Sounds reasonable. I don't think they are legally bound to keep that promise, but that they spell it out like that is a good thing. An interesting question that comes to mind is if the promise also covers modified code, it looks like the definition of covered code only covers code published by Microsoft. But still, better than nothing.
Maybe you should actually take a look at the GTK+ git history. There's a ton of work going into cross-platform support. Recently a lot of work was directed at Adwaita and make sure that it is always included and works great on all gdk backends, especially the win32 backend.
Then why are all major distros either in the process of switching to systemd, or have already done so? They must be complete morons switching to something that is just pain and suffering!
CoreOS is not designed to be used on just one or two machines. It's designed for huge clusters where one machine rebooting it not a problem. It allows them to implement more reliable updates. You either get it or you don't, and can quickly and easily roll back to the exact same bits you used before.
If the major distros all switch to Systemd, which looks likely; then that's one less thing that prevents people from switching to another distro. If you want to belive in some kind of conspiracy around Red Hat, then wouldn't they be more likely to just invent their own proprietary init system and make sure that no one else adopted it?
Of course stuff was broken. Stuff is always broken. Sysvinit was broken. Systemd is better but is probably also broken, one day it may as well be replaced by something else. The good part is, we are making progress. Over time the new stuff tend to be less broken than the stuff that came before it. You might tell yourself that nothing was broken before, but chances are it just happened to work well for you. Because if it wasn't broken, then that would be the first time in the history of the planet that a software project was infallible; and that would be amazing.
My understanding is that the Ubuntu community does not have the manpower that it takes to maintain universe, and Canonical is primarily only intrested in maintaining main and restricted. What they really should do is disable universe and multiverse by default.
The Ubuntu security team (which is mostly paid Canonical employees) provides security updates for packages in the main and restricted component. Packages in universe (such as owncloud) and multiverse are not supported by the security team.
The Ubuntu package repositories are divided into two parts. Main and restricted contains a limited number of packages which are supported by the Ubuntu security team, but universe and multiverse are not; they are supported (or in this case unsupported) by the Ubuntu community.
Explain for me why the developers cannot simply upload their EXISTING 12.04 and 14.04 backports to Ubuntu, again?
They want you to use their package repository. If the Ubuntu community wants to provide a version in the Ubuntu repository then the Ubuntu community has to support it.
The reasons that I often hear is more reliable release cycle and supported hardware enabledment kernels during the first two years of and LTS. But yes, most Ubuntu users do not understand the security ramifications of using packages from the Universe component.
This isnt a thought or a prediction, this is something systemd actually does when it takes NTP, console, logging, and networking and forces them into one application.
My system is too old so I don't have the consoled on it, but I imagine that will be a separate daemon as well.
the fork threat is to be taken seriously because of the leaderships inability to actually recognize this as a massive security, scalability, and overall functionality problem that was steamrolled into debian largely at the behest of KDE and Gnome devs. The best solution to avoid a fork in my opinion is to give the user something thats also been forgotten about in the linux community: choice. Systemd or RC Init, or uselessd (a fork of systemd that tries to rehabilitate systemd)
That would of course be nice. But someone has to do the work. It's not like it's just a matter of flipping a bit and everything just works. You actually need to go in and make sure that stuff works with all of them.
If systemd really was a bad thing then distributions would not choose it. It's amazing that people think that distributions are dictated which init system to use.
The part that I don't like (besides it going against the unix philosophy) is how fast it's taking over before the majority of the Linux community even had a chance to have their say. And what really gets me is, if systemd was just an init system, fine. But at the rate they are going there is going to be a systemd everything.
Distributions are free to choose whichever init system they want to support. A lot of them choose systemd because it is better than everything that came before it. As simple as that. There is no big conspiracy going on. It's better, that's why it's used. Get over it.
That's why distributions support their releases for some time, 5-10 years usually depending on the distribution. If you give it some time these bugs that you think of will go away. I have not run into them, I guess I'm lucky.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds reasonable. I don't think they are legally bound to keep that promise, but that they spell it out like that is a good thing. An interesting question that comes to mind is if the promise also covers modified code, it looks like the definition of covered code only covers code published by Microsoft. But still, better than nothing.
They work fine for me on Fvwm, both from 3.12 and 3.14. Must be something weird going on in your environment.
Maybe you should actually take a look at the GTK+ git history. There's a ton of work going into cross-platform support. Recently a lot of work was directed at Adwaita and make sure that it is always included and works great on all gdk backends, especially the win32 backend.
Then why are all major distros either in the process of switching to systemd, or have already done so? They must be complete morons switching to something that is just pain and suffering!
CoreOS is not designed to be used on just one or two machines. It's designed for huge clusters where one machine rebooting it not a problem. It allows them to implement more reliable updates. You either get it or you don't, and can quickly and easily roll back to the exact same bits you used before.
It's not like the journal format is some state secret. It's documented and there are already several journal parsers to choose from.
If the major distros all switch to Systemd, which looks likely; then that's one less thing that prevents people from switching to another distro. If you want to belive in some kind of conspiracy around Red Hat, then wouldn't they be more likely to just invent their own proprietary init system and make sure that no one else adopted it?
Of course stuff was broken. Stuff is always broken. Sysvinit was broken. Systemd is better but is probably also broken, one day it may as well be replaced by something else. The good part is, we are making progress. Over time the new stuff tend to be less broken than the stuff that came before it. You might tell yourself that nothing was broken before, but chances are it just happened to work well for you. Because if it wasn't broken, then that would be the first time in the history of the planet that a software project was infallible; and that would be amazing.
My understanding is that the Ubuntu community does not have the manpower that it takes to maintain universe, and Canonical is primarily only intrested in maintaining main and restricted. What they really should do is disable universe and multiverse by default.
The Ubuntu security team (which is mostly paid Canonical employees) provides security updates for packages in the main and restricted component. Packages in universe (such as owncloud) and multiverse are not supported by the security team.
The Ubuntu package repositories are divided into two parts. Main and restricted contains a limited number of packages which are supported by the Ubuntu security team, but universe and multiverse are not; they are supported (or in this case unsupported) by the Ubuntu community.
The problem is that Ubuntu users don't know this.
Explain for me why the developers cannot simply upload their EXISTING 12.04 and 14.04 backports to Ubuntu, again?
They want you to use their package repository.
If the Ubuntu community wants to provide a version in the Ubuntu repository then the Ubuntu community has to support it.
The reasons that I often hear is more reliable release cycle and supported hardware enabledment kernels during the first two years of and LTS. But yes, most Ubuntu users do not understand the security ramifications of using packages from the Universe component.
Does it still ship with the spyware-inspired keylogger which sends everything you search for to Canonical and others?
Systemd even has a shutdownd. I'm pretty sure it does one thing and does it well.
This isnt a thought or a prediction, this is something systemd actually does when it takes NTP, console, logging, and networking and forces them into one application.
Except it's not. /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-journald /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-timesyncd /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-networkd
My system is too old so I don't have the consoled on it, but I imagine that will be a separate daemon as well.
the fork threat is to be taken seriously because of the leaderships inability to actually recognize this as a massive security, scalability, and overall functionality problem that was steamrolled into debian largely at the behest of KDE and Gnome devs. The best solution to avoid a fork in my opinion is to give the user something thats also been forgotten about in the linux community: choice. Systemd or RC Init, or uselessd (a fork of systemd that tries to rehabilitate systemd)
That would of course be nice. But someone has to do the work. It's not like it's just a matter of flipping a bit and everything just works. You actually need to go in and make sure that stuff works with all of them.
http://forkfedora.org/
Not really, but well made.
If systemd really was a bad thing then distributions would not choose it. It's amazing that people think that distributions are dictated which init system to use.
I see. It appears that Android is not as easy to customize as I thought, that you could just replace individual components like the UI if you wanted.
What's so painful about systemd? Seriously.
Android didn't need a new design overhaul. I just hope the new OS is fast and functional.
I heard Android is open source. Why don't you change it back if you like it better that way?
The part that I don't like (besides it going against the unix philosophy) is how fast it's taking over before the majority of the Linux community even had a chance to have their say. And what really gets me is, if systemd was just an init system, fine. But at the rate they are going there is going to be a systemd everything.
Distributions are free to choose whichever init system they want to support. A lot of them choose systemd because it is better than everything that came before it. As simple as that. There is no big conspiracy going on. It's better, that's why it's used. Get over it.
Lennart does not decide what init system distributions choose to use. Distributions choose systemd because it is better than all that came before it.
It already works that way. If you build systemd with all features enabled you end up with something like 70 binaries or so.
That's why distributions support their releases for some time, 5-10 years usually depending on the distribution. If you give it some time these bugs that you think of will go away. I have not run into them, I guess I'm lucky.