Slashdot Mirror
Slackware 14.2 Released, Still Systemd-Free (slackware.com)
sombragris writes: Slackware, the oldest GNU/Linux distribution still in active maintenance, was released just minutes ago. Slackware is noted for being the most Unix-like of all Linux distributions. While sporting kernel 4.4.14 and GCC 5.3, other goodies include Perl 5.22.2, Python 2.7.11, Ruby 2.2.5, Subversion 1.9.4, git-2.9.0, mercurial-3.8.2, KDE 4.14.21 (KDE 4.14.3 with kdelibs-4.14.21) Xfce 4.12.1... and no systemd!
According to the ChangeLog: "The long development cycle (the Linux community has lately been living in "interesting times," as they say) is finally behind us, and we're proud to announce the release of Slackware 14.2. The new release brings many updates and modern tools, has switched from udev to eudev (no systemd), and adds well over a hundred new packages to the system. Thanks to the team, the upstream developers, the dedicated Slackware community, and everyone else who pitched in to help make this release a reality." Grab the ISOs at a mirror near you. Enjoy! The torrents page can be found here.
According to the ChangeLog: "The long development cycle (the Linux community has lately been living in "interesting times," as they say) is finally behind us, and we're proud to announce the release of Slackware 14.2. The new release brings many updates and modern tools, has switched from udev to eudev (no systemd), and adds well over a hundred new packages to the system. Thanks to the team, the upstream developers, the dedicated Slackware community, and everyone else who pitched in to help make this release a reality." Grab the ISOs at a mirror near you. Enjoy! The torrents page can be found here.
FreeBSD works just fine without systemd. There is no reason for systemd to exist on a unix environment, GUI or anywhere else. This is where Unix's security is it's strength. Not in a clusterfuck of their code.
But I will definitely give slack another look. I miss my "just works" Linux of old.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
My main problem with systemd is the philosophy. If it was fully decouplable, then IMO it would be a fine piece of software.
It's also kind of suspicious that the only service manager that D-Bus talks to when it comes to D-Bus activation is systemd, leading to a malformed state in every other system that doesn't use systemd, because it starts services outside the service manager. That gentle push.
Indeed. And the good news is that there are now two larger distros that can can maintain eudev. Unless the systemd-cabal manages to get the kernel dependent on systemd (and that would be really bad for compatibility and security, so I doubt it is going to ever happen), it is actually not that hard to do a systemd-free (i.e. classical stable and reliable) Linux distro. You just have to maintain what is already there and works well, an idea that the systemd fanatics do not understand, of course. And applications that depend on systemd will be Linux-only anyways, which is not really smart, considering that there are a lot of Unix-like systems out there and in use.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If the people behind systemd had any actual Unix-development skills, that is exactly what they would have done. Instead we have a monster that tries to assimilate everything. Huge egos often coincide with small skills. This is a nice example.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Their website hasn't changed for... ever! Which is why people like it I guess...
Most of large projects have essentially a zero percent chance of ever becoming dependant on systemd, because they are not actually dependant on Linux in the first place. The number of essential or otherwise even moderately important projects for Linux that are truly dependent on Linux itself is actually quite small, and even if every one of them forked, it is unlikely to become unmanageable, given the number of people that use Linux.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Lennart is too young to have read "The Cathedral and Bazaar" when it came out. He comes from an MS Windows background so never knew the Bazaar idea existed and has no patience with people who try to suggest it does. That's why things like persistent user processes in the background (about chapter three in most scripting books) is just not something he sees as being something that should exist.
If people care about systemd then the forks will be maintained. If they don't then I guess it turns out that the community isn't nearly as concerned about systemd as they have claimed.
shell scripts are great. They are flexible, powerful, transparent, easily changeable, debug-able ... With systemd you have a blackbox and have to learn magic keywords. It is like windows - for idiots - not for hackers. Yes, the shell script based system sometimes was a mess. But the solution is to clean the scripts up not to replace them...
He says that: 1: it should be an easy admin task to enable-disable users ability to run such tasks since they are a security risk (eg. a lingering ssh connection out through the firewall can be reversed so it can be used to connect back into the system). 2. As default, only programs that explicitly have permissions (from PAM etc) to linger after logout should be allowed to do so.
So he has no problems with lingering processes, he just thinks they should be secure and easy to admin. No sane modern OS would ever implement the current Linux scheme with unrestricted ability for users to run arbitrary programs after logout (and even after the account have been locked).
bogus argument - this so-called security risk is also there when the user is logged in - you cannot really make security contingent on a user being logged in, because logged in means zip - user can be logged in a system for weeks w/o doing anything ..in reality LP redefines what it means to have a user account, and what it means to be logged in, arbitrarily limiting the user (and this *is* windows think), I mean next thing he figures out its a good idea for security to log user out at midnight, eventually figuring out he needs positive id checking user's ass is continuesly behind the terminal..)