselves as the only rational choice for corporate Linux support -- and this would be perfectly reasonable because they would have effective control of the ecosystem.

      Linux (as in a full OS implementation) is an extremely complex beast and you can't just "fork it" and start your own 'distro' from scratch anymore -- you would have to leverage a small army to do it, then keep that army to maintain it. It's just not practical.

      At the same time, Linux has matured to the point of attaining some measure of corporate credibility, and from RedHat's point of view, it no longer needs its 'open source' roots to remain viable. RedHat also, understandably, fears potential competition.

      Through systemd and subsequent takeovers of other ecosystem components, RedHat can leverage its own position while stifling potential competition -- this is a best-case scenario for any corporation. It will have an advantage in the marketplace, potential customers will recognize that advantage, and buy its products and support contracts.

      I hope you can understand why many see this as an extremely compelling case. Arguing that RedHat has 'ethics' and would 'never do such a thing' is immature and silly -- RedHat is a corporation, it exists to profit from its opportunities, just like any other company. To attempt to argue that it would not do so is contrary to what we can assume is its default state.

      It's no 'conspiracy theory' to assume that a corporation will behave like a corporation; arguing that it is just makes one look like a naive child. systemd is one large step toward RedHat gaining the ability to reap what it has sewn -- for its benefit and not necessarily ours.

    16. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why all you systemd haters feel the need to say "If I wanted Windows, I'd run Windows".

      Presumably because Windows takes a monolithic approach, and bundling more and more functionality into a single daemon seems to be taking that same direction.

    17. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

      Uhm, Windows logs are XML data...

    18. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by ravenlord_hun · · Score: 1

      A truly unexpected shutdown (kernel panic or hardware fault) can leave systemd log files so corrupt you can't grab anything meaningful from them.

      As for text files, they are obviously just backwards-compatibility junks left in so the old crowd doesn't get too noisy. I mean, binary format is the future and should be embraced any any non-reactionary admin, amirite?

    19. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by ravenlord_hun · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I found debugging kinda difficult when the default shipping systemd utterly breaks emergency mode (launching 2 shells that are competing for input/output).

      I've also seen a test server lose the binary logs COMPLETELY when the power was cut. We had to read the good 'ol /var/log/messages, but that's clearly not the systemd way, is it now?

    20. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by udippel · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I assume the various distros that are switching to systemd are doing it for a reason - and that reason isn't to make it work more like Windows. I assume it's to make it work - i.e. resume from suspend reliably, etc.

      Oh my, we are talking servers here; respectively answering the question of the OP. And then 'resume from suspend' is only one thing, and that's OT.

    21. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by ookaze · · Score: 1

      Now I'm starting to believe in a conspiracy against Free Software.
      I find it odd to see such nonsense written here, being modded up.
      Because what is described here (making the product closed source) is just not possible to do for Free Software like systemd, but is entirely possible (and has been done before and up to this day) with BSD.
      Yet, this explanation of why a free software liecensed init system (systemd) is like a closed source operating system (Windows) appears here, is based on nothing solid, but people seem to believe this nonsense nonetheless.
      And there have been a big amount of articles about moving from Linux to BSD since six months ago, and I'm now starting to believe this is astroturfing.
      Even the move to BSD because of an init system makes no sense to me.

      What I'm sure about, is that to this day I'm unable to make my own Windows OS, but I'm still able to do my own Linux systems (all my Linux systems at home are custom made from upstream sources) even today despite having moved to systemd years ago.
      Though it's not a bad thing to go learn other OS out there for an admin, I more or less know most of the Unix and Windows systems, but not Mac OS.

    22. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      I find it hard to imagine a scenario where you will have access to the file on disk but lack access to a program to unpack the log files. Sure, such a scenario can be concocted to prove a point; however, in the real world, you are going to be able to unpack the binary logs.

      If your imagination is that weak, you have no business doing server postmortems. Sadly, the systemd devs' imaginations are, apparently, no better than yours.

    23. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by steveha · · Score: 1

      So when things are wrong a frequent reason to use such a command is used), it wastes my time to display something I didn't request and don't want to see.

      When things are wrong, you don't want to see the recent log events to diagnose what went wrong?

      It's a legit complaint if this display slows you down, but I'm amazed that you are so hostile to the idea. However, as a sysadmin I'm just a dilettante so I will defer to your expertise.

      Citation needed? I seem to remember that X could also run as non-root before systemd.

      http://hansdegoede.livejournal.com/14268.html

      The main problem with systemd is that it is beeing pushed onto and by the mayor distributions without fixing the problems first.

      Makes sense to me. I'm glad that Debian did the work to leave SystemD as optional.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    24. Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... by Ster · · Score: 1

      Jordan Hubbard, you know, that guy that has a little influence in the FreeBSD project, seems to think that systemd is a pretty good idea (Slideshare transcript).

      I was actually there when Jordan gave that talk. He specifically mentioned `launchd', rather than `systemd', as being something to look at. In fact, people in the FreeBSD community already have `launchd' running as PID 0, though I believe it's not fully stable. Right now, it just execs `rc' so most things just work as usual; individual services will have to be migrated to get started via `launchd', but that will take time.

  16. Any BSD is good by chaoskitty · · Score: 1

    Ignore the idiots who are dismissive. Just because someone is highly technical in one area doesn't mean there's something wrong if they're not very technical in others.

    I personally use NetBSD because I use different hardware in different places for NAT / IPv6 routing / DNS / all that. In homes I use a PogoPlug or Seagate Dockstar with a USB flash or SD card and a USB-ethernet and / or USB-wireless. In businesses I use amd64, sparc64 and powerpc systems. NetBSD uses the same configurations regardless of the architecture.

    OpenBSD and FreeBSD are just as good, and, as I'm sure you're realizing while you learn BSD, all three BSDs are much cleaner and better organized, generally speaking, than GNU/Linux distros. The other thing that keeps me using them is that they don't try to be like Windows, so there aren't a zillion extra packages and gratuitous changes from one version to the next.

    A BSD NAT router / firewall / IPv6 router / DNS / Samba / web / whatever server can be set up pretty quickly and easily, and keeping track of the configuration files and reproducing a running system is very straightforward.

  17. Re:Let me Google that for you.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Slashdot being a prime source of nonsense.

  18. Re:FreeBSD by unixisc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Aside from pFsense, another great alternative is TrueOS.

  19. pFsense vs OpenBSD? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Actually, how do pFsense and OpenBSD compare as far as routing capabilities go? And for IPv6?

    1. Re:pFsense vs OpenBSD? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I read it as meaning that one accesses the PF console from a web browser. GP can correct me if he meant otherwise

    2. Re:pFsense vs OpenBSD? by darkain · · Score: 1

      DD-WRT that can be installed on the 8MB flash of a desktop router has a web server... if you consider that to be "bloat", then I don't even know what sort of performance/storage requirements you're looking for!

  20. OpenBSD by grub · · Score: 3, Insightful


    OpenBSD. Feel free to look at the others, just don't get distracted by shiny bells & whistles and GUIs and the like.
    OpenBSD does what you want and does it very well.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  21. Info about Gentoo, for those considering it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Like BSD, Gentoo is a source-based. So, if you're familiar with Linux, you might find Gentoo a sort of gentle introduction to a more BSD-like distro.

    I've been using Gentoo for a while, and it has done what I expected most distros to do: It offers two init systems: OpenRC (the default), and systemd. OpenRC is actually Gentoo's own. It's sysvinit-like, with a few nice enhancements. If you're familiar with Sysvinit, you don't find it hard to switch: OpenRC is lightweight, and converting a syvinit-style startup script to an OpenRC one usually requires only a few modifications. OpenRC it lets you specify dependencies and runlevels by name, rather than having to manage a bunch of symlinks and numbers by hand.

    Gentoo is not as user-friendly as, say, Ubuntu. There's no GUI installer. Instead, the Gentoo Handbook walks you through how to partition and format your disk, etc. I initially picked Gentoo because I wanted to learn more about Linux. Whenever I've gotten stuck, I have also found the online Gentoo community (wiki, forums,etc.) to be quite friendly and helpful.

    1. Re:Info about Gentoo, for those considering it by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      I don't think it's really accurate to say the BSDs are primarily source-based from a user perspective these days. FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all use binary packages. You can build from source, but that's true on Debian too. The various BSD and Linux distributions differ a bit mainly in how strongly encouraged each option is, e.g. OpenBSD strongly recommends installing the official binary packages, not building your own.

    2. Re:Info about Gentoo, for those considering it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gentoo is my preferred linux distribution. The biggest selling point I found was the freedom of choice. If you really wanted to, you could run Gentoo on cygwin on Windows NT -- and it would work.

  22. Alpine linux? by staalmannen · · Score: 2

    Init: OpenRC Libc: musl Userland: busybox Looks like a nice alternative....

  23. Re: Good documentation by brynet · · Score: 3, Informative

    Peter N. M. Hansteen's PF tutorial and books are recommended reads, Peter remains involved with the developers and the information stays relevant and useful. He also ensures that readers using other BSD systems, especially with older versions of pf, can learn just as much from it.

    * The Book of PF, 3rd Edition, 2014 - ISBN: 978-1593275891
    * http://home.nuug.no/~peter/pf/

    Michael W Lucas is another author that writes books for both the BSD and sysadmin communities, similarly, he works closely with developers and users to release these short, yet all-encompassing tomes of information, covering a wide variety of topics.

    https://www.michaelwlucas.com/...
    * Absolute OpenBSD, 2nd Edition, 2013 - ISBN: 978-1593274764
    * SSH Mastery, 2012 - ISBN: 978-1470069711
    * Sudo Master, 2013 - ISBN: 978-1493626205

    And of course, official documentation is great. The effort of many people working to improve, Jason McIntyre improving readability and overall quality, Ingo Schwarze's amazing work on mandoc(1) tools. OpenBSD's FAQ, which is usually the first step people take to learn more about the system, is maintained by Nick Holland.

    http://www.openbsd.org/faq/
    http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin...

  24. Re:What's the big deal? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    Doesn't trust it to not fail catastrophically, or not break when you update your system. Slashdot is full of horror stories where a supposedly stable distribution switched to systemd, and systems that have operated for a decade suddenly failed to boot right. It's still experimental-quality.

  25. Why not outside the box? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Picking AROS or Minix 3.

    There is also RouterOS?

    Just realize that whatever you do you will suffer some disadvantage.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  26. Re:pfsense - aka crappy old pf by unixisc · · Score: 2

    Yeah, isn't the current version of pFsense - 2.1.5 - derived from what is in FreeBSD 8.3? And also, isn't their IPv6 support still rather primitive? It would be good to compare pFsense 2.2 vs TrueOS 10.1 vs OpenBSD 5.6 as far as their IPv6 support goes

  27. Why don't you like systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Frankly, I love it when I am forced to take a 5 minute coffee break when I can't CTRL+C out of my misconfigured network card. This is a delicious way to start the day.

  28. OpenBSD for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've migrated all my servers and last year all my desktops to OpenBSD. I was expecting some of the ports/packages in OpenBSD to be outdated because that's what I read on the web, but surprisingly I found that OpenBSD often has more recent versions of things like chromium/gnome/python/ruby/etc/etc than the other BSDs and even many linux distros.

    The base system on the other hand can lag a bit (for example they don't have wireless N yet), but whenever they add a new feature they do it right. One other thing about OpenBSD vs. other OSs I've used is how little breakage their is. For a business/enterprise that is critical. It's extremely rare that their base or ports system becomes unstable. I really like this. On linux/FreeBSD I've found things to be a bit more... painful.

    Oh and the security that they're famous for is really amazing. The more I read about the details, the more impressed I am. This is the piece that you really want to make use of if you're building a router. The only thing they're missing compared to FreeBSD is something like capsicum. But FreeBSD doesn't take security too seriously, they focus on performance at all costs and are probably years behind other OSs like OpenBSD or even Windows. (These days I believe Windows has far better security than Linux).

  29. OpenWRT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not that there is anything wrong with BSD, but you don't have to throw the Linux kernel out with the systemd water. You could choose a Linux distribution meant for routers such as OpenWRT which has x86 builds in addition to the embedded ARM and MIPS SoC platforms you will find in most actual SOHO routers.

    I've installed OpenWRT on an old laptop before to use it temporarily as a wireless access point.

    1. Re:OpenWRT by ravenlord_hun · · Score: 1

      At this point, I really doubt there will be any Linux distros left untouched by systemd.

  30. Re:pfsense - aka crappy old pf by houstonbofh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Becasue with pfSense (or m0n0wall) it is easy to do well. And this is a serious consideration. Doing a firewall "wrong" has some serious consiquenses, and pfSense or m0n0wall prevent you from making many common mistakes. (Actually, prevent is too strong... They just make it harder, but you can get access to anything you want if you try hard enough)

  31. Re:FreeBSD by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

    Another option is the grandaddy of all the BSD based appliances, m0n0wall. It is still very lean and very solid.

  32. systemd == Windows? by kschendel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMO the comparison comes about because the philosophies of the two (systemd and windows) are more related to one another than they are to Unix. Unix favors a collection of interacting tools that each do something (ideally, doing that something well). Windows is a giant monolithic shroud covering a multitude of interacting moving parts that you can't see, touch, or understand unless you spend the necessary years becoming an insider. Systemd seems to be leaning in that direction, hence the comparison. It's a big collection of "stuff" that refuses to be broken up into component functional bits.

    It certainly doesn't help that the systemd authors seem to think so highly of themselves, that I feel no need to add to their aggrandizement by thinking highly of them myself.

    1. Re:systemd == Windows? by seepho · · Score: 1

      So is this all just people acting on some philosophical principle, rather than picking the best tool to complete the job they want? It sounds like the OP doesn't really know much about systemd or its alternatives and will not be interacting with it anything beyond top-level kind of stuff...but he's decided that he dislikes it because someone told him its Windows-like. Modular design is great and all, but from the OP's perspective what the hell is the difference between one big black box versus 20 smaller ones?

    2. Re:systemd == Windows? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > So is this all just people acting on some philosophical principle, rather than picking the best tool to complete the job they want?

      The UNIX philosophy leads to the best tool for the job.

      > what the hell is the difference between one big black box versus 20 smaller ones?

      The 20 smaller ones are much easier to maintain, and update. Also the 20 smaller ones make for a more versatile user experience.

    3. Re:systemd == Windows? by seepho · · Score: 1

      This is all beginning to sound very dogmatic.

    4. Re:systemd == Windows? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So is this all just people acting on some philosophical principle, rather than picking the best tool to complete the job they want?

      If you don't understand the philosophy, you won't be able to pick the right tool. You don't necessarily need to agree with the philosophy, but if you don't understand it, you'll mess up.

      You don't seem to realize it, but "pick the best tool for the job" is also a philosophical principle. In some situations it applies, in others it doesn't.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:systemd == Windows? by seepho · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've had the "Athesim is a religion, too" argument before. Building a router doesn't require a philosophy -- it requires a process for getting from a world where you don't have a router to a world where you have a router you've built. If you'd like to incorporate a larger philosophy into your process, that's fine, but it's certainly not integral.

    6. Re:systemd == Windows? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Building a router doesn't require a philosophy

      System building does, or more accurately, central organizing principles. Otherwise things end up as a jumble of shortcuts and messes that seemed like a good idea at the time.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:systemd == Windows? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your version of that philosopy is "the smallest tool is always the best tool". Shell scripts are nice, small and (sort of) simple, but they're not all that powerful. I'm guessing that some parts of the init system needed more functionality than a simple startup and shutdown script. As far as I've read, systemd uses a modular approach of its own - and allows shell scripts for some init functions. So, maybe they're building binary modules where they're not necessarily needed. Then complain about that. But there are some systemd modules that are making power management, network management and other things much more flexible than they were.

      I kind of like the init script and text logs, but I'm not that dogmatic. And the outcry over systemd is way beyond reasoned argument. The original question was not much more informed than "I'm switching my router to BSD because...Windows!!! - but I really don't know how to use BSD, so somebody please tell me what to do". I'd suggest you don't switch. How's that?

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    8. Re:systemd == Windows? by seepho · · Score: 1

      A router is *totally* a system, though. But it just seems like we're just arguing semantics. I consider a philosophy to be a set of guidelines that exist for reasons beyond the scope of the system you're building. If you can't do something that makes sense for your system for reasons that exist beyond your system and the process of building/maintaining it, you've got a philosophy. Using uselessd over systemd because you need to use the uClibc library is a design decision. Deciding that we're never going to use systemd again because the maintainers are jerks and an article said it feels more like a Windows utility than a Linux utility is a philosophy. While it might generally make sense for you to not use Windows-like utilities that are maintained by jerks, if your project will not be affected by jerks or a Windows-like utility it would be rather foolish to exclude systemd from your design solely for those reasons.

    9. Re:systemd == Windows? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I consider a philosophy to be a set of guidelines that exist for reasons beyond the scope of the system you're building. If you can't do something that makes sense for your system for reasons that exist beyond your system and the process of building/maintaining it, you've got a philosophy.

      This is good, I like what you did here, you defined how you use the word, so we can have a discussion about actual concepts rather than definitions of words. "A discussion about the world is interesting, a discussion about words is not." So kudos.

      The principle in discussion is "Windows is a giant monolithic shroud covering a multitude of interacting moving parts that you can't see, touch, or understand unless you spend the necessary years becoming an insider....systemd seems to be leaning in that direction." From a practical standpoint, we know that a giant monolithic shroud is harder to work with. That's is a good reason not to use it, I think you'll agree.

      Now, I don't know if systemd is really a giant monolithic mess, or if it's even leaning in that direction. But some people think it is, and that's why they don't like it. If it is leaning in that direction, then I don't like it either.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:systemd == Windows? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It could be translated as the unix way is the best way for the job when everything else in the environment acts in the unix way. Clearer and less dogmatic now? It may make sense to steer a car from the back seat with a tiller like in a small boat but mixing it in with all the other car controls creates a mess.

    11. Re:systemd == Windows? by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      So is this all just people acting on some philosophical principle, rather than picking the best tool to complete the job they want?

      No. That's just how it's presented to minimize the functional shortcomings and design flaws on which many people, myself included, base the decision not to use systemd for practical reasons.

      e.g.

      * It's in "rapid development.": Presumably, this is thrown out by proponents to counter that the crufty old init systems are stagnant and old. To anyone responsible for maintaining production servers, this is likely a huge red flag. It's not for dramatic reasons that the "rapid development" version of Debian is called "unstable," for instance. I don't want to provision 3 servers with the same Linux distro over a 3 week period and find that they have 3 different versions of systemd on them. Add to that the fact that the devs behind the project don't have the best reputation for stable, well-functioning software, and you don't have an ad hominem, as much as the systemd salesmen might try to claim so; you have people who don't want another pulseaudio debacle that lives in the startup process now.

      * SysV init/initd/upstart/etc.. all suck: No argument here, but using this dodge to handwave away the design flaws of systemd feels like the Congress Fallacy.
      i.e. "Something must be done to improve the init system." "Adopting systemd is something, therefore adopting systemd must be done." It completely ignores the fact that systemd sucks, too, and it sucks in new, exciting, and unpredictable ways, without actually solving any of the *actual* problems with the old way of doing things (changing the format are just changing one arcane incantation for another) and just adding "solutions" hoping they find a problem to go with.

      * "My skill set/use case/worldview doesn't see X as a problem, so X isn't a problem": The devs are just as (or more) guilty of this even than the proponents are. Binary logs, everyone's favorite dipshit stick in the whole mess falls here. The problem isn't that it's "like Windows" (it's not), and not that those who dislike it are "afraid of change" (we're not). The problem is that a system log facility that only works when nothing goes wrong is tits-on-a-bull useless. System compromised and the intruder corrupts the log? Oh, that's a feature, because otherwise he could edit the log and feed you misinformation -- that kind of reasoning suggests that the developers understand neither security (if it's trivial for the admin to unpack the log, it's trivial for the intruder - binary storage != encryption) nor system administration. It doesn't help that you run the same risk if a UPS or thermal sensor fails and the server powers down ungracefully -- the kind of situation where you'd damn sure WANT access to your log files. It seems none of the devs have ever worked on the other side of the switch.

      * "I AM TRAPPER KEEPER": At best, systemd's ever-expanding feeping creaturism demonstrates an especially solipsistic "NIH" mindset. More cynically, I'm led to to wonder if the thought process isn't more along the lines of the devs being sloppy or incompetent and unable to figure out a "neat" way to work alongside the rest of the system, so they just roll their own network stack, DHCP client, and even console into what was, ostensibly, an init replacement. Either way, I'm not willing to risk my systems to RedHat's whim nor Lennart&Co's track record.

      There's just a few of my personal, completely pragmatic reasons to eschew systemd and any distribution that includes it by default - the latter not out of principle or dogma, but because there's no telling when they'll let their package manager require systemd for some software I'll actually need.(Ian's GR tried to address that possibility for Debian, and had it passed, I would be transitioning to Debian rather than FreeBSD).

  33. Article is wrong... by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Funny

    The article should say: I used to write Linux kernel drivers and hate the direction systemd is taking it. Please support me by clicking on my rant and joining me in installing BSD on your router.

    Seriously, I'm barely familiar with Linux as I'm just an end user, and I know well enough that I don't need an ask slashdot to figure out which OS I can put on a router which doesn't include systemd.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  34. Migration by phorm · · Score: 2

    You don't even need to blow away the Linux partition. Just install to a 4GB USB stick and set that to be the first boot-device.

  35. A few answers from the original AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm the original AC who asked the question. Or someone pretending to be him, you have no way of knowing.

    1. Not trusting systemd.
    Because it can't be troubleshooted if all you have is something to read text files with. When all you have is a single user shell, for example. Or you've put the hard drive in a different system, which is whatever you had on hand and could even be Windows with an ext3 plugin.
    Because it comes from the author of PulseAudio, who is world renowned for the stability of his products. And low CPU consumption, when they work.
    Because it contradicts the Unix philosophy of having a lot of little utilities that each do one thing. It may not be a big deal for a full time sysadmin, but if your main job isn't that it's a lot easier to just read about the small parts that interest you and disable the rest.

    2. If he can write Linux kernel drivers, why does he need to ask Slashdot, or why doesn't he google it?
    Because I don't know anything about BSD, and I'm not looking for "learn BSD in 10 easy mouse clicks". Although the signal to noise ratio on here sometimes approaches zero, there is the occasional informed opinion, and with a bit of luck, there will be some pointer to some actual pertinent information.

    3. Use pfSense
    If i use pfSense I won't learn anything. I've installed it before, it took about zero BSD knowledge. Also, I want the file serving part, see 4.

    4. Move your Samba server to another machine for security reasons.
    The router doesn't have any important files on it. It has the usual torrents, and it runs a private http server. I update the http server's pages through samba because it's the most convenient. It's not worth running this on a separate machine as there's nothing on there that I can't afford to lose. The real data is on other machines, and backed up properly.

    Looking forward to the next batch of flame posts now :)

    1. Re:A few answers from the original AC by kthreadd · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because it can't be troubleshooted if all you have is something to read text files with. When all you have is a single user shell, for example. Or you've put the hard drive in a different system, which is whatever you had on hand and could even be Windows with an ext3 plugin.

      Why would less work in single user mode but not journalctl? And nothing stops you or anyone else from writing a journal reader for Windows. The on-disk file format is not a secret.

      Because it comes from the author of PulseAudio, who is world renowned for the stability of his products. And low CPU consumption, when they work.

      PulseAudio runs on FreeBSD as well, just so you know.

      Because it contradicts the Unix philosophy of having a lot of little utilities that each do one thing. It may not be a big deal for a full time sysadmin, but if your main job isn't that it's a lot easier to just read about the small parts that interest you and disable the rest.

      systemctl disable $foo

      And that's supposed to be easier just because $foo is implemented with a shell script instead of a .service file?

      2. If he can write Linux kernel drivers, why does he need to ask Slashdot, or why doesn't he google it?
      Because I don't know anything about BSD, and I'm not looking for "learn BSD in 10 easy mouse clicks". Although the signal to noise ratio on here sometimes approaches zero, there is the occasional informed opinion, and with a bit of luck, there will be some pointer to some actual pertinent information.

      https://www.freebsd.org/doc/ha...
      Recommended.

    2. Re:A few answers from the original AC by MSG · · Score: 1

      Because it contradicts the Unix philosophy of having a lot of little utilities that each do one thing

      systemd is actually a lot of little utilities that each do one thing. If you don't know that, you're probably getting your information from biased sources.

      Although the signal to noise ratio on here sometimes approaches zero, there is the occasional informed opinion

      You're welcome.

    3. Re:A few answers from the original AC by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      Text files take too long to read and have problems with things like rotation. By using its own format systemd can include meta data and indexing that allows the journal to be search faster and more precise.

    4. Re:A few answers from the original AC by unixisc · · Score: 1

      If pFsense doesn't work for you, go w/ TrueOS. Essentially, a PC-BSD minus all the DEs, and just the CLIs. You can do the routing stuff, as mentioned earlier in the page, and the usual file server stuff works as well.

    5. Re:A few answers from the original AC by Sesostris+III · · Score: 2

      Text files might take too long to read (and that's a value judgement), but even if true, that's better than not being able to read them at all.

      So what software is available for reading systemd binary journal files on Windows? Saying "write your own" is a cop-out.

      Plenty of applications for reading text files though. Notepad++ is my favourite. (I've even got it running in Linus using Wine!)

      For systemd to truly replace existing init systems, it needs stand-alone journal-readers for other (non-systemd) systems. Ideally, the systemd people should write these - they're the ones forcing through the binary logs.

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    6. Re:A few answers from the original AC by Sesostris+III · · Score: 1

      As it happens I do run PostgreSQL (albeit just to play with). The data files I can't read in a text editor. However the log file I can!

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    7. Re:A few answers from the original AC by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Bottom line for what you want, which is FreeBSD, start with the manual.

      Then go to the releases and pick the latest production, i.e. stable, release (Currently 10.1). Everything will be stable and binaries and source packages for your desired functions will all be available and up to date.

      if you want a dedicated machine for one specific purpose, then another BSD might be better, but for multiple purposes/general purpose, just use FreeBSD. It'll be just as good as the others for specific purposes (just not by default, you'll have to run a command to install software, big deal), many of which have a FreeBSD source.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    8. Re:A few answers from the original AC by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      For item 4, you are still not addressing the vulnerability issues that adding Samba and a web server add to the equation.

      Personally I am in a similar situation with this part, and will eventually get "extra" functions I have the router doing over to a NAS drive. (My NAS drive just needs to do pull-backups via rsync.) For Transmission, I personally would slap it on a Raspberry Pi or NAS drive in a DMZ off the router.

    9. Re:A few answers from the original AC by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      systemd is actually a lot of little utilities that each do one thing. If you don't know that, you're probably getting your information from biased sources.

      Nope, and if you don't know that, you're probably getting your information from biased sources. systemd is modular in the same way that linux is modular. Both have modules. In both, separate tasks are delagated to separate modules. In neither case is that like separate utilities because in neither cases can the modules be used alone.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:A few answers from the original AC by ravenlord_hun · · Score: 1

      So I can run timedated without systemd around? Oh, no? Well, I guess they aren't just a bunch of little utilities, then. You can check your own sources, thank you.

    11. Re:A few answers from the original AC by ravenlord_hun · · Score: 1

      Do you often need to check PostgreSQL data files when your system had unexpectedly crashed?

    12. Re:A few answers from the original AC by Sesostris+III · · Score: 1

      The following article may help;

      How to convert between ASCII and EBCDIC character codes

      There are also commercial products you can buy. As you're running a mainframe, you should be able to afford one of these.

      Hope this helps.

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    13. Re:A few answers from the original AC by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      systemd is actually a lot of little utilities that each do one thing. If you don't know that, you're probably getting your information from biased sources.

      The 'problem' with that line of thought is the systemd utilities are specific to systemd, they dont work with other systems. The unix philosophy isnt about just having lots of different commands, but that those commands work on a standard interface (hence the whole everything is a file aspect of unix even hardware devices). The complaint he's really trying to make is that those utilities are highly specialized and work only with systemd.

      Disclaimer: I don't know how true the information on systemd in this post is. I'm just trying to better articulate a point the AC was trying to make.

  36. BSD not likely to go systemd by unixisc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Solaris uses SMF and OS-X uses launchd, as was discussed yesterday in the thread about the new networking features in systemd. If BSD leaves SysV and adapts something, it's more likely to be launchd, rather than systemd. Also, systemd is under GNU LGPL 2.1, and the BSD projects have tended to seek out BSDL alternatives wherever possible. Which is why launchd is more likely to be used than systemd

    1. Re:BSD not likely to go systemd by moderators_are_w*nke · · Score: 1

      Err, BSD has never been SysV. BSD vs SysV was the last init system holy war.

      --
      "XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
    2. Re:BSD not likely to go systemd by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Err, BSD has never been SysV. BSD vs SysV was the last init system holy war.

      Fascinating that war is still going on. It shows how difficult it actually is to get the init system right. So many different needs, use cases, etc.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:BSD not likely to go systemd by ratsg · · Score: 1

      The Sys V rc directories are still in place and functional in current Solaris 10 & 11 versions, plus all of the various Solaris based distro's.

  37. OpenBSD vs FreeBSD by hbp4c · · Score: 1

    OpenBSD has a focus on security and I believe they were the group that developed pf. Out of the box, OpenBSD will be pretty much configured well for a router. Also pf on OpenBSD uses a newer syntax. The install process is pretty basic and some of the terminology used for partitioning disks may be confusing for someone used to Linux terminology. In-version OS updates are handled by downloading patches and recompiling from patched sources. Major OS updates come out every 6 months.

    FreeBSD has a focus on being a friendlier OS to work with. The kernel exposes many more tunable options and performance is generally considered better on FreeBSD. pf uses an older syntax that was forked off at some point and may never update to the newer versions OpenBSD offer. FreeBSD has a lot of other features like ZFS, which can be a big deal for Samba. The installer is more friendly and OS updates are handled through a fetch/install command. Major OS updates come out frequently according to a set schedule.

    I have the expectation that FreeBSD will support new hardware faster than OpenBSD. I think most people serious about OpenBSD will be running it on a machine with Intel network cards. Other nics (realtek, broadcom) may work but sometimes have problems under heavy load on OpenBSD.

    I use OpenBSD for my routing/firewall and a separate FreeBSD system for samba/fileserving. I don't expect any problem with running samba on OpenBSD alongside the firewall, but you won't have the benefits of ZFS, which is a big deal for me.

    pfsense and m0n0wall are both based on FreeBSD, due to performance.

    Unfortunately I don't have as much knowledge about NetBSD.

  38. Re:FreeBSD by fnj · · Score: 1

    TrueOS is just FreeBSD with some very minor additional utilities thrown in - and no support for x86 32 bit.

  39. In that case... by ebunga · · Score: 1

    Netcraft confirms it, BSD is dead.

  40. systemd hatred by Foresto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't understand the blatent systemd pushing. Reasons for disliking it vary but don't really matter, because its adoption will force a *lot* of people who don't want it to either suffer through it or suffer through migration to another OS. That is reason enough not to adopt it. Trying to discredit people's reasons for disliking it is presumptuous, pointless, and rather stupid.

    1. Re:systemd hatred by Foresto · · Score: 1

      Clarification: I do not meant to imply that IMightB is trying to discredit people's reasons.

    2. Re:systemd hatred by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Don't you know. If you like something new you are just a blind follower. If you hate something then you must be smart enough to hate it.
      Because if you have such a strong opinion about something it must mean you have a damn good reason to.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:systemd hatred by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      There are over 100 Linux distributions. I can guarantee with absolute certainty that not everyone one of them has switched to systemd. You don't like the new car Ford released so you switch to a boat, makes perfect sense.

    4. Re:systemd hatred by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      "If you hate something then you must be smart enough to hate it."

      - jellomizer
      Dice Slashdot wisom

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    5. Re:systemd hatred by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

      its adoption will force a *lot* of people who don't want it to either suffer through it or suffer through migration to another OS. That is reason enough not to adopt it.

      How is it something to 'suffer through'. Read a man page or two, and you should be able to admin it and gain the benefits it provides (eg. cgroups configured by default).

      Running systemd on all my personal machines and my workstation at the office, I haven't experiened any problems. We'll be upgrading systems in the coming months, and I see no reason to avoid systemd.

    6. Re:systemd hatred by Foresto · · Score: 1

      Wow. Thanks. Your post is a pretty good example of the behavior I was describing.

  41. FreeBSD - tutorial inside by burni2 · · Score: 1

    Hi,
    I've written a tutorial for installing freebsd on an encrypted root using a serial console. That should actually explain some things.

    http://forums.smallnetbuilder....

    Otherwise:

    Get an installer image:
    https://www.freebsd.org/where....

    The release version is FreeBSD-10.1

    try the memstick image
    a "cp FreeBSD.img /dev/sdX" will copy it to stick

    While you install:
    don't install the package ports, you will get the freshest ones
    through portsnap

    Add an "admin" user make him member of group "wheel"
    because that user can ssh and then "su" to root.

    When you have installed FreeBSD

    a.) run portsnap fetch extract
    - after this your ports tree is up to date

    b.) run freebsd-update fetch install
    - after this your FreeBSD-system is up to date

    c.) kill sendmail-demon
    - after this you will feel no change at all

    d.) installa samba via ports(verbosive) or via pkg add samba

    you install things using the ports collection by enter the directory /usr/ports
    where you choose the category for example the midnight commander can be found under "/usr/ports/misc/mc"

    you start the installation using make install
    afterwards you can do a make clean
    or make distclean.

    ports is "just" make-scripts

    Hint:
    svn is included in the FreeBSD base distribution
    it can be called via svn-lite

    So you can also checkout the current freebsd-head (FreeBSD handbook says how), browse the /usr/src directory or where yyou will then recognize that every command's source has a separate directory with make file etc..

    Meaning you can now play with the source of the base distribution(userland) and kernel

    FreeBSD is fun, and a base system really has a small footprint.

  42. because 'tail /var/log/httpd/error_log' was hard by raymorris · · Score: 1, Troll

    > My understanding is that SystemD makes binary logs for its own purposes, and that the binary features include indexes so it can very quickly answer queries like "what were the last ten things logged by Apache?"

    Oh okay, this huge monstrosity is worth it if it does things like make it easy to see the last ten log entries from Apache. Because for the last 35 years we've never been able to do:

    tail /var/log/httpd/error_log

    Lennart would add a hundred thousand extra lines of code before thinking about "tail".

  43. FreeBSD by gnu-sucks · · Score: 1

    Without a doubt, FreeBSD is the best at these tasks. I have used it in the past and you can create a basic forwarding firewall with only a few lines of config. Add a dozen or so more for better control. I also ran BIND, isc-dhcpd, and a wifi access point. This would be a little tough under OpenBSD and NetBSD as they don't have quite the same range of wifi hardware supported out of the box.

    FreeBSD has good package management and is very well documented. In many benchmarks, it is faster and scales better than the other BSDs. SAMBA will work fine, as will netatalk and NFS.

    Having said all this, running your own firewall is a really good skill and enjoyable hobby. But if it ever becomes more of a burden than an enjoyable task, switch to a high-performance router running linux (no routers with linux have stooped to systemd yet that I know of). I have an ASUS that can seriously handle all the throughput that I can throw at it. And now I have more time for other things!

    PS: If you're not already aware, in addition to local caching, BIND can also connect to DHCPD and create real DNS resolution for your local clients.

  44. Is that really necessary? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    My understanding (feel free to enlightenme if wrong) is that most distros still offer other init systems, they just aren't requiring package maintainers to suppor them. Thus.. things you want to use might become dependent on Systemd.

    Also (as far as I know) Gnome is the only thing already doing this with KDE likely to follow soon.

    I'm guessing (more speculative) that Systemd dependency is only likely to be an issue with big "desktopy" projects like this.

    I hope that you are not running Gnome or KDE on your router!

    So... what's the problem? Just use a different init!

    Also... what kind of router are we talking about? Is this a PC being used as a router? Or is it a device which was actually meant to be a router. If the latter what distro does it run? Do router distros like openwrt, ddwrt, etc... actually use the same init systems as desktops? I always assumed they just ran a few simple scripts.

    That being said.. although I've been a long-time Linux user I am using M0n0wall myself. It's a BSD based router distro, much like Pfsense which others have recommended but a bit lighter. I only chose it b/c it (and pfsense) supported the device I wanted to convert to a router and I didn't see anyone mention any of the Linux ones for it online.

    My only complaint is that I haven't been able to get a VPN server running on it. I'm not sure this is M0n0wall's fault as this has been a problem for me on a number of other installations I have attempted. I suspect my cable company of blocking it.

    But, anyway.. not a single device in MY home seems to care if it's packets are being routed through Linux, BSD or whatever! How about a Syllable router for the win?!?!

    1. Re:Is that really necessary? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Do you have a reference for this?

  45. Re:What's the big deal? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    Okay, fine, I'm going by anecdotes. But did you seriously just argue based on "I haven't read the same comments as you, it so it must not be true"?

  46. GNOME, systemd & BSDs by unixisc · · Score: 3

    But both GNOME and GNOME classic are available on PC-BSD 10.x. How does it work here, if it requires systemd or logind? The BSDs don't have that

  47. pfSense by ziggy_az · · Score: 1

    Keep it simple: https://www.pfsense.org/

    --
    "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
  48. Re:Uh. by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Maybe, if one is leaving systemd based Linuxes, it might be worth trying Gentoo, Slackware or Devuan before doing a wholesale migration to the BSDs

  49. Re:Too stupid to understand routing, but smart eno by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Oh geez, Safari? Not that I want to stick up for Dice-dot but come on! I might use Links to browse on occasion myself but at least I understand that when I do I am so far from the norm that I get what I get and I shouldn't expect webmasters to cater to me!

    Next will be a horde of angry Arachne users!

  50. OpenBSD & PF are your only sane choice by B5_geek · · Score: 2

    I have learned this the hard way so please take heed;

    NB! most of the guides online have the syntax (order of wording) wrong for pf.conf included the beloved OBSD FAQ.
    This is accurate and works on OBSD v5.6
    99% of the online howto & guides will get your firewall almost working.

    Use this as an example from my working pf.conf

    pass in log on egress inet proto { tcp, udp } to $pub_ip port { ssh } rdr-to $workstation

    You can spot the variables. Use 'LOG' for all of your entries and keep a "tcpdump -nettti em0 host 192.168.0.x" running while testing your setup.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
  51. Been using OpenBSD since 2001 by carlhaagen · · Score: 1

    It's my gateway and router, and as it's not just a pfsense install it also serves as a web development platform, file storage, etc. etc. There's just nothing as flexible, powerful and intuitive as OpenBSD's PF for facilitating the router portion.

  52. Go with the people that wrote pf... by nuckfuts · · Score: 1
  53. Re:Uh. by Anrego · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm in a similar boat. I recently (a few months ago) migrated from Gentoo to FreeBSD.

    The problem with systemd, and probably why so many people are running from it, is that it's not as simple as just not using systemd, or even not using a distro with systemd as a default.

    A lot of packages are gaining direct or indirect dependencies on systemd, and it is becoming a huge pain to run a systemd free system. I found myself having to use portage's blacklist for the first time because simply specifying -systemd as a use flag wasn't enough. I also had to uninstall a bunch of packages and fix the associated breakage. I don't use gnome, but enough gnome packages ended up installed as dependencies of various things that it was a real headache. Slackware has straight up dropped gnome because it's too hard to have it without systemd. And of course you have systemd as an indirect requirement for gimp. Yes friends, when a graphics editing tool depends on a specific init system, it's time to get the hell out of there!

    Systemd isn't the only factor, but it's certainly a major one and I think it's pushing a lot of people (like myself) who have kinda been disillusioned with Linux for some time over the edge. At some point mainstream adoption became the big goal, and this mindset where it was better to have a less flexible but easier to use system started destroying a lot of what drew us to Linux in the first place. Linux is basically morphing into a more open version of Windows for the sake of mass appeal, which may be great for humanity, but it's not why I got interested in Linux.

  54. Edge Device? - OpenBSD by bmajik · · Score: 1

    For many years, I ran an alix2d3 box with OpenBSD installed on it as my edge device. Excellent hardware, excellent OS.

    pf.conf is simple for a basic configuration.

    If you want to run off of a read-only flash file system, or have a router-style config experience, there are adaptations for that purpose also. But just plain old boring openBSD is a great place to start.

    My favorite thing about openBSD is how lightweight the install is. There is very little garbage you'll want to shut off or remove.

    For the canonical SOHO edge device, choose any x86 hardware you have, put 2 network interfaces on it, and you're done.

    A basic pf.conf that gives you NAT and blocks everything evil from the outside is only a few lines, and well documented on the interwebs.

    Put your samba server somewhere else.

    Oddly enough, I finally retired my openbsd device and got a few Ubiquity EdgeRouters. My home network situation changed and I wanted a smallish device with POE support, but still wanted a real OS on it..

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  55. Re:More info by merky1 · · Score: 2

    I run gentoo for my home server so that I don't have to worry about a major upgrade every few years. That "package churn" is what happens when you want the latest code running the latest fixes.

    Yeah, some of the upgrades get dicey, but I laid out my current root filesystem in 2008, and haven't reinstalled anything since. Yes, every once in a while I need to spend a weekend fixing package collisions, but that is the ticket I paid for when I chose not to use a package based distro.

    So in a nutshell, Gentoo will nickle and dime you to death to keep current, where RHEL/Ubuntu will combine all of that fun into a a few days every 2-3 years.

    --
    --WooooHoooo--
  56. Re:Uh. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    You've written linux kernel drivers, but you have to ask slashdot?

    Writing linux kernel drivers is really easy, surprisingly easy. Get this book and you can learn to do it in an afternoon. If you've never compiled a kernel before, that might take two afternoons to figure out.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  57. re : bsd by JohnVanVliet · · Score: 1

    personally i would have had the "server" /firewall running CentOS 6 or Debain stable

    then in 5 YEARS when they are going end of life
    then worry about systemd VS systemV

    in 5 years time

    the question should be settled

    --
    "I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
  58. Did I miss something? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Why on EARTH are you trying to roll your own router? AT HOME, none the less... Who needs that kind of trouble? And NEVER put your network firewall on the same hardware as a network server... It's a recipe for disaster.

    Just go buy some compatible hardware and run OpenWRT or something. I have a Netgear WNDR4300 as a border router/firewall with OpenWRT loaded on it. They are routinely sold on E-bay for $40 or less each, I think I paid $35. Where I wouldn't recommend this exact model because you will end up building your own firmware, this device works just fine for my purposes. Configuration wasn't exactly straight forward enough for your average consumer product, but I managed to get my router running, with wireless, within a few hours.

    OpenWRT comes with many optional packages you can load. I cannot vouch for any of them, but the base install is rock stable on my hardware. There is a file server package, where you can serve up USB based storage or share a USB printer, but I don't use either because I have a separate purpose built server for that kind of thing that runs OpenMediaVault NAS with a software raid array, though I think I'd recommend FreeNAS if you want a BSD based system to play with. Both are free for the price of the hardware.

    Keep it simple, cheap and reliable.... Buy good hardware and all of the solutions I'm using will be very reliable and about as cheap as you can get.

    OR...

    Just go buy some industry standard router thingy (Cisco comes to mind) and learn how to use that. Skip all this other stuff.. I used to run a Cisco router as a border firewall, but I'll warn you that stuff gets pretty complex unless you already know how it works...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  59. Re:Uh. by Anrego · · Score: 2

    Or just run Ubuntu.. or maybe Windows?

    This is a terrible argument and totally against everything that drove me to Linux in the first place. If I don't like the way something works, I can and am encouraged to roll my own. Systemd is the culmination of this new mindset of "lets all just standardize so it's more presentable to the masses and business". Projects are becoming their own little ecosystems rather than a set of useful utilities that can be used somewhat independently. Gnome is kind of the extreme version of this, but everything seems to be heading in this direction, and now the core system functionality is becoming similar.

    We are heading towards a Linux where doing your own thing is becoming less supported and discouraged, and this I find depressing. Sure we may actually have a year of the Linux desktop, but that desktop may as well be Windows.

  60. Re:A Balanced Perspective by seepho · · Score: 1

    Thanks for all of that -- I'm surprised how much of it I actually followed. It seems like it all kind of resolves to the "use the best tool for the job" comment I made somewhere in this thread, and for what the OP wants to do he doesn't need systemd, but to take a functional system and completely rebuild it because of some principled, non-technical issue with one of the libraries doesn't seem like an effective use of ones time.

  61. Re:Uh. by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    Sure you can. You can roll your own. You just have to do the job. Someone has to do it. And if the distributions are not interested in doing it, then someone else has to do it. It's really as simple as that. Don't expect other people to do stuff for you just the way you like it. They have their goals in mind too. You don't like where things are going, then fix it.

  62. plan B by ratsg · · Score: 1

    Plan B.

    Just go and buy a used Cisco or Juniper router off of eBay or Craigslist.

  63. Re:Uh. by Anrego · · Score: 1

    At this point I'm far more inclined to jump ship to BSD (which to be honest feels very much like Linux did back before all this nonsense) and contribute my efforts to making it what I want. Neither is really what I want, but I feel at this point BSD is actually closer, and at least philosophically more aligned with what I'm looking for.

    I'm not looking to exaggerate, but i do feel the BSD developer base is noticeably increasing for the same reason, having met many recent converts who all tell much the same story.

  64. Re:What's the big deal? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

    Running Debian unstable. SystemD comes along, and suddenly, machine won't turn off. Oh, silly me, I should be running "poweroff," instead of "halt" -- nevermind that "halt" had worked flawlessly for me on all my machines in the past.

    Another time, I reboot my server, and bam, nothing. So I hook up a monitor, and the USB disk -- which had an fstab entry which never gave me any problem -- caused the machine to not boot up because the disk wasn't connected. Maybe I had been getting error messages about the disk not being there, but previously, if the disk wasn't there it still booted (unless, you know, it was /).

    Anecdotal, yes, and arguably my fault...but c'mon, I don't want an entirely functional system just breaking. Does not inspire confidence.

  65. Ubiquiti; it's what you really want... by Specter · · Score: 1
  66. Re:Uh. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    Yes, because it does useful stuff that software needs.

    That's certainly one possibility and we'll hope that it's true.

    Of course, being a cynic, I could also posit the possibility that systemd is so intrusive that you can't plug-replace it and therefore all these systemd-controlled packages simply cannot opt out.

  67. Re:Uh. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    Sure you can. You can roll your own.

    Yes, but there's a major difference between rolling your own application and rolling your own full distro.

    When you have to throw out the baby just to get rid of the bathwater, that should be troubling.

  68. your needs and commitment level? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    From the description "to migrate my homebrew router/firewall/samba server to one of the BSDs" it sounds like you need/want more than just a straight forward firewall. Based on that observation, I would go with FreeBSD. It has the largest install base, a great handbook, many online guides and a lot of helpful people on irc, etc.

    If it were just the firewall alone you could make an argument for OpenBSD and while you can probably still do all the other stuff, you will probably be more frustrated when you run into problems. While I would like to recommend the red headed step child of NetBSD, been there, done that, only FreeBSD now.

  69. Re:FreeBSD by cheater512 · · Score: 1

    It also doesn't support the Commodore 64.

    Are there really any 32 bit x86 systems out there that you would install new software on (i.e. not legacy systems which won't change until they die)?

  70. Or TriOS by cyrano.mac · · Score: 1

    There's another Debian fork without systemd that has already got a RC1 release: TRIOS, see https://translate.googleuserco... It's from Serbia and maybe they will join with Devuan. Looks pretty good to me!

  71. Please explain by pooh666 · · Score: 1

    Why am I suppose to hate systemd? I frankly haven't noticed it at all until people started complaining here.

  72. It's hatred of change to something 90% finished by dbIII · · Score: 2

    You will understand when something on a new system doesn't work and you have to fuck about for ages to find out what's going on because of the differences and features that are not implemented yet. Suddenly that experienced IT pro has to hit the books to get around what used to have a trivial solution because it's all different - hence anger.
    It's just a case of unfinished software replacing something that was rock solid and "the way we always did it". Anger, embarrassment and blaming the new tool that doesn't quite do what the old one did are a common response to having it fuckup on you or trying to setup something non-standard that used to all just go in a trivial rc.local file. Now it's all different and the docs don't all exist yet.

    So it's a reaction to hitting the rough edges of immature software and change in general.
    I have to admit it pisses me off at times too but I'm getting used to it on some dev boxes and my home machine. I don't think it's ready for use everywhere yet, but it's the catch22 that without wide deployment it's never going to be ready for use everywhere. With more use, more developers and a more practical instead of empire building approach to the project (some developers want it to be an octopus with tentacles into everything instead of being an init system) it may become more useful and less annoying, even if some design choices appear to have been make on crack (eg. you don't want fucking binary logs to read on a system that's got stuck halfway to a usable environment).

  73. Going from least likely to current retail by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Are there really any 32 bit x86 systems out there that you would install new software

    That old fileserver with a bucketload of tiny disks that you can hammer on as much as you like to learn what to do with ZFS when things fuckup.
    That other old fileserver for that stuff that people want to look at every now and again. Since all it has to do is saturate gigabit to get a file to one computer every now and again there's no performance advantage to buying something new.
    Netbooks/Tablets. That's the most likely situation since 32 bit x86 machines to fill that role are still on sale.
    Embedded systems / small form factor systems - some are x86 and are quite capable of being used as a quiet media PC using *BSD.

  74. NetBSD/ipfilter by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    All BSD can do it. My favorite is NetBSD, and here is some documentation: on setting up IP filtering

  75. grep '[3-6]:[0-9][0-9]' by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Finding 3:00 to 6:DD in ANY file or device, not just a specific type of log:

    grep '[3-6]:[0-9][0-9]

    Note we've been doing it that way since the late seventies, so there's nothing for the sysadmins to learn. All files, disks, etc are searched with the same command, and the same one you've always used, on any *nix.

    1. Re:grep '[3-6]:[0-9][0-9]' by udippel · · Score: 1

      Your comment is totally valid, though unexpected at an ID of close to 3 million.
      Exactly true. That Poettering has not been bashed left and right, alas, has to make with our current times. In 2015, a number of companies are not satisfied with their own turf, and rather 'attract' customers from the other side of the wall. And those quite often have no good command of *nix, some not at all. But they like ubiquitous unreadable binary files and blobs, registries, and cherish the idea that a downtime is best rectified by filing a service request with the manufacturer, consulting some *-SuperSite, fiddling with GUI-elements (almost) exclusively, etc.
      Sometimes I feel that the beauty of such a sysadmin is, that (s)he can confidently and honestly state: "You can't resolve many problems yourself, anyway". True. But, alas, not on *nix. With systemd, however, this great 'excuse' has made its entrance. Finally, we (they) have a great excuse for inactivity at system failure: "systemd got problem".

  76. Re: because 'tail /var/log/httpd/error_log' was ha by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Aha! So I just need to start a new FUSE project which presents the binary logs as text. :-)

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  77. My dumb opinion in the form of a question by Spasmodeus · · Score: 1

    As a clever person who realizes that systemd is evil and poopy and probably an NSA conspiracy, I have to ask Slashdot: Just how evil and poopy is systemd?

  78. What's your hardware? Intel booting from USB by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Are you routing on custom hardware (e.g. a cheap router running OpenWRT)? Old Low-End PC? A basic current Intel box? Removable disks? USB Flash Stick? Mikrotik board?

    Some hardware makes it really easy to switch operating systems. For instance, if you can run your router from a virtual machine (because your hardware is new enough), if you don't like it, or want something new, just shut down the VM and fire up a new one. If you only want to buy $50 worth of hardware, a Raspberry Pi has the advantage that the disk drive isn't built in, it's just an SD card, so if you want to change OS's you just pop the old one out and put in a new one.

    Booting from a USB flash stick is probably the easiest choice for most Intel-based hardware. You can get 8GB for $5, set it up, boot from it, and if it's not doing what you want, remove it and reboot your old OS. Many Linux distros are quite friendly on USB sticks, and some BSDs are, though OpenBSD seems to be a bit harder to do that with (maybe that's a just problem with documentation, but it seems like Theo doesn't trust VMs or booting from USB instead of CD and hard drives.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  79. Docker vs. Jails vs. VMs by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Docker seems to be the new version of what people used to do with BSD jails. But VMs can give you more flexibility, if you're running hardware that can handle them (as opposed to running your home router/firewall/server on the old PC, and using your newer box for gaming or your laptop for work and browsing.) And there are router-oriented VMs like Vyatta out there.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  80. Re:Uh. by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    Gimp does not require systemd.

    If you think that it does because installing gimp on Debian also install libsystemd, then that's because the Debian package maintainers have set libsystemd as a dependency to dbus; and gimp uses dbus.

  81. Re:More info by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

    Gentoo is definitely not for the 'just do it' crowd. I've been using it continuously since 2004, copying the disk every time I upgraded computers and then re-compiling everything. I've never encountered another distribution where I could do that as easily. After a while you learn what packages can be 'trouble' and upgrade them gingerly. However, I've never had my system rendered unusable to the point where I couldn't go in and fix it. And Gentoo is the best argument there is for spending money on hardware upgrades as often as possible. Chrome compiles starting to seem slow? Go buy some more cores. It's also nice to have fast access to multiple releases of a package. If the latest foobar package is borked, just mask it and wait for the next update.

    Even OpenRC Gentoo is not immune to the creeping insidiousness that is systemd though. As I run /usr on a separate (read-only) SSD partition in true UNIX fashion, I paid for that arrogance by being required to boot first to an initramfs because such things are now mandated by the systemd/udev gods.

  82. Re:Uh. by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    And by the way, libsystemd is not an init system. It's a library.

  83. Re:Why switch? by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    Please see the above posts mentioning that even gimp depends on systemd already.

    No it doesn't. It depends on dbus which some distros build so that it depends on libsystemd. That's a client-side library for interacting with systemd, if it is installed an running. It is not the init system and it does not even depend on it.

  84. pfsense and freebsd (ghostbsd) by tekwizo · · Score: 1

    This combination is worthy of a thorough evaluation. I've been using it for several years and have never looked back. Remember Heart Bleed? Pfsense had the patches within hours.

  85. man by kv9 · · Score: 1

    man pf.conf

  86. Distro - BSD by Ragica · · Score: 1

    It might be helpful to know what linux distro you tend to use, because the type of distro may indicate which BSD variant you would be most comfortable with.

    I have in times past run 3 of the original BSDs and all have (many) strengths and (a few) weaknesses.

    I would generally recommend FreeBSD for the community and documentation. Ever since it adopted OpenBSD's PF firewall many years ago (which is wonderful), I have generally recommended FreeBSD for it's generally greater modern compatibility and larger community for anyone who isn't entirely hardcore into a particular BSD for particular reasons.

    It's a bit superficial, but why not fire up some VMs with all OS's you may be interested in and give them an install to kick the wheels... get at least a bit of a feel for the thing.

  87. Re:Some hard-core SystemD haters are still not hap by steveha · · Score: 1

    0) Okay, I agree that I should have phrased that differently. Note that I didn't use a pejorative phrase; I didn't say something like "morons too stupid to understand the greatness of SystemD" or whatever. I really only meant to say "some people who strongly disapprove of SystemD do not want it involved in logging at all."

    1) I hope you didn't intend to lump me in with "systemd people" because I'm not one. I am an interested observer looking in from the outside. To the extent that I care about Linux and its future, I care about SystemD; I've been trying to understand how good or bad it is.

    But the vast majority of the criticism I have read of SystemD has been just opinion-based flaming. To read most of the posts on Slashdot, there must not be anything good about SystemD and the people who choose it must be deluded or fools or something. I wanted to push past that and understand why smart people might not reject SystemD.

    for those of us that use 'sed' and 'grep'

    I'm quite skilled with grep so I can query plain-text files just fine, but I'm not opposed to SystemD making a binary log with an index for its own purposes.

    If you set up rsyslog or whatever, you will still get a plain-text log file, and you have the option to simply ignore SystemD's own log file.

    Windows style 'Services' (your word)

    No, don't lump me in as a "systemd person". And don't assume that I'm your enemy or something.

    And don't ask "how are they forcing" again, that isn't helpful when I can't get just turn the package off and sysv init on.

    In Debian "jessie" you can do just that.

    https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  88. FreeBSD hands down. by Phil_at_EvilNET · · Score: 1

    FreeBSD hands down.
    I've got detailed documentation that's rather outdated but still applicable.
    The configuration is straight forward and the main packages are IPF, IPNAT, squid, snort, bind, sendmail and sshguard
    I've used the documentation for as long as I've been on /.

    --
    To avoid corruption, one must remain dishonest.
  89. Hardened Firewall by YaddaMinski · · Score: 1

    If you are rolling your own why not just keep using init? You are not using a full dist I hope for firewall.

  90. What BS by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    If you've written a Linux device driver, why are you asking us for anything?
    You already know damn well how to do it and you know damn well why BSD isn't the right answer.

    Go back into your mother's basement, and stay off my lawn.