In Which Linus Torvalds Makes An 'Init' Joke (lkml.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Which Linus Torvalds Makes An 'Init' Joke (lkml.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday July 15, 2017 @03:34AM from the permissions-please dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader jawtheshark writes: In a recent Linux Kernel Mailing List post, Linux Torvalds finishes his mail with a little poke towards a certain init system. It is a very faint criticism, compared to his usual style. While Linus has no direct influence on the "choices" of distro maintainers, his opinion is usually valued.
In a discussion about how to set rlimit default values for setuid execs, Linus concluded his email by writing, "And yes, a large part of this may be that I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing. You all presumably know why."

174 of 359 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

init, or "init"? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 03:41 · Score: 1

init has been working great for me. "init", however, ...
1. Re:init, or "init"? by wonkey_monkey · 2017-07-15 05:37 · Score: 2
  
  It's init, innit?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:init, or "init"? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's in what?
You all presumably know why. by QuietLagoon · 2017-07-15 03:47 · Score: 3

I don't know why. Can someone explain? thanks.
1. Re:You all presumably know why. by darkHanzz · 2017-07-15 03:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Presumably, this is a poke towards systemD. It has suffered from feature-creep, which directly opposes the unix-philosophy of doing only one thing, but doing it well. Recently, there was a problem with, I believe the DNS server which is part of systemD.
2. Re:You all presumably know why. by TechyImmigrant · 2017-07-15 04:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Make no mistake, this is a turf war.
  Who's in charge? The user? The kernel? Ring-0?
  The answer to this is different depending on the topic. The topic here is init and who gets to say what the rlimits are and how. There are lots of other topics - random numbers, filesystems, network attach-detatch, routing etc. For all these things and many more there has been a turf war along the lines of "We will fix this in the kernel!", "Oh no you won't, we will fix this with our daemon", "Oh no you won't, my userland administration tool will fix this".
  This is generally fine, but for each there will be a slashdot thread with many jerks represented.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
3. Re:You all presumably know why. by QuietLagoon · 2017-07-15 04:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  ...For all these things and many more there has been a turf war along the lines of "We will fix this in the kernel!", "Oh no you won't, we will fix this with our daemon", "Oh no you won't, my userland administration tool will fix this"....
  At that point, the need for an overall system-level architect comes into play. Someone who looks at the overall system, its architecture and design goals and decides the best way to implement features and fixes.
  .
  To this Linux outsider, it seems that systemd was implemented more because someone decided to do it, rather than being done because it was the appropriate solution to a problem.
4. Re:You all presumably know why. by Grishnakh · 2017-07-15 04:36 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  To this Linux outsider, it seems that systemd was implemented more because someone decided to do it, rather than being done because it was the appropriate solution to a problem.
  No, it's both. There was a valid problem: sysvinit was decrepit and unsuitable for modern systems, as seen by the fact that every other Unix system out there has abandoned it and has something that resembles systemd in some way (Solaris has SMF, MacOSX has something else).
  But because there's no overall system-level architect, some guy just decided to make his own solution, which very likely is suboptimal because he's not a system-level architect and there seems to have been little to no other input on the solution. People complain about "design by committee", but this is what happens when you don't have some amount of design-by-committee: you get one person's pet project which might have some great ideas but then has too many rough edges or even severe design flaws because that one person's judgment isn't tempered by other peoples' experiences and criticisms (esp. if that one person is actually hostile to outside criticism...). Even the Linux kernel has a good amount of design-by-committee if you look at its history: different subsystems have different maintainers, and there's been a very active mail discussion list ever since the start where people discussed major changes before just merging them in willy-nilly.
  You make a great point about having a system-level architect. Red Hat has been trying to fulfill that role for a long time now, but has done a very questionable job really. Just the fact that they've been pushing GNOME so hard shows their judgment isn't very good; Gnome has horrible architecture (esp. its terrible and unstable and undocumented Gtk+ library) and just isn't very functional. It's another great example of a small team with some wacky vision pushing it on everyone else without any external input/criticism or pushback. Red Hat projects seem to be like this a lot.
5. Re:You all presumably know why. by TWX · 2017-07-15 04:50 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  So SystemD is the Emacs of init?
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
6. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 04:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yeah. systemD supports the Windows-philosophy of doing almost everything, but doing it half-assed. Besides, what's wrong with having the DNS server be part of the init system?
7. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  sysvinit was decrepit and unsuitable for modern systems,
  This is complete bullshit. My (modern) computer worked perfectly fine before systemd. There was zero improvement after my preferred distro replaced init with systemd. Maybe it booted up 2 seconds faster? I don't know, it's linux, I don't ever fucking reboot it. The only change in my life was how much time I had to spend learning systemd bullshit that added ZERO VALUE to my use of linux on my pc.
  
  So you better get a LOT more specific as to which system was "unsuited" for sysvinit before you start making blanket statements like that or people are going to continue to call you out on your bullshit.
8. Re:You all presumably know why. by Aighearach · 2017-07-15 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  The joke is, it isn't doing anything wrong, people just don't "trust" it because change is scary.
  It was a brilliant version of the joke because both sides can laugh at each other.
  And everybody gets to keep the init system they wanted, except for the people that don't know how, who will probably whine a lot even though it doesn't affect people not fiddling with it.
9. Re: You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 05:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Don't forget the recent severity 9.8 CVE regarding invalid username handling that Poettering closed as NOTABUG. It's a trainwreck of bad design driven by an egotistic idiot.
10. Re:You all presumably know why. by Aighearach · 2017-07-15 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  systemd is absolutely the emacs of init. I've been using emacs since the 90s and I would never switch to something else. All that time I was wish for a better init system. Now I have the init system that I want to keep using for the next 30 years.
11. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 05:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  > doing it half-assed.
  Like logging. Logging is critical for both troubleshooting and security. With sys V init scripts, even if the error wasn't logged to syslog, you'd at least see it on the console instead of so often seeing nothing with systemd.
12. Re:You all presumably know why. by bferrell · 2017-07-15 05:18 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  More pointedly, systemD has recently been found declareing usernames that are considered valid by the system at large and by POSIX standards, to be invalid and selecting a new userid at random (on some very common systems, root) and silently running processes under that user id.
  This is an EXTREMELY non-standard behavior and as such, unexpected by the user community at large. By many, it is considered a security breech. Based on the comment from Linus, I suspect he does not consider this to be sane behavior.
  The systemD developer community has demonstrated reluctance to correct this observed behavior.
13. Re:You all presumably know why. by TWX · 2017-07-15 05:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's because in-part design-by-committee ends up with the noisiest, stupidest person on the committee calling the shots, that project ends up catering to the lowest common denominator.
  A large part of why Linux itself is successful is that while there's a lot of input, there's a single point of decision making in the form of Torvalds himself, and he's both smart enough to generally make good choices, and to listen to the debate and weigh the arguments to make a decision.
  Lennart Poettering is no Linus Torvalds. Perhaps something to replace System V and BSD inits is necessary, but Poettering's work with pulseaudio is itself incomplete; the init system is far too important to trust to him when his sound daemon, a relatively small but important piece of the desktop system, isn't really finished to a polished state.
  Besides, with the advent of the VM model for hosting and "cloud" where VMs are created and destroyed on an as-needed basis and automatically, stripping down the init process to the bare-minimum needed for a VM and using some kind of staging system to spawn the right conditions in the VM init process is probably more important than some all-knowing, all-seeing system that seems more tailored toward long-running, general-purpose computing anyway. The problem that SystemD solves isn't the new problem, it's the old one.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
14. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 05:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And yet that part isn't 100% separate... it cannot operate on its own, it requires libsystemd -> it isn't separate. While it is true it is mostly unused it is a gross misrepresentation to say it is 100% separate.
  Systemd is a poorly thought out concept.. Half of the feature-creep is because of a lack of understanding and the other half due to NIH.
  The recent "username starting with a number" bullshit is clear proof of that... username start with a number & wanting a unitfile executed as said user ? TOBAD... executing as ROOT... Systemd still hasn't resolved this & their preferred solution right now is redefine what a valid user is ... sure starting with a number is bad BUT blocking a "." in the name... that SMB and AD issues right there...
  Or what about the rapid polling of getpid() ?
  its a flawed concept
15. Re:You all presumably know why. by TWX · 2017-07-15 05:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So what editor do you use?
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
16. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 05:24 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  incorrect so stop spreading FUD...
  sysvinit is perfectly fine. The issue was sysvrc & more specifically the really bad sh coders that redhat had.
  SysVinit as init, ie pid1 is good enough... its boots from the kernel, its launches RC, it reaps zombines and it shuts down the system. THAT IS ALL INIT NEEDS TODO.
  Sure pid2 might need to be more complex BUT PID1 does not! especially if you need todo an update w.r.t. RC, which with systemd needs a reboot DERP!
  SysVInit is very simple and does its job well; runit is very very good as well, likewise openrc-init is good. The commonality is simple PID1
  So because Redhat cannot write good sh they push a concept with people that can't write C/C++ not can design an RC system and when they run into issues they absorb concepts rather than fixing their issues.
17. Re:You all presumably know why. by bferrell · 2017-07-15 05:25 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I quote myself...
  More pointedly, systemD has recently been found declareing usernames that are considered valid by the system at large and by POSIX standards, to be invalid and selecting a new userid at random (on some very common systems, root) and silently running processes under that user id.
  This is an EXTREMELY non-standard behavior and as such, unexpected by the user community at large. By many, it is considered a security breech. Based on the comment from Linus, I suspect he does not consider this to be sane behavior.
  The systemD developer community has demonstrated reluctance to correct this observed behavior.
  This isn't "change is scary". This is, the damned thing is broken and the developers went into Pewee Herman mode (I meant to do that! I won't fix it).
  THAT is scary. The rude and dismissive attitude around the cult of SystemD is even more scary.
18. Re: You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  You have a point there. Linux was just fine without systemd, but now I have to learn a new whole set of commands to be able to properly use it. And btw, no other unixes use it so ... BS
19. Re:You all presumably know why. by someone1234 · 2017-07-15 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  It is probably worse. Systemd gobbles up external features because it is inherently incompatible with the packages implementing them. And feature creep is just the smallest evil, the biggest evil is, during this furious re-implementation, they introduce new bugs.
  
  --
  Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
20. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 05:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No. The problems in systemd were closed because the maintainer didn't like people pointing out that his design is shit.
21. Re:You all presumably know why. by Megol · 2017-07-15 06:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  ...For all these things and many more there has been a turf war along the lines of "We will fix this in the kernel!", "Oh no you won't, we will fix this with our daemon", "Oh no you won't, my userland administration tool will fix this"....
  At that point, the need for an overall system-level architect comes into play. Someone who looks at the overall system, its architecture and design goals and decides the best way to implement features and fixes.
  .
  To this Linux outsider, it seems that systemd was implemented more because someone decided to do it, rather than being done because it was the appropriate solution to a problem.
  Unlike most complainers (some that simply doesn't understand systemd at all) systemd solves a number of real world problems created by the disconnect of how computers used to be used (let's call it "static" configuration) and how a system is used today (... "dynamic" configuration).
  If systemd is so bloated, reinvents the whole of Linux, is a Microsoft conspiracy etc. why is that it actually solves (most) problems with older init systems? Why is it modern Unix systems have similar "dynamic" init systems rather than the old? Why is it nobody else actually created a modern init system that can be used for the same things as systemd but "follows the Unix philosophy"*?
  In a was systemd is kind of a hack - but that is because it tries to integrate into the Unix design and allow it to do things it wasn't designed to do. In some cases maybe systemd have to much of hack in it but again: where is the alternative?
  Note: I don't really like systemd.
  (* I strongly maintain that people taking about 1) doing one thing well being a Unix thing rather than a design thing 2) thinking that philosophy is actually applied to modern Unix systems are seriously confused)
22. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  >why is that it actually solves (most) problems with older init systems?
  Because its authors invented those "problems" out of thin air.
  >Why is it modern Unix systems have similar "dynamic" init systems rather than the old?
  Because NIH.
  >Why is it nobody else actually created a modern init system that can be used for the same things as systemd but "follows the Unix philosophy"*?
  Because nobody needs it ever.
  See? Easy answers.
23. Re: You all presumably know why. by DeHackEd · 2017-07-15 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, logs are preserved by shipping them off to another system over the network. Binary logs are harder to forge, but not impossible. Faking wtmp entries is a thing, for example.
24. Re: You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  You know, that doesn't invalidate what he said. If you want logs not to be tampered you send them to another machine that does nothing else. That's really security 101.
25. Re: You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, you really are a fucking idiot.
  Tell that to the company I work for that makes tens of millions of dollars per year securing communications networks for the government. They ship logs files through a VPN tunnel from least-trusted endpoints back to a trusted receiver. They *hate* systemd because of it's logging flaws. It's not a security feature, it's a security flaw.
  They started re-writing all their configuration management so we can start deploying FreeBSD systems because of the systemd fiasco. Linux is dying. I just switched one of my desktops to FreeBSD and within a few days I had all my tools and various customizations moved over. I'm about to ditch the last Linux box on my network other than a Unifi controller we are running some 'tests' against.
26. Re:You all presumably know why. by CrashNBrn · 2017-07-15 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Before SystemD, when I restarted a service|daemon, I would see a console message when the service stopped/restarted or failed. With SystemD I see absolutely nothing for success or failure. Improvement? Certainly fucking not. Needing to do a PS|GREP on the service is hardly an improvement over anything.
27. Re: You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 07:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The username starts with a zero thing where closed days ago.
  Why the fuck should an init system even CARE what the user name is?
  Why the fuck did that init system reinvent user handling that the OS was ALREADY doing?
  Why the FUCK does systemd have it's own fucking DNS implementation?!?!
  Calling systemd SHIT is an insult to every piece of excrement, feces, turd, and dung that will ever be egested in the entire past and future history of this and every other fucking universe.
28. Re: You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 07:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  you are one of those special idiots my mother warned me about... EWONTFIX/Closed is NOT fixing...
  Updating manuals to (now) state that systemd only accepts usernames adhering to: [a-z_][a-z0-9_-]*$? is not a fix.
  Systemd hasn't fixed teh issue, they man paged what it doesn't like. someone creating a username starting with a 0 will still get executed as root. Even worse!!! a username with a "." in it will also do it... Periods have been permitted for ages (just not starting...) and this means if a linux machine is part of an AD it could cause issues...
  https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2017-July/039237.html
  > 1. We do not permit empty usernames
  > 2. We don't permit the first character to be numeric
  > (This also filters out fully numeric user names)
  > 3. We do not permit dots in usernames, neither at the beginning nor in
  > the middle.
  > 4. We do not permit "-" at the beginning of usernames (something which
  > POSIX explicitly suggests, btw)
  > 5. We require that the user name fits in the utmp user name field, so
  > that we can always log properly about it.
29. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 07:21 · Score: 2
  
  ... The problem that SystemD solves isn't the new problem, it's the old one.
  systemd actually solves a problem?
  Like hell.
  It's a solution in search of a problem from a close-minded CODER who never saw anything he couldn't solve by writing MORE crap code.
  Poettering has a hammer - MUST WRITE MOAH CODEZ!!! - and to him, every damn thing is a nail. His solution is ALWAYS to write more of his own code to do ANYTHING. That's why systemd reinvents all kinds of crap it doesn't need to.
  Poettering is a close-minded, unthinking amateur.
30. Re:You all presumably know why. by thegarbz · 2017-07-15 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  What do you call design by committee but adopt by technical evaluation?
  I mean the systemd project itself may be shit, but for some reason all the technical maintainers of distros who have nothing to do with systemd think the opposite.
31. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 07:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Or, exiting zero on error!
  As to the problem of swallowing stderr, that's also pretty serious. When you can run a command by hand and see a clear error message, but it isn't logged at all in the journal, that makes troubleshooting very difficult and time consuming. Example from the unit file for MongoDB:
  ExecStart=/usr/bin/mongod --quiet --config /etc/mongodb.conf
  Or, when Poettering's employer Red Hat does things like this in systemd unit files "... > /dev/null 2>&1" then errors aren't logged. Ran into that this week when I had a typo in a BIND file. I have over 1,900 domains on one server, so it can be very hard to find the error.
32. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Daemonized Extensible VI Layer (DEVIL), the SystemD reimplementation of EVIL.
33. Re: You all presumably know why. by spire3661 · 2017-07-15 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  This is so fucking backwards its not even funny. If you truly dont want logs to be tampered with you store them on write-once media. Shipping logs across the network introduces a whole host of vulnerabilities.The network is NOT the computer.
  
  --
  Good-bye
34. Re: You all presumably know why. by bferrell · 2017-07-15 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  last I heard it was marked WONT FIX
35. Re: You all presumably know why. by bferrell · 2017-07-15 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Last I heard it was marked WONT FIX
36. Re: You all presumably know why. by careysub · 2017-07-15 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that Linus has only made a minor comment rather than a vulgar tirade should be telling to all.
  So... Linus is praising it with faint damns. Okay.
  Given Linus's legendary abusive style that could be a valid argument, but I'd be happier with a stronger endorsement.
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
37. Re: You all presumably know why. by KiloByte · 2017-07-15 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There are so many ways to add an username Poettering won't like. The majority of programs for creating new accounts (except for adduser). Samba+AD, as you said. LDAP. Any random "pull authentication from a database" script. Using an editor on /etc/passwd. Etc.
  POSIX defines a minimal set that must be supported, and systemd fails to handle even that.
  But this is not the damning part -- every piece of software can have bugs, any non-trivial piece of software has bugs. This is natural. What's totally, utterly unacceptable, is responding to an obvious, critical bug, that also contradict the standard without providing a rationale, with a WONTFIX.
  On a shit package that applies rainbow colors to a line of text, this would be grounds for immediate purging.
  On something that wants to replace init+rc+mount+pm-utils+DNS+lxc+about everything else, it's grounds for nuking an entire distribution from the orbit.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
38. Re:You all presumably know why. by buchner.johannes · 2017-07-15 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  This is an EXTREMELY non-standard behavior and as such, unexpected by the user community at large.
  The counter-argument was that it is not supported by distros already, for many years, for other reason, so there is no good reason for systemd to support it.
  
  --
  NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
39. Re:You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  No. Emacs works well, given enough resources.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
40. Re:You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. That is the main problem with it. On wonders whether this is an indicator of plain incompetence?
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
41. Re:You all presumably know why. by bferrell · 2017-07-15 08:55 · Score: 2
  
  Point in fact, distros DID support it, which is how the issue was discovered.
  Some wrapped the command that did it, but most didn't.
  The core issue isn't the bug. The core issue is the pattern of rude and dismissive responses to the bugs.
42. Re: You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  That seems to be accurate. He and his team also are lacking quite a bit of other insights, for example into what this pesky "Unix philosophy" is.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
43. Re: You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  That is complete nonsense. Locally kept logs can always be manipulated. Takes some actual understanding to see that though.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
44. Re:You all presumably know why. by amorsen · 2017-07-15 09:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Mod parent up...
  Classical init was made to handle monitoring of services, making sure they get restarted if they fail but not over and over if they keep failing. This was done with inittab.
  Unfortunately inittab because too limiting, especially when it came to starting order and dependencies, and so everyone abandoned it, replacing it with a bunch of shell scripts, different depending on distribution and Unix variant. Alas, the process monitoring was lost in that change, so everyone had to run stuff like monit and write a bunch more scripts.
  SystemD brings proper daemon monitoring back, on steroids. It does away with stupid PID files and it handles dependencies very very well. It is an enormous leap forwards.
  Alas, it also decided to solve a bunch of non-problems like logs and DNS resolution and file system mounting. Problems that already had really well tested solutions that could be relied on to never break.
  (Yes, snatching STDERR from a daemon is genius. Definitely. But what was wrong with then handing the output to the syslog daemon?)
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
45. Re: You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  Funny. The level of your cluelessness is staggering. This is about enterprise computing, and of course logs get transferred out to protect them. There may be some revision-proof storage at the end somewhere, but there always is a network connection first. You can deride and ridicule all you want, people with an actual clue will see you for the cretin you are.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
46. Re: You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  And that is the core problem. This moron cannot recognize what is important and what is not. Add the fanatic followers he has and that whole thing becomes extremely dangerous.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
47. Re: You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  One of the reasons my employer will stay away from systemd and, if that becomes unworkable on Linux, will move to one of the xBSDs. Replacing things that work well with complex crap is just not acceptable at all. It does not speak well for the current state of the Linux community that an incompetent cretin can engineer a hostile takeover of this size.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
48. Re:You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. Linus is an excellent kernel architect, but he fails pretty seriously on the system level.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
49. Re: You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 09:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There is a reason why all the major distributions use [systemd]
  Indeed; its author campaigned to get it into every major DE and distribution, starting with a proposal to have GNOME depend on logind. [1] He later congratulated trolls who pushed it on debian-devel [2], publicly, on Google+. [3] Later, he moved to force udev to depend on kdbus (and thus systemd; though that was thwarted by LKML), adding "Gentoo, this is your wake-up call." [4] Now, what type of developer treats his fellow FOSS members like that? I'll tell you: someone looking for a fight.
  No legitimate libre software project needs to be pushed to gain adoption. Perhaps you should read more about Lennart's original goals, such as "gently pushing everyone to use the same standard base". [ https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-June/152672.html ] This attempt to "standardize" was little more than building a solution and *then* finding problems to fix with it. In short, it was politically-motivated. It's a big part of why, predictably, it has become a Gordian knot of "modular" components. Moving away from systemd 10, 15, 20 years from now will be a nightmare; I bet they haven't thought about that, though! By keeping components 100% divorced from each other, a proper *nix system can swap components out in just about any order or combination. Those who've invested too much into systemd will need to find a replacement for each systemd "module" they actively use if they're going to get away from it. It's the classic all-in-one software architecture that looks easy to adopt, but proves extremely painful to move away from. Do you think that was by accident? If so, I've got swamp land in Arizona for sale.
  If it was as you say, there wouldn't have been a big upset over its adoption. If what you said was true, literally every distro would use it and it would have little to no flaws. A big part of what people dislike about systemd is its culture, both users and developers. Before you fire out that "only technical discussion plz" bullshit, take a look at other projects. Would you want to be part of any of them if they had a shit culture? If they arbitrarily closed bugs, assuming their software is perfect? Social merit is just as relevant as technical merit; without both, you won't get users and your community will die, which will lead to bitrot and eventually, software death. Consider that the reason most people use systemd is a) distros were "gently pushed" to use it and b) most users don't pay much attention to init. With those two facts in mind, how can anyone say systemd earned that position? It was marketed and pushed, plain as day. Your willful ignorance does not contradict it.
  Now that systemd architectural flaws are showing their faces (as others have predicted), the rabble are scrambling to defend the poor technical choices made by the systemd team. The biggest supporters of systemd (Arch Linux devs in particular) lied -- yes, lied -- to their users about their plans for systemd. [5] One such developer was rewarded for their duplicity with a spot on the systemd dev team: Mr. Tom Gunderson, who I've had the displeasure of communicating with personally. Even one of his fellow devs was pissed he was spreading false information: [6]
  At what point will you and others realize that the systemd team is socially manipulative and does not appreciate others finding holes in their software? How many other teams would dismiss as NOTABUG or WONTFIX, like the recent '0day' username bug? They are not good libre software citizens and are hardly worth the bits their code is stored on. The Bazaar has little use for an Ivory Tower.
  Perhaps you should read up on the history yourself before proclaiming others are full of shit.
  [1]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-May/msg00427.html
  [2]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/11/msg00350.html
  [3]: https://plus.google.com/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/jcCjMct3SJ3 (See Lennart's Dec 19th commen
50. Re: You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  And more cluelessness. Crypto-signing done locally with everything only stored locally afterwards is worthless. Again, some actual understanding of what crypto can and cannot do is required. You are completely clueless and incompetent. It is painful to watch you disgracing yourself again and again.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
51. Re: You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 09:38 · Score: 2
  
  Well, the evidence points to you being a moron, as you apparently do not even know about a standard-attack against cryptographic signatures, yet claim they solve the issue. You are similar to your idol Poettering in that, I guess.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
52. Re: You all presumably know why. by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-15 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  You clearly didn't take a few moments to get even the most basic education in the subject before replying. Thanks for proving my point that the anti systemd trolls are exactly that ... clueless on the subject matter. Off you go now ...
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
53. Re: You all presumably know why. by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-15 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Others are smarter than you. You also might want to bear in mind that you can continue to have remote logging, etc. It isn't a replacement, but additional security.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
54. Re: You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  That is because I got a pretty good education on crypto 25 years ago and I have kept current in the meantime. I do not need to look this stuff up, it is covered by the basics. You apparently have not bothered finding out even said basics or you are too mentally limited to understand them.
  Quite in line with my assessment of you being a moron. Or more exactly a Dunning-Kruger far left-side sample, i.e. big, big ego and really small skills.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
55. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 10:07 · Score: 2
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Or just have a look at this list:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  There are many alternatives to systemd that handles the issue you mentioned above with deamon monitoring.. This is with systemd there are loads of cases that are more or less impossible to handle in a sane way without having to redo/recheck the configuration after every single upgrade done of packages..
  There are also a lot bigger issues with systemd where it's causing pure security issues just because they refuse to stop gobbling up things we already have stable things for...
  If systemd was a *PURE* init-system that just maintained ISC's dhclient, ntp-client (of your choice) and so on i would have no big problem with it, except that it has removed easy modifications of startup scripts.. But the way it works right now is just horrific.
56. Re: You all presumably know why. by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-15 10:08 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  I understand it better than you. I too had the same thoughts initially. The difference between us? I actually educated myself on the approach they are using and understand it, while you continue to refuse to learn anything new and just keep spouting idiotic misinformation on Slashdot.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
57. Re:You all presumably know why. by serviscope_minor · 2017-07-15 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  biggest evil is, during this furious re-implementation, they introduce new bugs.
  NOTABUG WONTFIX.
  This function returns EFUCKYOU on attempted use.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
58. Re:You all presumably know why. by serviscope_minor · 2017-07-15 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean "not supported". There were some scraps of documentation in some places saying it wasn't supported, and documentation in other places (e.g. POSIX) saying it was. There is no real Linux userland standard, so this was really just systemd people unilaterally declaring it to be so and blaming users for the massive hole.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
59. Re: You all presumably know why. by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-15 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. You at least are starting to have a clue now, though. The epoch isn't fixed. That is why the word "default" is used. Again, this is additional security, not replacement security. You can still send logs to wall and a remote server. Change the epoch if you want. Indeed, the default may be different now than it was back then. At least you finally admit there is such a facility, proving the others are cluelesslu spouting misinformation (my original point)
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
60. Re: You all presumably know why. by chihowa · 2017-07-15 10:38 · Score: 2
  
  The issue (which has a CVE with a critical score) was closed as "not a bug".
  Think about that for a little while before responding again that it was "fixed".
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
61. Re:You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  He uses systemd for an editor and emacs for init.
62. Re: You all presumably know why. by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-15 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Epoch: a period of time in history, typically one marked by notable events or particular characteristics. In this case it is the period of time between key replacements, and is literally the term used in the documentation. Once again it is actually you that has been proved to be a clueless idiot. Off you go now little troll ...
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
63. Re: You all presumably know why. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I use OpenRC.
  OpenRC does what systemd was built to accomplish, but without consuming services.
64. Re: You all presumably know why. by gweihir · 2017-07-15 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  I have stopped listening when people claim things can be done that are actually impossible. In all cases, they are just full of it, usually by misstating the border conditions or not actually understanding what they claim to understand or, surprise!, buy suddenly claiming something else than they did initially. Waste of my time. And you are too, so I will now stop answering.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
65. Re: You all presumably know why. by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-07-15 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  ^^^Mod. This. Up.^^^
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
66. Re:You all presumably know why. by Aighearach · 2017-07-15 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody uses POSIX, but everybody maintains some amount of POSIX compatibility. Welcome to 1995. Oh, wait...
67. Re:You all presumably know why. by Aighearach · 2017-07-15 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  My advice, look up the word "hypocrite." Dictionaries don't hurt, man. But words have meaning. Your insults will sound a lot better if you select one that is relevant, instead of just using a medium-sized word that sounded impressive.
68. Re:You all presumably know why. by ckatko · 2017-07-15 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  The only sad part is, if everyone here used all the energy they have to hate on SystemD, to actually fix those bugs, we wouldn't be having these discussions about how buggy it is.
69. Re: You all presumably know why. by TWX · 2017-07-15 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Find a new cat. If your cat was an outdoor cat one will probably take the territory before long anyway.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
70. Re: You all presumably know why. by TWX · 2017-07-15 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  *grin*
  Just playin' on the vi/emacs rivalry. Most non-emacs people I knew that had experience with it commented that it was a great operating environment and shell but a fairly crappy editor. Of course, the biggest difference is that having one on one's system doesn't break the other, and neither worms its way into every part of the OS.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
71. Re:You all presumably know why. by MrKaos · 2017-07-15 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  So SystemD is the Emacs of init?
  As a vi user, I would not insult Emacs that way.
  systemd is the svchost of linux, except that svchost is for windows and they don't want systemd either.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
72. Re: You all presumably know why. by aardvarkjoe · 2017-07-15 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  It does look like the security problem was fixed:
  https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/6300
  So they're at least no longer doing the "fallback to root" behavior. Although they still didn't fix the problem of systemd incorrectly deciding that certain usernames are invalid.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
73. Re: You all presumably know why. by MrKaos · 2017-07-15 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Find a new cat. If your cat was an outdoor cat one will probably take the territory before long anyway.
  If it was Schrödinger's cat that would be one possibility.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
74. Re: You all presumably know why. by Thor+Ablestar · 2017-07-15 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  Look, there are at least 3 styles of programming:
  1) int a[16]; index=something(); SOMECODE; b=a[index];
  2) int a[16]; SOMECODE; index=something(); b=a[index&0x0f];
  3) int a[16]; SOMECODE; index=something(); if((index=16)) process_error(); b=a[index];
  The first one is a disaster waiting to happen because you rely on something() to return proper values and on SOMECODE to not change index and not to allow jumps inside it. And as I understand the problem it was closed by 1st way.
75. Re:You all presumably know why. by dbIII · 2017-07-15 16:02 · Score: 2
  
  if everyone here used all the energy they have to hate on SystemD, to actually fix those bugs
  How? Lennart isn't listening and isn't going to accept fixes to something he doesn't see as a problem.
  It appears a lot of the energy is going into FreeBSD etc.
76. Re:You all presumably know why. by MrKaos · 2017-07-15 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  Poettering's work with pulseaudio
  Holy crap, that steaming turd called pulse was Poettering's work? Fuck me that explains so much now.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
77. Re: You all presumably know why. by dbIII · 2017-07-15 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  What is the advantage of systemd anyway?
  RedHat owns it and nobody outside of RedHat really understands it for more than a few weeks before it morphs again.
78. Re:You all presumably know why. by knorthern+knight · 2017-07-15 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  > The only sad part is, if everyone here used all the energy they
  > have to hate on SystemD, to actually fix those bugs, we wouldn't
  > be having these discussions about how buggy it is.
  You've hear of how the best "Widnows solution" is linux? Well, the best "systemd fix" is openrc.
  
  --
  
  I'm not repeating myself
  I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
79. Re: You all presumably know why. by dbIII · 2017-07-15 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  It does not speak well for the current state of the Linux community that an incompetent cretin can engineer a hostile takeover of this size.
  From Raster's comments about his brief time working for RedHat some time back we should have seen this coming when we left most of the heavy lifting in linux to RedHat. As far as they can tell Lennart is the genius and Linus is as bad as Lennart's insults say he is.
80. Re:You all presumably know why. by dbIII · 2017-07-15 16:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I mean the systemd project itself may be shit, but for some reason all the technical maintainers of distros who have nothing to do with systemd think the opposite.
  They want gnome and systemd is the price.
81. Re:You all presumably know why. by dbIII · 2017-07-15 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  why is that it actually solves (most) problems with older init systems
  I hear that line a LOT but nobody ever seems to provide examples of even trivial problems solved.
82. Re: You all presumably know why. by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-15 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  You don't suppose it will be obvious that the key generation is happening at the wrong times?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
83. Re: You all presumably know why. by umghhh · 2017-07-15 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  So it was a fault after all - after all the denials? Or was it closed as 'no fault' sort of way that we know from designers who are incapable to admit failure? Either way it is a mess. We laughed and coursed m$ for the same nonsense. Now we have this shit here. I still do not understand the reason why we had to go trough this transition in this particular way - dig in shit because it tastes so good?
84. Re: You all presumably know why. by dbIII · 2017-07-15 21:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The project is a massive "cathedral" instead of modular pieces - planned for that reason or not a fork would be more difficult than devising a total replacement structured differently.
85. Re:You all presumably know why. by DamnOregonian · 2017-07-15 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  Gnome.
86. Re: You all presumably know why. by guruevi · 2017-07-15 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  You are talking out of your ass. It is easy to forge systemd logs, matter of fact you can even write a systemd unit that pretends to be another unit.
  Also, systemd defaults to "no logging", you have to explicitly send to a systemd log.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
87. Re:You all presumably know why. by nick_urbanik · 2017-07-15 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  sysvinit was decrepit and unsuitable for modern systems,
  This is complete bullshit. My (modern) computer worked perfectly fine before systemd. There was zero improvement after my preferred distro replaced init with systemd. Maybe it booted up 2 seconds faster? I don't know, it's linux, I don't ever fucking reboot it. The only change in my life was how much time I had to spend learning systemd bullshit that added ZERO VALUE to my use of linux on my pc. So you better get a LOT more specific as to which system was "unsuited" for sysvinit before you start making blanket statements like that or people are going to continue to call you out on your bullshit.
  A server under heavy load takes an unpredictable amount of time to shut down. Shell scripts have found no sensible way to make restart work reliably. Systemd helps there with management of process groups.
88. Re: You all presumably know why. by fisted · 2017-07-16 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe if your G+ link didn't fucking contain "LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly" people might bother to click it.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
89. Re: You all presumably know why. by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-16 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Great point! If you want to know about systemd you certainly wouldn't want to hear from that guy! What does HE know about it?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
90. Re: You all presumably know why. by guruevi · 2017-07-16 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  No, systemd decides what systemd defaults to. I use Debian and several of my init scripts no longer write any logs after upgrading to systemd a few months ago.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
91. Re: You all presumably know why. by fisted · 2017-07-16 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed I'd rather hear from it from independent and hence unbiased sources, especially after realizing that
  
  HE
  calls himself LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
92. Re:You all presumably know why. by thegarbz · 2017-07-16 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Except when it's not. And the Gnome depends on systemd myth was debunked pretty much the day it showed up thanks to a clueless guy seeing a package listed with both gnome and systemd in the title and going spastic online.
93. Re: You all presumably know why. by metrix007 · 2017-07-16 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Still as much an idiot as you ever were. Web designer who thinks he is an engineer, still has no clue when it comes to security.
  
  --
  If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
94. Re: You all presumably know why. by metrix007 · 2017-07-16 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny because he staunchly defends himself as a software engineer and does the equivalent of undergrad web design.
  
  --
  If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
95. Re: You all presumably know why. by segedunum · 2017-07-16 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed so. You can never trust what kind of input you will get into your software. You need to sanitise and verify it, especially in an open source system. To wave that away as someone else's problem is absolutely hilarious, until you realise they're serious, but Poettering has ample amounts of form on that score.
96. Re:You all presumably know why. by segedunum · 2017-07-16 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  sysvinit did need replaced and improved at some point, but what we've got is going to be a fucking nightmare to live with in comparison.
97. Re: You all presumably know why. by segedunum · 2017-07-16 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  That is certainly *something*, but mainly because he's been forced into it. He just can't bring himself to fix things properly. It's always someone else's problem or he'll just shove it into the documentation and point to that.
98. Re:You all presumably know why. by segedunum · 2017-07-16 05:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The only sad part is, if everyone here used all the energy they have to hate on SystemD, to actually fix those bugs, we wouldn't be having these discussions about how buggy it is.
  Anyone who has tried has had issues waved away as someone else's problem. This also does not resolve the maintainer or responsibility, a notion which is just downright hilarious.
99. Re: You all presumably know why. by segedunum · 2017-07-16 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  The project is structured in such a way as to making forking an impossibility.
100. Re: You all presumably know why. by segedunum · 2017-07-16 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. That's the response you usually get.
101. Re: You all presumably know why. by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-16 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot has been overrun with dumbfucks who keep saying they are right even after they have been proved wrong because they can't admit they ran their mouth out of turn. Imagine how much I care what those losers think and say if you will.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
102. Re:You all presumably know why. by a_n_d_e_r_s · 2017-07-16 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  > So SystemD is the Emacs of init?
  More like Microsoft Office of init.
  I
  
  --
  Just saying it like it are.
103. Re: You all presumably know why. by chihowa · 2017-07-16 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  That's awesome! I love how quickly the conversation turns to not documenting this behavior because none of the previous behavior was documented anyway and it can change at any moment. Solid foundation, for sure!
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
104. Re:You all presumably know why. by descubes · 2017-07-16 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not yet. There is no news reader and no M-x doctor in systemd yet.
  
  --
  -- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net
105. Re: You all presumably know why. by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-16 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Holy fuck you are stupid. YOUR defense is "I can hide my tracks, just not without being caught! " Seems the cretin is you :^)
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
106. Re: You all presumably know why. by jeremyp · 2017-07-17 00:40 · Score: 2
  
  It was closed for transparently bullshit reasons.
  Firstly Lennart Poettering displayed an alarming ignorance of the way in which user names are managed in Linux based systems. "I wonder which tool he used..." LP clearly doesn't realise it is possible to add a user to a Linux system with the cat command, if you so choose.
  Secondly, his insistence that Linux has a standard format for user names is bullshit. Linux (the kernel) has no concept of user names (how does the lead of an init system project not know that?) His reasoning seems to be based on the fact that the adduser utility default configuration does not allow user names to start with a number. This constraint is defined in the adduser configuration file, a file that a system administrator can edit to relax the rules, if they so choose.
  Finally, his understanding of portability is backwards. He claims that portability means only accepting the most restrictive of user names, but it doesn't it means accepting the most liberal of user names so that an administrator on any Linux system can use any user name. He claims he wants unit files to be portable, but where a user name is concerned, that is impossible unless the user is one that is defined on any Linux system,
  LP displays ignorance about a significant part of Unix-like operating systems and also stupidity in terms of reasoning about portability. Do you really want such a man in charge ofd developing the code that runs as process number 1?
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
107. Re: You all presumably know why. by jeremyp · 2017-07-17 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  adduser will also allow numerics at the beginning of the user name. All you have to do to make it so is edit the regular expression in adduser.conf(5).
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
108. Re: You all presumably know why. by h4ck7h3p14n37 · 2017-07-17 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, your description sounds exactly like the type of person who would attempt to rewrite the init system. They think they can come up with a better system because they view themselves as some sort of computer genius. Yet, they lack the knowledge and experience to understand why what they are attempting is a bad idea.
  The changes that are being made are breaking servers and they don't care. We're all expected to change our behavior to match the new system when the old ones worked just find for the majority of us. I'm just glad my employer has moved away from RHEL so I don't have to deal with this crap. I've never had a problem with either the old AT&T style or System V init system.
109. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  > doing it half-assed.
  Like logging. Logging is critical for both troubleshooting and security. With sys V init scripts, even if the error wasn't logged to syslog, you'd at least see it on the console instead of so often seeing nothing with systemd.
  Hahaha! Someone was dumb enough to upvote the troll! Well done little troll!
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
110. Re: You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Also, systemd defaults to "no logging", you have to explicitly send to a systemd log.
  Nope, not the case:
  man systemd.exec [...] StandardOutput= Controls where file descriptor 1 (STDOUT) of the executed processes is connected to. Takes one of inherit, null, tty, journal, syslog, kmsg, journal+console, syslog+console, kmsg+console, socket or fd. [...] This setting defaults to the value set with DefaultStandardOutput= in systemd-system.conf(5), which defaults to journal. [...] StandardError= Controls where file descriptor 2 (STDERR) of the executed processes is connected to. The available options are identical to those of StandardOutput=, with some exceptions: if set to inherit the file descriptor used for standard output is duplicated for standard error, [...] This setting defaults to the value set with DefaultStandardError= in systemd-system.conf(5), which defaults to inherit.
  So if you, or your distro, don't change the default it goes to the journal.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
111. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:09 · Score: 2
  
  And the whole thing came up because someone (and not a systemd developer) decided that rlimits for setuid processes should be copied from pid 1, because that seemed a good default. Linus didn't like the patch, making his joking reference to systemd, but he was right whatever pid 1 was, shell, init(1), upstart or whatever -- copying rlimits from pid1 to all setuid processes makes no fucking sense whatever.
  https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6...
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
112. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  (Yes, snatching STDERR from a daemon is genius. Definitely. But what was wrong with then handing the output to the syslog daemon?)
  Uh, nothing is wrong with that. That's why you can configure systemd to do that, as, for example, Debian does.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
113. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:19 · Score: 2
  
  You know, the thing that always intrigues me is that people spend an inordinate amount of time criticising Poettering's code (pulseaudio, systemd), but nobody ever succeeds in doing better enough to get their solution adopted by as many people.
  Odd that.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
114. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Quit. A startup with "bad team dynamics" is doomed.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
115. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  but it [ SMF] can deal with unmodified sysVinit scripts.
  As can systemd. Fuck even upstart can do it AFAIK.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
116. Re: You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  What is this "console" of which you speak?
  Or, to put it another way -- where is this console of which you speak.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
117. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  I've had systems that would randomly come up with NFS non working in the past because the sysvinit scripts weren't waiting long enough for the network to become available.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
118. Re: You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  You say:
  
  Indeed; its author [...] later congratulated trolls who pushed it on debian-devel [2]
  And give the link:
  
  [2]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/11/msg00350.html
  
  But that link is not to a message from Lennart Poettering, it's a message from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz.
  Why did you make this false claim?
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
119. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  it's very difficult to unchoose systemD from a distro
  
  Huh?
  # apt-get install sysvinit-core # reboot
  What's the difficulty?
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
120. Re: You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  If you bother to read the anti-systemd trolls (yes, I admit it is boring) you'll find they're full of anti-SJW rants and other lunacy. It's a fair bet that they're Trump supporters. (I even found one who was a full on climate change denier).
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
121. Re: You all presumably know why. by KiloByte · 2017-07-17 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well yeah, but when a tool complains that a name is "illegal", it makes you stop. Most users will then believe the error message and pick something else, without thinking.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
122. Re: You all presumably know why. by Lost+Race · 2017-07-17 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  If you bother to read the anti-systemd trolls (yes, I admit it is boring) you'll find they're full of anti-SJW rants and other lunacy.
  
  Trolls be trollin'? You don't say!
  Trolls, by definition, will spout whatever lunacy gets you to overreact. If you hate Trump, they're Trump supporters. If you hate strawberry ice cream, they're strawberry ice cream supporters. If you like systemd, they'll shit all over it.
  That's how they roll. For teh lulz.
123. Re:You all presumably know why. by amorsen · 2017-07-17 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  But you can't disable the useless binary log system.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
124. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  The journal is actually quite useful -- because of the journal stuff that gets logged before syslogd is ready is not lost, also its integration with systemctl status is nice and it includes more information than syslog.
  You can (as Debian does) stop it writing its logs to disk if you want.
  Of course if the journal was a real problem it would be pretty trivial to write a version of journald that wrote text logs, or just passed stuff off to syslogd or whatever.
  But nobody has ever bothered, they just spend all their time bitching about it.
  Odd, that.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
125. Re:You all presumably know why. by amorsen · 2017-07-17 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  Of course if the journal was a real problem it would be pretty trivial to write a version of journald that wrote text logs, or just passed stuff off to syslogd or whatever.
  It would be extremely non-trivial to integrate it with systemd. It would break all the time, and the chances of Poettering accepting it as a part of the official distribution of systemd are nil. Not happening.
  Hopefully Poettering will tire of systemd soon and pass it on.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
126. Re: You all presumably know why. by dbIII · 2017-07-17 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  Not a bad idea, I had the same a bit before the year 2000 as did a great many other people with a vast amount more influence than myself. I'm not sure how things worked out the way they did.
127. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  It would be extremely non-trivial to integrate it with systemd.
  
  Why?
  
  It would break all the time
  Why?
  
  the chances of Poettering accepting it as a part of the official distribution of systemd are nil
  Why would you care?
  
  Not happening.
  I know it's not happening. I just find it funny that none of the people who complain about the binary logging can be bothered to do anything about it.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
128. Re:You all presumably know why. by TWX · 2017-07-18 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe that's because we didn't have problems with ALSA or sysV or BSD init...
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
129. Re:You all presumably know why. by amorsen · 2017-07-18 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  It would break all the time because systemd internals like logging aren't a stable interface. It would require constant maintenance to be kept compatible with standard systemd. It would be worse than maintaining out-of-kernel modules The only way to avoid that would be to get it into the main distribution, and Poettering would never stand for it.
  There is no point in contributing to or changing systemd unless you buy into Poettering's "vision". The only way to go is a full-bore fork and none of the distributions have the manpower for that either.
  At this point, Linux is stuck with systemd unless Linus himself makes an init daemon. Personally I switched to OS X on the desktop after almost 20 years of Linux.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
130. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-18 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, that doesn't work -- if nobody had problems with ALSA, sysvinit or bsdinit nobody would be looking for replacements for them, and lots of people are looking for replacements for them. Hell, even sysvinit, mess that it was, was proposed as a way of getting round the suckiness of bsd init,
  Oddly the replacements that have been accepted are pulseaudio and systemd.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
131. Re:You all presumably know why. by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-18 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  would break all the time because systemd internals like logging aren't a stable interface.
  When did the logging interface last change?
  
  Personally I switched to OS X on the desktop after almost 20 years of Linux.
  So how's launchd working out for you?
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
Eventually systemd will replace the kernel by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 03:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Linus knows his time is short
Repent, Linus, and maybe systemd will allow your kernel to run as a background process for housekeeping and legacy tasks.
1. Re:Eventually systemd will replace the kernel by yeupou · 2017-07-15 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Note that running KDE or PulseAudio without systemd God daemon is not supported.
2. Re:Eventually systemd will replace the kernel by yeupou · 2017-07-15 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  You are calling bullshit on a thread dedicated to God mode. Are you even reading before posting?
3. Re:Eventually systemd will replace the kernel by KiloByte · 2017-07-15 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  When Linus did not like previous solutions (CVS, SVN) yet his chosen program (BitKeeper) went apeshit, see what he did. Let's see how this goes...
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
4. Re:Eventually systemd will replace the kernel by jeremyp · 2017-07-17 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably the perfect tool for merging many patches from many disparate sources into a large code base like, for example, an open source operating system kernel. But for most of us, it is indeed shit.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Not very sytemd like by Mostly+a+lurker · 2017-07-15 04:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Surely in the systemd era, we should be deprecating setuid on executables, and replacing it with some kind of systemd api. This provides a much more modern "unified" approach then all that minimalist, modular rubbish that infected the system for so long.
1. Re:Not very sytemd like by tender-matser · 2017-07-15 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  I know you're trying to be funny, but for those who don't know it, setuid executables have been deprecated since a while.
  $ ls -l /bin/ping -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 44104 Nov 8 2014 /bin/ping
  See? No setuid bit, and still able to mess with raw packets.
  The old setuid thing has been replaced with granular capabilities(7) bits, which are stored in a "security.capability" extended attribute.
  $ getcap /bin/ping /bin/ping = cap_net_raw+ep
2. Re:Not very sytemd like by allo · 2017-07-15 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  nope.
  $ ls -l /bin/ping
  -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 44104 Nov 8 2014 /bin/ping
  Debian jessie.
3. Re:Not very sytemd like by Xenolith0 · 2017-07-15 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  They've moved from setuid to posix capabilities on most major distros:
  # ls -l /bin/ping
  -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 62088 Nov 7 2016 /bin/ping
  # getcap /bin/ping /bin/ping = cap_net_admin,cap_net_raw+p
  see: man 7 capabilities
Joke? by amiga3D · 2017-07-15 04:30 · Score: 1, Funny

It init funny. Not at all.
1. Re:Joke? by TheGratefulNet · 2017-07-15 06:27 · Score: 2
  
  how about stigginit to init with sigint?
  (head asplodes)
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
2. Re:Joke? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-07-15 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  It init funny. Not at all.
  Well, your comment is funny at least. But I'm not seeing the attempted humor in Linus' line... it just seems like a plain old comment. ... unless they were talking about GNU scanner software.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
You were warned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 05:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

SystemD is a trainwreck from day one and just keeps on piling more of it. If it were only init, things would've been more than fine. But no. It's a whole project of reinvented crapware that is reinvented BADLY. And distros blindly install more and more from the "project". Like Ubuntu and their idiotic decision to switch to systemd-resolved which was wrought with nothing but trouble, rendered Ubuntu 17.04 dead in the DNS water for a month since its release! I wonder which maintainer got paid to subvert Ubuntu with that.
* networkd assuming dhcp client role, but then not renewing lease (freedesktop bug #82731 -- open for 3 years now!!), among many other issues
* resolved assuming DNS resolver role, but then not being nearly compliant with RFC, among many other issues, some even serious security vulnerabilities
* consoled taking over console, but then someone realized it's a REALLY dumb idea so they scraped it (for now)
* timesyncd assuming ntpd role, but then doing stupid things like defaulting to Google NTP which is NOT a normal NTP service! Asked by google to not do that, responded EWONTFIX (systemd github issues #437), among many other issues ...
In fact, it's even bad at being "just an init". Good luck with those NFS mounts and systemd. Good luck with "A start job is running" when it encounters a trivial situation that every. other. init. can. work. around.
It's a shitshow fueled by arrogance of "we know better than all of you combined", just a quick look in the github issues is sufficient to see this. It's so out of control, that issues found to be 10 on vulnerability scales are closed as not a bug (CVE-2017-1000082).
Every software has bugs, but systemd bugs are closed EWONTFIX because the principal developer has zero clue about modern operating systems. The principal developer of an init for a traditionally server oriented operating system* who, by his own words, never administered servers. And who, by his own words, disables read ahead prefetch because "systemd developers all run laptops with SSDs and don't need it"....... !!
It's a sinking ship, rats are fleeing, and more and more professionals are getting SICK of it. You were warned, you laughed, you called us luddites, now enjoy the turd.
*) With a server market share of more than 50% (look up Netcraft monthly stats), and a desktop market share of 1% -- so guess where the priorities are
1. Re:You were warned by thegarbz · 2017-07-15 09:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If you're going to bitch about bugs, there are so many to bitch from. But the ones you linked seem perfectly reasonable won'tfixs.
  - One single person reporting that DHCP leases don't renew even though his logs show that the client attempted renewal. If this were worth looking at there'd be thousands of confirmations. Why should the bug be fixed if it can't be confirmed?
  - Defaulting to google's NTP service is perfectly reasonable given the complete lack of alternatives. As shown in the bug tracker you are specifically requested NOT to default to pool.ntp.org unless you're the vendor, and then the configuration becomes vendor specific. i.e. if your default install is hitting Google.com then maybe you should be complaining to Ubuntu or Debian or Arch or whoever decided to blindly include systemd-timesyncd without creating a proper config default for their distribution.
  -NFS mounts are not a problem providing you RTFM.
  -A start job is running is a perfectly sane response to waiting for a critical part of a boot process, and it has the perfectly sane action of eventually timing out. If this occurred without change then chances are it's a hardware failure. If it occured due to an upgrade then you distribution maintainer did a shit job at adding the new package. e.g. the "bug" introduced in systemd 230 which curiously only affected Arch linux.
  
  Every software has bugs, but systemd bugs are closed EWONTFIX because the principal developer has zero clue about modern operating systems.
  Actually I find the problem more with the peanut gallery who think that ever turd smeared on a bug tracker is critical or even real. Like the guys who keep quoting the "open bugs" graph of systemd without realising that some 2/3rds of the bugs being posted are RFEs.
  
  With a server market share of more than 50% (look up Netcraft monthly stats), and a desktop market share of 1% -- so guess where the priorities are
  With the servers, where management of massive logs and monitoring of running processes was a key design goal and one of the primary reasons why the likes of Debian and RHEL adopted systemd.
2. Re:You were warned by rl117 · 2017-07-15 21:21 · Score: 2
  
  Look, NFS mounting is broken. BROKEN. It works a small percentage of the time, but most of the time it fails to mount anything successfully at boot. The mount exists, but any attempt to use the mount results in an IO error. systemd fundamentally failed to bring up the NFS services properly, leading to a non-functional system. I can log in on the console, unmount everything, then remount it and it works perfectly after that manual fix. But on a day to day basis, I can't rely on using NFS mounts with systemd.
  This is unbelievable. Correct order of service startup was one of the big arguments for systemd. Despite the fact that this was never a problem with insserv dependency ordering with sysv-rc. My FreeBSD systems can mount NFS correctly. Every. Single. Time. Because their startup isn't buggy or defective. systemd has had this issue with NFS for bloody years. Still unfixed today. Don't make excuses for it; fix it.
  Startup should be deterministic and consistent. With systemd, it's a lottery whether the system will come up correctly configured or not. That's plain stupid, and a massive regression. I've also had other instances where the boot hangs indefinitely; this is also beyond ridicule.
3. Re:You were warned by thegarbz · 2017-07-16 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Startup should be deterministic and consistent.
  
  Systemd is 100% deterministic if you RTFM and setup your startup settings correctly. Absolutely need NFS at startup? Well set the service to wait-online for network dependency (not a default setting in most distros).
  
  With systemd, it's a lottery whether the system will come up correctly configured or not. That's plain stupid, and a massive regression. I've also had other instances where the boot hangs indefinitely; this is also beyond ridicule.
  I'm going to go with the "or not" part considering you're locking up a boot indefinitely. Maybe consider setting up the timeouts if you have your services as part of the critical boot path, I mean we were only just talking about the "A start job is running" messages which is exactly what this does.
  Or better still realise that systemd is not sysvinit and read the manual anew. Forget on how you think you should be setting up something like NFS and actually set it up the way it is recommended, and if you haven't read such a guide, then you've set it up incorrectly.
  Changes in OSes require changes in configurations, and if your system is not acting in a deterministic way then you have yourself to blame (along with your previous reading material).
4. Re:You were warned by sad_ · 2017-07-16 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  * timesyncd assuming ntpd role, but then doing stupid things like defaulting to Google NTP which is NOT a normal NTP service! Asked by google to not do that, responded EWONTFIX (systemd github issues #437), among many other issues ...
  that's the second time now i learned that systemd just ignores failure and takes some default value instead of actually failing. this is not what you want, it's total lunacy and idiotic.
  the previous time it was when a user doesn't exist, it just goes ahead and runs as root instead.
  the right action is to fail, not to go ahead and do something that was not requested.
  
  --
  On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
5. Re:You were warned by mike.hamza · 2017-07-17 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  lennart be like: "who need to mount nfs anyway, i have my hard-drive attached to my laptop and so all of my team, then you don't need it, so nothing to fix here"
  issue closed -----------> not-a-bug - won't-fix
  its always the case and it'll always remain like that, since all distros maintainers seem quite and following the gnome and systemd folks in their mess.
  gnome folks cloning the mac interfaces hardly, systemd folks cloning windows architecture hardly.
  the result project redhat will name it "macdows"
  at best we're heading into a disaster, and the primary ones to blame are Arch and Debian devs, they're responsible for this mess.
  one guy at arch forced the the switch then get hired by redhat, debian vote was a total mess and everybody know about it doesn't need further discussion.
Re:What does the headline mean? by TC+(WC) · 2017-07-15 07:16 · Score: 1

The title is in reference to chapter titles in some older humorous books. The house at Pooh Corner is the one that I can think of, but it's in others from the same era.
For instance,
"Chapter IV
In Which it is Shown that Tiggers Don't Climb Trees"
The author is implying that it's another piece of an ongoing saga that's got some silliness in it.
systemd is linux cancer by sjwest · 2017-07-15 07:23 · Score: 1

some things use systemd, others use the init.d scripts and the /etc/default/ (even in debian 9 the latest) systemd appears to not use /etc/default or you need to generate the systemd file from it.
Then you have to daemon-reload systemd to try out
Finding these systemd startup scripts is a nightmare if you need to adjust them.
Maybe we upgrade linux to bsd nextime.
Systemd: What Does It Solve? by Frosty+Piss · 2017-07-15 07:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

I am not questioning you opinions on systemd, particularly since my father, a retired CE and lifelong *nix user dislikes it with a passion. But I'm way to ignorant of the dirty mechanics and politics of Linux to understand how, with so many presumably knowledgeable folks who dislike systemd, it became a standard in the more popular distros. Does it solve some vexing issue for the maintainers of these distros? What do these people find so compelling as to make such a fundamental change?

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:Systemd: What Does It Solve? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  I am not questioning you opinions on systemd, particularly since my father, a retired CE and lifelong *nix user dislikes it with a passion. But I'm way to ignorant of the dirty mechanics and politics of Linux to understand how, with so many presumably knowledgeable folks who dislike systemd, it became a standard in the more popular distros.
  Thank you for being honest about your Linux understanding. Compared to many blowhards that I read elsewhere, your honesty is refreshing.
  
  Does it solve some vexing issue for the maintainers of these distros? What do these people find so compelling as to make such a fundamental change?
  To answer your questions why people seem to like SystemD(eath): It's a bright shiny new thingie that's different; that just works; that doesn't require that they learn anything to use it.
  Sadly, when the SystemD(eath) generation encounters a problem that they cannot solve, they will simply mark it EWONTFIX, then throw it out and find something else.
2. Re:Systemd: What Does It Solve? by shoor · 2017-07-15 09:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm a long time user of Linux, and I've been scratching my head over the question of why are so many distros using systemd if it's so bad also. This has been discussed on slashdot many times. I can remember in the early days of systemd when it came up here on slashdot, a suspiciously methodical bunch of replies to any criticism would crop up, as though someone had been hired to defend it. It was these apparently crafted replies, supposedly designed to win people over, that made me more wary and suspicious than anything else. OK, that doesn't answer the question, it's just some background. All we groundlings know are what people who presumably do know tell us, and we have to decide which explanations have a ring of truth and which smell fishy for some reason. Right now I'm thinking particularly about a slashdot topic from July 3:
  
  'Severe' Systemd Bug Allowed Remote Code Execution For Two Years
  and an anonymous coward earned a score of 5 with a posting that to me had the ring of truth: https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10813029&cid=54733511
  
  --
  In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
3. Re:Systemd: What Does It Solve? by chihowa · 2017-07-15 11:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's a trojan horse story.
  Maintaining unit files seemed easier than maintaining sysvinit scripts, so the distro maintainers liked it (along with a couple of other init replacement contenders). It's also shiny and new and backed by RedHat.
  There was feature creep and capricious architectural design before most distros picked it up, but perhaps people didn't think that it would keep getting worse and worse. Now the project encroaches on more and more system roles and doesn't play well with the existing tools.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
4. Re:Systemd: What Does It Solve? by deek · 2017-07-16 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  Debian put together a discussion document when they were deciding on what init system to default to. It may answer some of your queries.
  https://wiki.debian.org/Debate...
  Myself, I don't mind systemd, though I'd also be fine running sysvinit. I run a few dozen Debian systems for work, and honestly, systemd does the job I need it to do. One feature I really like is that it will log all service boot messages. Sysvinit, being what it is, boot messages scroll out of the console screen buffer, and they're lost for good. I don't want to have to reboot a system just to capture an error message by selectively pausing the bootup sequence.
5. Re:Systemd: What Does It Solve? by sad_ · 2017-07-16 23:41 · Score: 2
  
  because other projects started integrating systemd parts. other distro's could either drop those projects (but they were popular), or use systemd and continue to offer said projects.
  and all in all, systemd does offer some benefits, or rather said promises, but it just does too much and keeps evolving as 'the blob' growing bigger and bigger. when other distro's stepped in, it was still something small'ish.
  
  --
  On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
6. Re:Systemd: What Does It Solve? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · 2017-07-17 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  I thought boot message written to the console were logged to a separate file, like /var/log/messages.boot or /var/run/dmesg.boot?
7. Re:Systemd: What Does It Solve? by deek · 2017-07-17 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  No file like that on my Debian systems. I checked a CentOS server I have access to, and there is a /var/log/boot.log file, but it is sparsely populated with parts of the boot sequence. It's possible that it may contain stderr messages on boot, so that's something.
8. Re:Systemd: What Does It Solve? by shoor · 2017-07-18 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't dmesg give you what you need? As in, get on the command line as soon as you can and type "dmesg > demsg.out" or some such thing. Then "more dmesg.out" to see it. (I'm showing my command line roots here, worked on a lot of unix systems in the 1980s.)
  
  --
  In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
9. Re:Systemd: What Does It Solve? by deek · 2017-07-18 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  Dmesg will show you messages from the kernel. It will not show the STDOUT or STDERR of processes started by init. So unfortunately, not what I'm after.
Down with Lennart by boudie2 · 2017-07-15 08:26 · Score: 1

Putting the boots to Lennart again are we? Can't think of anyone more deserving. May I join in?
1. Re: Down with Lennart by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  Filthy cannibal!
Thanks for the new sig by s1d3track3D · 2017-07-15 09:52 · Score: 1

...it's not only not clear that we want to do this... - Linus Torvalds (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577)
Re:Systemd log output by mfnickster · 2017-07-15 10:43 · Score: 1

There's a 68.71% chance you're right.

--
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Re:Learn English please. by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-07-15 14:00 · Score: 1

Apparently at least one editor knows his stuff better than some ignorant AC.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
GNU Linu-x, not GNOME Lenna-x by knorthern+knight · 2017-07-15 16:42 · Score: 1

Nuff said

--

I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Devuan is looking good by walterbyrd · 2017-07-15 16:55 · Score: 1

I am using gentoo now, but devuan is looking like it might be a decent distro.
Re:Linus, this is for YOU: by Eunuchswear · 2017-07-17 03:56 · Score: 1

but would people mod down something in support of Debian, which deliberately excludes proprietary and capitalist code from its distro?
Debian only accepts code that is compatible with capitalism -- code you can sell.
Debian refuses to include code that restricts the freedom of Debian users to do whatever they want with it, sell it, use it to make nuclear bombs, whatever.
Debian has even refused to accept code licensed on the "do no evil" license on the grounds that any Debian user should have to freedom do do whatever evil they want with their copy of Debian [ where allowed by local law, of course ].

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Devuan is a fork of Debian free of systemd by psb777 · 2017-07-21 07:25 · Score: 1

Devuan is a fork of Debian which is systemd free. It just works for me. I've moved my servers to it. I am still vainly hoping that Ubuntu will announce it is abandoning systemd but I don't think that is going to happen so my desktop has already moved to Devuan & my laptop is going that way too. There are minor issues with the existing sysv init system which could have been improved a little, and improvements had arrived incrementally before systemd. The update-rc.d tool now takes notice of special comments in the init.d scripts so as to allow for parallel execution, and for dependencies, and the crafting of init.d scripts is not a black art: Nothing was broken. Having said that there is no need to have only one init system and various are available and Devuan supports them all except systemd. I warmly recommend Devuan. Stop complaining about systemd, leave it behind! https://devuan.org/

--
Paul Beardsell