Slashdot Mirror
Multiple Linux Distributions Affected By Crippling Bug In Systemd (agwa.name)
An anonymous reader writes: System administrator Andrew Ayer has discovered a potentially critical bug in systemd which can bring a vulnerable Linux server to its knees with one command. "After running this command, PID 1 is hung in the pause system call. You can no longer start and stop daemons. inetd-style services no longer accept connections. You cannot cleanly reboot the system." According to the bug report, Debian, Ubuntu, and CentOS are among the distros susceptible to various levels of resource exhaustion. The bug, which has existed for more than two years, does not require root access to exploit.
I got a bad case of loving you!
I love systemd!
and been around for 2 years and doesn't require root access??
If this happened on Windows, I & many others would be scornful of it.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Putting this level of complexity at such a low level of the system is going to cause show stopping bugs. And, with every new release, more complexity is added.
This is not a bug, it's a feature. This is the systemd way and you've all being doing it wrong!
Regards,
The Systemd Developers
Oh look, exactly what everybody was afraid of happened.
Fuck lennart and his sjw politics.
Fortunately, we have so many different Linux distributions that this is not a problem! (...right?)
Ezekiel 23:20
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hot-buttered Karma; so delicious.
All the people that were telling you that this init system called Systemd was overly complex, unaudited and insecure had warned you that this was coming. All the "Troll -1" modding on people that posted such warning here did not prevent the inevitable.
Not convinced? Here's a graph of the number of issues opened/closed since systemd moved to github last year.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Nope. Never bothered with systemd. Can't really claim foresight, just never felt like rebuilding all that plumbing.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
requiring a powercycle. Doesn't endear systemd to me in the least.
Everyone who mocks these distributions for not toeing the Debhat line can all enjoy my "told you so".
I strongly urge people to RTFA for a detailed description of some of the technical problems with systemd.
It feels surreal that the most senior people in the Linux community, after decades of attempting to put out a credibly secure client and server platform, suddenly almost all decided to switch to this product.
How long are systemd proponents going to evade accountability to crying about detractors, greybeards and positoning opponents as anti-change.
Any criticism of Systemd and out come a hoarde of Redhat supporters and astroturfers to change the focus swiftly from the technical to the political
Why am I suddenly finding my (Firefox, latest) browser redirected to some page about a product named "Reimage Plus"? Could it be that the Slashdot advertising has been assaulted by hostile Javascripts? Must I go back to Mosaic 1.0 to avoid this nonsense?
https://medium.com/@davidtstrauss/how-to-throw-a-tantrum-in-one-blog-post-c2ccaa58661d
Can't have anyone criticizing any aspect of the holy systemd.
Whole thing boils down to:
"Following security practices in an init system is hard, and you've never done it so leave us alone."
Completely ignoring the fact that the only reason they patched this thing is because he made a big deal out of it.
And on what planet is testing for corner cases like empty strings the domain of fuzz tools?
That seems like a pretty standard test case to me.
I can understand if you don't test for a 1MB string, but empty seems like a no brainer.
If you're dissatisfied with systemd and you don't need any of its fancier capabilities (which as an end user I'm assuming would be Docker stuff), please consider switching to a non-systemd distro as soon as possible and (if you can afford the time or money) contributing to their development. The more support systemd alternatives can garner, the more likely it is that projects to will resist unnecessary systemd dependencies and it might even be that systemd itself will eventually become more modular and moddable.
I'm not a hater. I cringe every time I see +5 comments claiming that systemd didn't fix anything. Declarative syntax is (at least in principle) a massive win, especially for distro builders. And LXC is amazing stuff, and I certainly cannot fault Red Hat for wanting containers to behave perfectly. Unless something like Genode scores a major coup, containers are definitely the future of secure and robust computing.
But the actual details of systemd's course have been hair-raising. It needs to be more UNIX-like and less draconian in its requirements and less toxic in its effects on the FOSS ecosystem and unfortunately (given Red Hat's behavior over the past decade) it appears that pushing alternatives hard is the only way they can conceivably be convinced to change their ways or reform anything moving forward.
I encourage all of the haters here to try and put your money where your mouth is. Install, use, support and help promote a distro like Devuan or even better: go and find one of the multiple OpenRC distros available. OpenRC can't be the all-in-one automagic solution systemd endeavors to be, but it doesn't hide tons of stuff in huge C binaries and it's addressed most of the common frustrations people have with SysV. Arch Linux has an OpenRC variant (the standard install uses systemd), Gentoo was the distro that started OpenRC years ago, and Alpine linux uses it (which isn't an ideal easy desktop distro, but it's amazing for those wanting a secure minimal distro to build on and last time I checked it does run XFCE and Firefox.) There are probably others.
is about to be released shortly. Time to switch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxlhyX-4qKI
Confirmed! Linux is a non stop tire fire! SystemD, one in a long line of mind numbingly horrible mistakes is the latest crippling blow to the fan boi OS only the clueless love. Linux, now known as the Titanic of operating systems is sinking fast. And there's only enough boats for 1/4 of the users. Don't be left on deck when it goes completely under! Switch to a competent OS!
RedHat's cavalier attitude with security doesn't raise any confidence in their distribution. Better to stay on RHEL 6 for now and wait to see in what direction the market evolves.
Yet more proof that Harry fucking pottering and co are not even remotely qualified to design the Linux init system.
The continued utter incompetence displayed by these idiots is utterly fucking astounding.
Yes. Let's keep adding more and more shitty, ill considered crap, to a poorly designed steaming pile of shit.
Surely the systemd cabal can't continue with their bullshit that systemd is modular and well designed.
Fuck pottering red hat Debian for forcing this shit on all of us.
Also, dbus. It's a message bus AND an rpc mechanism. What the fuck? Who the fuck would do that? Who thinks its a good idea to implement a message bus and rpc together?
Dbus needs to die.
Replacement: something like nanomsg - a system level message bus.
If we need rpc, don't we have a bunch of things in the kernel already? And only if those won't do, let's have a separate local only rpc with multicast.
Seriously, dbus, kdbus, bus-1, and all fucked, and designed by utter fucking noobs who clearly don't have any right designing OS level components.
"Debian, Ubuntu, and CentOS are among the distros susceptible to various levels of resource exhaustion."
Whew! Thank goodness I run Red Hat!
#DeleteChrome
I installed GNU/Windows ("Bash" environment) this week. It doesn't seem to suffer from this problem. I've also had much better luck with the device drivers of the Windows 10 kernel.
Aside from their Mailing Lists, bug reports, etc, I find it difficult to locate users of Tails - enough to form a community on-line and discuss the OS. On the one hand, this could be a positive. But the negative is when shit like this happens you have to look to their tiny Mailing Lists and bug reports and hope someone wants to open dialogue with you.
systemd! ;rem faint images of me; ;rem looking through init.d;
grrrrrrrrrrrrr! ;rem can not find service;
root's bess friennnnn!; ;rem calling lenovo tex support for; ;rem non-systemd apm services;
ggrrrrrrrrrrrrr! ;rem specialist puts me on hold; ;rem this is a quote
gggooood boy! ;rem playing with a thinkgeek usb; ;rem tentacle and warmballs drink;
here he comes! ;rem after 20minutes on hold im asked; ;rem wat u runnin sugar?; ;i put on my robe and wizard hat!;
stay with me GNU Lesbian!
Re-posting, because of what might politely be called, "strident pro-systemd" peeps...
https://judecnelson.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/systemd-biggest-fallacies.html
GreekGeek :-)
In the meantime you may avoid using systemd as init in Debian by installing sysvinit-core or in Ubuntu by installing upstart-sysv in your transition to a systemd-less distro such as Devuan.
If you are using Debian Jessie, you can switch to Devuan by simply changing repositories. Its still in beta so don't do it on production servers yet. But do plan your migration, before this gets out of hand.
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
There are a couple of trigger words like unix philosophy, unix like that Systemd astro turfers are trained to latch on to like bee to honey and discredit. Their modus operandi is evade accountability and discussion of systemd at all costs and instead focus all criticisms and doubts on grey beards, unix philosophists, haters and people not open to change.
This is classic politics to push through unpopular changes that are not in your interests. The fact is while users do have loyalty they almost always respond to improvements or they would be no progress. But new cannot automatically mean better, everything has to meet the full force of scepticism and stand on its own feet.
Systemd has effectively distracted and forced its way into Linux with politics, subterfuge, exaggerating shortcomings and pushing niche use cases that do not matter to users but redhat clients. First it was boot speed when that was never an issue, now when its been proved its not any faster the argument is 'everyone has adopted so there must be some merit in it'.
These kind of circular arguments and politics have defined systemds adoption and are not an accident. We don't need politics at the heart of Linux. We need lean and clean software that is well defined in scope, interoperable with other software and replaceable with other inits without fuss. We do not need entrenched interests who intentionally push bloated software to further their control agenda.
Redhat is a $2 billion cathedral that is paranoid and threatened by anything. It doesn't just want to be a part of the ecosystem, it wants to be the ecosystem and freedesktop and systemd are its trojan horses. Linux needs to find a way to free itself from the clutches of redhat if it is to evolve and improve and add value to future generations or it will become a hollow shell to redhat's greed and politics.
It's the only way to be sure.
The developers haven't stopped at what systemd needs to do and have gone on to what they want it to do, favoring the latter over the former.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Maybe there's a bug?
tldr; I know back in the BSD was all proprietary and locked down-- but now-a-days it's free like Linux. Plus the sweetness of things like ZFS and jails (pardon me, but Docker (container) isn't useful unless you're a Heroku (PAAS) or Google-like entity)... Why we still on that linux tip? Video card and wifi drivers still a shit show compared to Linux?
----- Rant version -----
Some background-- I started computing on Windows, tried Linux off and on, after 5-6 years moved to a Mac, began to understand *nix, started doing a serious amount of Linux sys admin (not because I wanted to but that was back when you had to know how to run a server if you wanted to get your web app running). I tried BSD back then but was too confused by the ports system (vs something like apt) and documentation (being easily digestible blog articles written for a dumbass [myself]). Fast forward 12 years... BSD ain't scary, all the things I'd have gotten hung up on are complete non-issues (thanks Linux and Mac!).
Lately, I have been questioning a lot of decisions that are occurring at large in the Linux community (systemd being a big one) and the community itself. It's rather insane to me, our shepherds, the grey neck-bearded nerd wizards and witches decided to so quickly, replace a vital piece of infrastructure in only a few years...
Fuck whether it's better or worse, it's not battled tested. Sysvinit for all it's problems is well known; yes, there are a lot of foot guns and problems but we know about them. Things like this show how much of systemd is unknown, we have no idea of how many unknown unknowns and the severity of them lurk within systemd. This makes me nervous, since the stability of my machine, and infrastructure is at increased risk and I have no idea or way to protect myself from that risk. I also think systemd is vastly too complex (separate binaries don't themselves allow something to say it's following the unix tradition), but that's just my opinion.
There's also a lot I don't like about the community-- Torvald's lashing out at people (while entertaining) I think is a little irresponsible for someone with so much voice and power... The constant threats of violence, and harassment, to Lennart Poettering (systemd author) are unnerving and pointless at best very harmful at worst. Not that we can't be upset, swear, or be fuckin' angry-- but the nature of it, is often times without a goal in mind and largely without basis.
Along with that, there is a HUGE push to use things like Docker (more specifically containers) in the communities I'm involved with. It's not more secure (containers); while, the overhead is low, it's still there. Compared to say, running a fuckin' process (which is a process [pun] that's well known) and is more secure. ... Now 'bout BSD. It seems to me it's a community which is largely academic (this can have it's own problems), or perhaps more correctly put, scientific. This means, at least to me as an outside observer, that changes tend to be motivated by scientific advancements (this can be slow) which are demonstrably better (yay, science). It also seems to me the BSD community is largely inclusive, so long as you're using the scientific method.
Fuck look at the directory structure of any modern Linux distro and half of it is a huge WTF. I'm guilty as shit of making an /opt folder to install crap into... Why the fuck do I do that? Because each distro is slightly different, for no reason but preference of the creators (and history), but my sweet baby /opt folder is going to be consistent.
Now go read about BSD's, it's fucking organized. It's easy to understand as a result because things are clearly defined. Shit, if it is different, they'll fucking mention why it's different.
ZFS being native to BSD is also a huge win; it's probably the best filesystem on the planet. Pools, snapshots, deduplication, user/group quotas... Mmm.
Jails have been around for ages (battle tested), work with ZFS, and completel
This is why the mass standardization of Linux is a bad thing
Slackware user here.
Enough!
which one is the republican?
No, see the highly rated post above. There is no bug. The fact that there are problems after issuing that command is a coincidence. The server just coincidentally was hit by cosmic rays around the same time. Other reports of the same problem are similar coincidences. The systemd OS is just as perfect as the Microsoft operating system it takes its inspiration from.
but hey,
I TOLD YOU SO.
Fuck Lennart
Fuck the brain-dead SJWs at Debian who decided to ban init alernatives
oh yea and: Fuck Lennart!
I am not an expert coder or sysadmin, but a quick read of SOLARIS SMF feature it would seem to address all the needs of a robust init system, without the many concerns of a too powerful/critical PID 1.
Since SMF is CDDL (I think), and an init process is not part of the kernel, why is it not possible to use a well developed and debugged (since 2006?) alternative to the legacy SYSV init method?
pgmer6809
when grey-haired conservative fuddy duddies warn of something, you should PAY ATTENTION even if you disagree.
In this case, the "conservative" is certainly not in the political sense, it's in the technical sense. The core philosophy of UNIX was: small dedicated programs doing discrete things (which can be easily developerd, debugged, tested, and yes... replaced/substituted. Many warned that systemd was the polar opposite and would inevitably invite this very sort of issue. The warnings were ignored because they were not consistent with what the cool kids wanted. It was much more cool to create a whole new gluttonous monster, than to do the hard work to fix a bunch of long-standing and not glamorous basic usability issues that might actually help Linux take over the desktop.
In the political sense a similar thing happened with Obamcare, where conservatives kept pointing out that the basic plan did not pass the economic "smell test", and that inevitably the rates would rise and the markets would fall apart because of the poor planning.
In both cases, the hard-charging progressives (in the technical sense for the former and the political sense for the latter) ranted and raved against the cautious conservatives flinging insults about being backwards, stuck in the mud, opposed to progress, etc rather than facing the actual criticisms, considering that thier opponents might have serious and valid concerns, and then addressing those concerns. In both cases, when the inevitable "I told you so" comments arise, the advocates of the changes get angry and complain and propose moving even further in their chose direction, without facing that the now proven problems are real and were real - they want to solve a real problem with politics and name calling.
Incidentally, before some partisan hack rates this "Troll", I'll point out that this is a trait of human nature and applies to the political right and technical conservatives as well. Some right-leaning "fiscal" conservatives love to propose reductions in social spending while ignoring left wingers who suggest some might be harmed, instead of facing the problems suggested. Some technical conservatives, particularly in places like the FAA, can actually suppress the increase in safety that modern systems could provide out of excessive fear of the risk of "new" (AOA indicators on small aircraft, and the typecerts required to put new avionics into older small aircraft come to mind)
Hey, let's migrate all of Linux to systemd because that's a great idea!
While we're at it, let's cycle the power on these GE Turbofan engines on this 747 while we're over the middle of the Pacific Ocean a couple thousand miles from the nearest landing strip, because I don't know what this warning light means, but doing this worked once before. What could POSSIBLY go wrong with powering the turbo-fan engines off at 745 miles per hour, on what without its engines, is basically a flying BRICK?!? I'm sure it'll all reset and turn out just fine.
Ready?
I've made several requests for systemd proponents to supply a use case that SysV initd could not support and haven't received a satisfactory reply to this purely technical question. I was interested in what systemd could offer over initd. I find systemd proponents are overly veherment in their criticisms of initd proponents.
I sense this comes from an inability to address the issues raised and, perhaps a mindset that anyone who has an appreciation for initd's elegant power will simply be bulldozed into irrelevance. I think systemd's criticism of the rc scripts that starts a linux based system is valid criticism however we have to keep in mind that they were devised by Red Hat. It is dealing with rc shell scripts that are the brunt of the justification for systemd.
In that sense the unitd solution is tidy but also reveals the justification to replace initd is not based on a full understanding of its capabilities, or even an understanding of was it is, a process manager. rc scripts are only meant to prepare the system for entries in /etc/inittab, yet everyone tries to get everything done in rc, which serializes the Linux boot process. A parallell boot is completely achievable by using initd properly. I know there is more to it, like events and messaging, I'm just citing one example.
Yet I've never seen a Linux distro that's utilized initd's /etc/inittab file properly. Especially a Red Hat system. They don't use initd properly, the rc scripts are bloated with rewrites of what initd already does, and now we're replacing initd, keh? initd has yet to be utilized fully on modern linux systems.
Criticisms of sco the company aside: sco *as a distribution of unix* had an interesting adjunct feature to initd, the 'enable' and 'disable' command that managed entries in /etc/inittab, where you would configure the characteristics of the system you were running. Franky I think this is functionality is essentially
I think initd would make a lot more sense to more people if this functionality had been available in Linux from the beginning. It is true that initd is beguiling in terms of it's simplicity wrt its power, but it is also very worthwhile. It is supposed to be small as that is where the skill is expressed.
initd is where you design the characteristics of the system, it is not an event manager and all the other things systemd is supposed to be. Something that does all the functionality systemd has, belongs as an inittab enty, not as the first process the kernel runs.
The point of a bug like this is not that it is a big deal itself, the big deal is the failure mode systemd has been revealed to have due to its complexity. This the type of concern I have about systemd, what else can trigger such a failure mode. I have seen initd in a variety of failure modes and not once has it ever consumed all system resources and disconnected running processes.
Now we've seen systemd do something that initd can't.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
just as many other complex systems. The bug will be fixed, just as any other serious bugs that pop up. There's nothing news-worthy in a bug-report.
The problem is best outlined here:
https://twitter.com/systemdsuc...
Just the basic facts...
The problem is not that software has bugs. The problem is when a tight, monolithic blob like systemd has a tiny bug that borks your PID 1 and brings the entire system down.
Yeah yeah yeah, that also includes the kernel then. But unlike systemd, the kernel is not subsuming halfa userland because NIH. Also the nature of a software construct like a kernel leaves no alternative, so you have no choice.
With systemd there's altrenative: modularize, don't cram shit up to PID 1.... don't subsume userland because politics and NIH.
I can't reproduce this bug on Debian Stretch (testing) x86-64, up to date as of yesterday. I also can't reproduce it on Debian Stable (8.6) x86, also up to date.
The linked article starts off as an apparently informative description of a serious bug that is still current, but it soon becomes apparent that it is in fact yet another misleading and ill informed rant by one the the very tedious anti systemd hecklers/religionists/witch hunters.
Short version: the story is horse shit, click bait, a recurring cry for attention.
The bug -IS- systemd.
Use init and all your problems will disappear.
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
The whole "FreeDesktop" Movement seems to be about making Linux more and more incomprehensible.
My theory for why this is is like this:
There are lots of people now growing up when Windows kinda worked (since about 2000). At the same time, involvement in "Open Source" software is seen as a good career move. So they churn out some shitty badly designed code as potential recruiters cannot tell good from bad code. Also they take part in design processes without the experience necessary for this. The result are overcomplex buggy solutions which suck in manpower to maintain them.
Take a look at the *BSD people. The team maintaining OpenBSD is probably smaller than the SystemD team, yet they manage to maintain a whole operating system.
https://etbe.coker.com.au/2015...
"Multiple Linux Distributions Affected By Crippling Bug Called Systemd "
aaaaaaa
Systemd is new and, as people wrote it in C without proper software engineering, it has a lot of flaws. However, this is the case in many software components. Unfortunately, this bug has existed for 2 years. Really, do they have no test regiment at all? In case the bug existed without prior knowledge, then this is just unfortunate, if it existed and the systemd developers knew about it, then this is irresponsible. In any case, I expect a fix in days or better in hours.
[tinfoil hat]
The linked article makes interesting reading [even to a non-tekkie like me, when it describes how systemd is bloating with all sorts of additional [and buggy] functionality that takes it far beyond being an init replacement.
I am reminded of Edward Snowden's disclosures from the NSA, in which we learned that the NSA had deliberately submitted a weakened PRNG (Pseudo-Random Number Generator) to an encryption scheme with the deliberate intent to weaken it so that they could crack it easily.
When you look at the sprawling scope-creep, the poor testing and bugs like this, you have to start wondering if this wouldn't be a perfect trojan to be able to subvert an otherwise robust, secure OS...
Just sayin'
[/tinfoil hat]
Suck it! All you systemd fanboys and apologists.
We all knew something like this would occur.
So issuing this command makes cosmic rays strike our planet?
Linux and systemd are way more powerful than even I could have imagined!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Worst feature. Ever. systemd saw this "feature" in windows, and have tried to implement it in linux as journalctl.
Semantic logging as implemented in the windows NT kernel, is a very complex framework kernel component but also very low performant, of course claims the contrary in the documented overview, but actually admits the subpar performance and non-robust implementation in other, not easily found, parts of the official msdn documentation.
For an inexperienced novice, heavily typed log messages can appear to solve problems, and such novice developers might think of untyped text causing problems. On the contrary, semantic logging, which journalctl is an obvious implementation of, do increase the complexity considerable, and many people before me have pointed out this critical design flaw. This complexity is easy to disregard in the name of heavily typed logging, complexity in software is hard to quantize, you need to accumulate experience before you realize complexity is very dangerous in software.
Logfiles that cannot be parsed by simple text based generic tools any longer is of course too complex. Instead heavy weight tools are now needed to be able to retrieve any information from systemd's behaviour. The "advanced query" functionality is said to require semantic logging. This is wrong (a lie actually), advanced querying tools for text based logfiles did already exist long before systemd was hacked together, no need to reinvent the square wheel.
Symptoms of too much complexity in software can appear in many forms, and TFS is a valid example as good as any. The bug in TFS is not unnatural, it's even expected to happen more frequently compared to more simple systems.
KISS FTW.
The Systemd-Developerds
Change it, rush it out, hammer it, hope millions of people will see your bugs
What's the best way to get Linux Mint with sysvinit?
FreeBSD is great, for the most part.
I wish it had a dropbox client. I also wish it would work with my VPN.
But FreeBSD is very solid, and has a lot of nice features.
It seems that the bug was fixed then, according to the people who did not manage to reproduce the bug on theirs systems (please read trough the comments in the linked bug description to get a impression).
The thing with systemd is that you want the executable that remains after initializing the system is done, to be super-lean and provable. Ideally, init would replace itself with another executable image after all the complex, hard work is done. And ideally, because of its complexity, the initial hard work should be done by a scripting language.
What 'su' does inside systemd is completely beyond me. That should be a separate system call.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
No, see the highly rated post above. There is no bug. The fact that there are problems after issuing that command is a coincidence. The server just coincidentally was hit by cosmic rays around the same time. Other reports of the same problem are similar coincidences. The systemd OS is just as perfect as the Microsoft operating system it takes its inspiration from.
FTFY
...most Linux users consider systemd as a major bug in Linux... another such bug is PulseAudio.
Didn't someone once say UNIX version 7 was superior to all its predecessors... AND all its successors?
I rather blame BSD for the proliferation of userspace daemons. For that matter, why did they have to go and invent a new "socket" paradigm for networking?
Why not use the perfectly good "everything is a file" abstraction? Oh well, can't undo decades of history.
Anyone else try and run the code? NOTIFY_SOCKET=/run/systemd/notify systemd-notify ""
Great this piece of crap systemd is the svchost of linux
Maybe it's time to use simple dedicated systems for things...?
the Microsoft of Linux - although Microsoft is trying to be that now. What they've done is no surprise.
I had no idea that init had any history of hiding a mix of classified and personal files on a secret server, then deleting tens of thousands and wiping the server "with a CLOTH?" when they are sought by congress and the courts, and also lighting the middle east on fire and getting Americans there killed while they are on the phone begging init to send help, and then blaming it on a YouTube video.
Tell me: what are the undocumented command line args for these options?
perhaps:
init -CIA for "classified Information abrogation"?
init -abandon all -blame youtube
( couldn't resist: I hate the way some people try to map everything to politics and are then surprised anybody rejects their goofball mapping )
given the complexity of systemd it is possible that we will see more and more of those devastating bugs.
i wonder if this will get so bad that debian wants to switch to init back again?
Good call, Patrick.
The morons responsible should be executed. It should be pulled from all distros and rolled back to init.
I don't want Windows slickness because you don't get slickness from Windows. Surprise surprise you don't get it from Systemd either. I have upgraded some of my boxes to Systemd. But the rest will not be upgraded. I'm still hoping for a popular alternative. Why hasn't Devuan seen wider adoption? Keep It Simple Stupid!
Paul Beardsell
Why hasn't Devuan seen wider adoption?
I guess not everyone using Linux is a conspiracy theorist and wants to deal with a Linux distribution made by n00bish junior sysadmins that love conspiracy theories :)
Ad hominem. Play the ball not the man. Feel free to make a substantive point any time you wish.
Paul Beardsell
Well-played sarcasm does not need a sacrasm tag. In fact should not have one for that ruins it.
It's such a shitshow I wonder why anyone with an appreciation for Unix ever allowed this to move forward. This is like taking a perfectly good operating system and making it look and work like Windows. What moron is responsible for this? They obviously have no appreciation for what Unix gave to the world: simplicity.
Add this command to your autoexec.bat to speed up your PC tremendously, and reboot :
CTTY NUL
For my next install, I think I may move over to (one of the variants of) BSD Unix.
I suggest you actually try it with something and you will see that you will have to either greatly modify either the environment or the script unless the script is incredibly trivial.
Then consider that I'm referring to closed source software where I don't really understand what the scripts are doing and have no way to find out other than hoping a support person will relay messages from me back and forth to one of the software developers.
It's entirely impractical unless it's for something you've done yourself or something that is very well documented.
My point here is the vendors have not got it going with systemD.
If it's so trivial why do they mandate running on RedHat6 or similar for their 2016 release?
It's not just libraries since you can drag all the libraries from RedHat6 into RedHat7 without any drama if you want to run older applications.