Slashdot Mirror
Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?
An anonymous reader writes: Debian developer John Goerzen asks whether Linux has become so complex that it has lost some of its defining characteristics. "I used to be able to say Linux was clean, logical, well put-together, and organized. I can’t really say this anymore. Users and groups are not really determinitive for permissions, now that we have things like polkit running around. (Yes, by the way, I am a member of plugdev.) Error messages are unhelpful (WHY was I not authorized?) and logs are nowhere to be found. Traditionally, one could twiddle who could mount devices via /etc/fstab lines and perhaps some sudo rules. Granted, you had to know where to look, but when you did, it was simple; only two pieces to fit together. I've even spent time figuring out where to look and STILL have no idea what to do."
No problems here. Slackware seems to keep things simple. Granted, I haven't tried to mount a camera with DigiKam in a couple of years.
My question is whether it is really warranted to overburden and complicate scripts and even the functionality of some tools to pander to the quirks of hardware hardly anyone uses. My approach would be to leave it out and offer patches for the 3 people who actually want to use them.
Yet what really sold me on Linux is what you don't like. The nasty years of Windows Vista when perfectly good contemporary hardware had to be replaced. The present day situation where support for a product just goes away.
Linux now has the best support for devices of any OS.
My favorite example is when I was setting up a Dual boot system that used a USB to RS-232 adapter on both sides of the boot. I set it up first on the Linux end. No problem, Just enable the serial port (Linux looks at serial ports as a security issue) in bash, and it just worked. Now I start to set up on the Windows side. No worky. It sees the adapter, but no driver install. Nor help.
After a websearch I found out that the Adapter I had used was an old Staples adapter used for an ancient Palm Pilot my wife used maybe a decade ago. No Windows support, and none is forthcoming.
Its happily working on a Linux only system now, saved someone 50 bucks. It's also marked "do not use on Windows". Problem is, there really are a lot more than 3 of us who are using hardware other than the really common stuff. And your negative is our positive.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Who modded this up?
SystemD has put in jeopardy the entire presence of Linux in the server room:
1: AFIAK, as there have been zero mention of this, SystemD appears to have had -zero- formal code testing, auditing, or other assurance that it is stable. It was foisted on people in RHEL 7 and downstreams with no ability to transition to it.
Formal code testing is pretty much what Redhat brings to the table.
2: It breaks applications that use the init.d mechanism to start with. This is very bad, since some legacy applications can not be upgraded. Contrast that to AIX where in some cases, programs written back in 1991 will run without issue on AIX 7.1. Similar with Solaris.
At worst it breaks their startup scripts, and since they are shell scripts they are easy to fix.
3: SystemD is one large code blob with zero internal separation... and it listens on the network with root permissions. It does not even drop perms which virtually every other utility does. Combine this with the fact that this has seen no testing... and this puts every production system on the Internet at risk of a remote root hole. It will be -decades- before SystemD becomes a solid program. Even programs like sendmail went through many bug fixes where security was a big problem... and sendmail has multiple daemons to separate privs, unlike SystemD.
Do you really understand the architecture of either SystemD or sendmail? Sendmail was a single binary written in a time before anyone cared about security. I don't recall sendmail being a bundle programs but then it's been a decade since I stopped using it precisely because of it's poor security track record. Contrary to your FUD, Systemd runs things as separate daemons with each component using the least amount of privileges needed to do it's job and on top of that many of the network services (ntp, dhcpd) that people complain about are completely optional addons and quite frankly, since they seem designed around the single purpose of Linux containers, I have not installed them. This is a basic FAQ entry on the systemd web site so I really don't get how you didn't know this.
4: SystemD cannot be worked around. The bash hole, I used busybox to fix. If SystemD breaks, since it encompasses everything including the bootloader, it can't be replaced. At best, the system would need major butchery to work. In the enterprise, this isn't going to happen, and the Linux box will be "upgraded" to a Windows or Solaris box.
Unlikely, it is a minority of malcontents who are upset about SystemD who have created an echo chamber of half truths and outright lies. Anyone who needs to get work done will not even notice the transition.
5: SystemD replaces many utilities that have stood 20+ years of testing, and takes a step back in security by the monolithic userland and untested code. Even AIX with its ODM has at least seen certification under FIPS, Common Criteria, and other items.
Again you use the word "monolitic without having a shred of knowledge about how SystemD works.The previous init system despite all of it's testing was a huge mess. There is a reason there were multiple projects that came before SystemD that tried to clean up the horrific mess that was the previous init.
6: SystemD has no real purpose, other than ego. The collective response justifying its existence is, "because we say so. Fuck you and use it." Well, this is no way to treat enterprise customers. Enterprise customers can easily move to Solaris if push comes to shove, and Solaris has a very good record of security, without major code added without actual testing being done, and a way to be compatible. I can turn Solaris 11's root role into a user, for example.
Solaris has already transitioned to it's own equivalent daemon that does roughly what SystemD does.
As for SystemD: It all
I didn't shut down all systemd talk. Just the stuff that was flamebait. What you didn't see is the comments that I deleted, which degenerated exceptionally quickly into namecalling and four-letter words. I am happy to tolerate many viewpoints on my personal blog as long as they are expressed with respect. I have seen sooooo many threads, whether here or elsewhere, start with statements like the one there. That post was on a technical matter, and things that are verifiably false and rehash the way a systemd decision was made were both off-topic and non-respectful.
There are a lot more systemd comments on the post, by the way. Some pro, some against.
"Systemd is a problem because..." was fine. "forced upon us" is a completely different discussion that is still highly-charged, produces nearly instant flamewars, and I didn't want to go there (yesterday).
My blog is my own little corner of the Internet where I try to raise the level of discourse just a bit. It's fighting a tidal wave, but I do try.