For what? If you say "to bring more windowsisms to linux" then I can believe it. Otherwise, not so much.
The usefulness of logind can be argued, but centralized management of date/time and locale changes were long overdue. Linux is pretty much the only OS remaining, where application, if needed, can't really know if/when date/time or locale has changed.
Unix (not so much linux) has for a really long time been a multi-user system, where multiple users can use different locales and different time zones. The system itself always ran on UTC. UTC is not supposed to change. Users changing their locale need to log out and back in again. That works well enough for the expected frequency of such changes occurring and doesn't need lots of code to notify every running process AND lots of code in every running process to deal with the change.
As an engineering tradeoff, the Unix way makes sense to me. The poetterix way, not so much. So I don't really buy your "long overdue", no.
Maybe those three services are included because they were replicating the functionality that both upstart and other init methods already provided. Dealing with time zones, system clocks and login/shutdown wasn't something that only became available with systemd. If these three daemons are problematic, then it goes back much further than systemd.
The systemd-localed is simple: it provides the user with capability to change the locale on the fly (and applications with the ability to react on the locale change).
Locale settings are fine without system-level settings. What is wrong with application-specific LC_xxx settings? And why should I be interested in changing locale in the middle of a desktop session?
The systemd-timedated does almost the same for the date and time.
What?! Who the hell changes time on computers? This is not a $5 digital watch! Every reasonable system has got ntpd installed and is set to UTC. The rest is done by selecting the time zone you are in. And stay away from changing time zones by adjusting time! We are not in Windows world where time handling has been fucked up entirely.
And the systemd-logind is basically a dbus wrapper to provide access to log-out/shutdown/etc functions.
Why do I need a daemon to log out from a session?
Think outside the box. Maybe your linux system is embeded in the flight systems of an airliner or vehicle that really does need the capability of changing timezones. Maybe your linux system needs to communicate with other devices that don't deal with system clocks the same way or don't use UTC. And, as for logging out or shutdown, maybe you don't need it, but surely, it is foreseeable that some applications might benefit from it instead of having to each role their own solution.
Look at it this way, some use cases don't need cron, either, but it doesn't mean it isn't useful for those use cases that really do need it.
I would have expected that BSD would be deliriously happy that the evil gaze of Poettering hadn't alighted upon their operating system. Why would you voluntarily infest your system with his daemon spawn?
Because bloody systemd will be needed if you want to run some brain-dead Linux-only piece of crap software. That's why.
Emulating systemd allows that software to work on OpenBSD. On the other hand, emulating it means that (a) its working may remain somewhat on the sane side and (b) that emulation will only be installed if the port requires it, therefore limiting the damage.
And, FYI, OpenBSD could not care less about Poettering and his evil gaze.
Chances are that is false. What is much more likely is that one of the systemd modules, say logind might be required, but not all of systemd. Isn't that how software development is supposed to be -- use an existing library that provides the required functionality instead of everybody building their own version?
Except no one wants MS Windows methods of doing stuff. They've been trying to invent UNIX since the DOS days. Their latest OS is utter hell, so why do a tiny amount of Windows centric NIH kids get to fuck up almost every distro?
This is the biggest fuck up in Linux history, and it will force a mass migration to a BSD.
That's fine, because systemd is not the "windows" way and anybody claiming it is is just blowing smoke. While I prefer upstart to systemd, the reality is systemd is a bunch of individual modules (you know the linux way of one program for one task) that work together. However, when compiling it, you just set switches for the pieces you want to use. You don't have to use all of the modules and those that you do use will coexist with upstart and other init scripts.
There is a lot of fud about systemd, and like I said, it isn't my preference, but it isn't the end of the world that many people want you to believe.
Mebbe this will motivate some distro to do a similar; I, for one, would go for a distro without systemd nor Gnome, which I never use. Gnome is expendible. For those who like Gnome, why not do it this way?
There is no need on linux to a translation to system calls. Being built on the linux kernel it just makes the system calls it needs. As for Gnome requiring systemd, it doesn't. It uses logind which is just one part of it. People keep implying that systemd is this huge monolithic init system. It isn't. It is made up of numerous individual daemons that you are free to include or not. For instance, you can use all of your current init scripts or upstart and just include logind if you want to use gnome-shell.
Just like distro's compile the kernel with what features they want to include or not, the same is true with systemd.
Exactly, it would seem this will simply emulate the behaviour for applications that expect it, sitting on a DBUS interface. Since it now seems the whole systemd mess will not go away, I would assume this is the "correct" approach to manage it.
I can only wish non-RH GNU/Linux distrost adopted the same approach.
There is no need to emulate. Any distro can implement what portions of systemd to include or to exclude by simply clicking on the portions they want and off the portions they don't want. Systemd isn't an all or nothing choice. The distros can use as much or as little of it as they please.
I am not arguing that teaching them to be self sufficient may not be the better choice, but both methods are still "helping." Sometimes self-sufficiency is beyond the realm give the nature of the person and the circumstances. For instance, providing direct help for to the victims of the Ebola outbreak is more useful than teaching them how to create their own treatment. Even if they had their own ability to create their own treatments, there are opportunity costs. Would developing these treatments in the sense of being self-sufficient outweigh the same effort being put into crop production?
While helping others to become self-sufficient, sometimes those to whom much have been given are called upon to help those without. Conceptually, teaching a man to fish is better than feeding him for a day, but sometimes one's excesses can relieve a lot of pain and suffering until that new skill is mastered.
Am I really? If I keep feeding them today, next day and next day (this time with 3 extra kids) then instead of helping them, I just taught them dependence.
Whether your assistance is in feeding them or in helping them to become self sufficient, it is still assistance. Now, if your motivation is to make them dependent on you, that is a different issue. However, there is no evidence to support that is Bill Gate's intention with his philanthropy.
You are tasked with providing a compelling argument as to why it doesn't matter.
Maybe if you can articulate how your or my spending habits relate to the topic of the spending habits of Google or Bill Gates, I could formulate an argument -- compelling or otherwise, but until then, there is no argument to make as they are unrelated topics except at the most superficial of levels.
Are there any fewer poor after Gates' pumped billions into help? Make a fire and man will be warm for rest of a day, set man on fire and he will be warm for rest of his life.
Whether you feed them for a day or the rest of their life, you are still helping them, are you not?
Their motivation, in this area and all of the other scattered stuff, like cars and drone delivery and rocket prizes and stuff is called, "R&D."
They aren't worried about foreseeable payback.
You can bet your ass they will stumble across some neat shit.
All that advertising stuff has given them deep pockets.
Bill Gates buys art and tries to fix hunger and poverty with his billions.
Google is more into implementing theoretical junk to see if there is something there or if there's something nearby.
Bill Gates is using his billions to help the poor. Google is using theirs to find the next big thing. It doesn't take Quantum AI to see the difference.
Really? Redhat network administrators didn't know systemd was coming in RH7? Then they should be fired. Now, debian administrators, that's a different story. That decision was just recently made. But even so, why rant about RH? It's been common knowledge for a long time that systemd was coming.
Microsoft Ireland would be constrained by european law from exporting the data. Is that not the case?
No. If that were the case, they would have said so. Instead they said, that it is Microsoft USAs data and the request needs to go through them. If it were European law that came into play, the US would already have the data as it is needed for a criminal investigation.
Effectivally, one Microsoft entity is arguing it is US property and the other is arguing it is Irish property. Neither wants to give the data up because it will have negative connotations to their subscribers. So, they are playing games.
I am not confusing the two. Microsoft Ireland says they can't give the data because it belongs to Microsoft USA. Microsoft USA says they can't give the data because it belongs to Microsoft Ireland. They both can't be right.
Actually, this same scenario happened with the banking industry and what the judge is proposing actually follows the international law and treaties that came out of it. In short, it doesn't matter where the assets are stored as to who has jurisdiction, but as to who has control over them
So there is a treaty convering funds in accounts held by international banks. Tell us why a company should be obligated by a treaty that doesn't apply to the industry in which it operates?
Because in modern banking, actual paper money isn't shipped back and forth, it is wired electronically and the treaty includes the records of transactions. Effectively, like the emails the warrant is wanting to get at.
Some of us do understand it. Others define it as a copyable bunch of electrons because that allows them to steal movies and TV shows and games without listening to their conscience.
Others, like myself, understand digital is still property, but do it anyway because our own countries don't show these things on anything like an acceptable schedule. And we partly mollify our consciences by buying the DVDs later.
It has nothing to do with stealing. It does have to do with taxation. Intellectual property isn't taxable like personal tangible property and real property is.One can sell the right to use intellectual property, but one cannot sell the intellectual property itself.
Also, this is not tangible personal property. It is a bunch of electrons.
Are you serious? Are you that much of an idiot?
There is a reason there is *intellectual* property law.
Property laws exist immaterial of what form the property takes -- trademarks and patents are all nothing more than ideas in our heads put to paper, and they are protected for a reason.
I can see this reasoning on another site, but I'd think the readers of Slashdot would have an understanding of what digital property entails.
The reason there is intellectual property law is precisely because the things covered under it are not tangilbe personal property.
Microsoft doesn't need to own the physical server. They have control over the content stored on it. Your local bank doesn't own your funds. It does, however, have control over those funds.
If you think possession of child pornography is legal in Ireland then I've got a bridge for you to buy. I'll make you buy it twice for bringing in a "think of the children" flawed argument in a ridiculous attempt to bolster your position.
You miss the point. What people are arguing for in their support of Microsoft is that content related to US criminal activiity would be off limits if the US company stored the content on an overseas server. Whether that content is about a mob hit, ponzi scheme, terrorist attack, and yes, even child porn, it would be off limits.
The simple point to remember in this case is that an individual is suspected of criminal activity in the US and it is believed his emails have evidence of such activity. Microsoft is refusing to turn those over, even though there is a court order to do so, on the grounds that the US lacks jurisdiction because Microsoft happened to store said emails in Ireland.
No, it won't. Europeans will still have the same protections they do under their laws. However, US citizens committing a crime in the US won't be able to store their data on foreign servers of American companies and have it safe from authorities. In otherwords, if a US crime is committed, it doesn't matter where the US company hosts its server farm, it is still under the control of that company and subject to the authorities.
You are incorrect. the case would impact Europian Microsoft customers as well. Indeed, the account in question is almost certainly held by a non-American.
Only if those European Microsoft customers broke a US law and used Microsoft to house the data about such criminal activity on their servers. The US still needed a warrant in this case to obtain the data in question. It would take a US court to tell Microsoft to turn over data on a foreign citizen and there would have to be cause to do that. So, it is likely that the only European Microsoft customers that would be effected are those that happen to break US laws.
But if an American visits a foreign country, they and their property are subject to the laws of that county. We expect the same of foreign visitors entering our country. And if that foreign countries data protection laws differ from those of the USA, they should still be honored.
Having some foreign government insist on the right to root around in their citizens possesions while in this country, either as a tourist or a refugee would open up a human rights as well as an intellectual property can of worms. Imagine an H-1B worker's home country insisting on receiving copies of all of their work product while employed here.
But the criminal in question didn't visit Ireland and leave his data there. Microsoft didn't visit Ireland, either, but it did send the data there. Also, this is not tangible personal property. It is a bunch of electrons.
As for the H-1B worker, that is a strawman argument and has nothing to do with this. Here is a concrete example of what is going on here. I steal a painting in the US and send it via FedEx to Amerstam where it sits in FedEx's hangar waiting to be picked up. The feds arrest me and ask FedEx to send the painting back for evidence. Should FedEx say no, because it is now in their possession in a foreign country? Before you answer, the courts have already answered it and said yes, FedEx would need to return it as long as it is still in their possession.
Or, lets say two child pornographers both store the pictures they have taken in the US (so US law is broken) on Google's servers and one of the pornographers pictures happen to reside on a server under Google's control in Ireland and the other on a server under Google's control in the US. Is guy who had the luck of his data being routed to Ireland off scott free while the other guy goes to jail, when both of these accounts and servers are under Google's control? While the courts haven't answered this question, they have done so with banking and found that US banks must still turn over seized assets of US bank holders even if those assets are now held in foreign countries. Most other countries also have the same laws, too.
So, the question really is whether or not a criminal should be able to use a US company to hide it's data just because the US company has a server farm somewhere other than the US?
Slashdot Mirror
The three services are actually needed.
For what? If you say "to bring more windowsisms to linux" then I can believe it. Otherwise, not so much.
The usefulness of logind can be argued, but centralized management of date/time and locale changes were long overdue. Linux is pretty much the only OS remaining, where application, if needed, can't really know if/when date/time or locale has changed.
Unix (not so much linux) has for a really long time been a multi-user system, where multiple users can use different locales and different time zones. The system itself always ran on UTC. UTC is not supposed to change. Users changing their locale need to log out and back in again. That works well enough for the expected frequency of such changes occurring and doesn't need lots of code to notify every running process AND lots of code in every running process to deal with the change.
As an engineering tradeoff, the Unix way makes sense to me. The poetterix way, not so much. So I don't really buy your "long overdue", no.
Maybe those three services are included because they were replicating the functionality that both upstart and other init methods already provided. Dealing with time zones, system clocks and login/shutdown wasn't something that only became available with systemd. If these three daemons are problematic, then it goes back much further than systemd.
The systemd-localed is simple: it provides the user with capability to change the locale on the fly (and applications with the ability to react on the locale change).
Locale settings are fine without system-level settings. What is wrong with application-specific LC_xxx settings? And why should I be interested in changing locale in the middle of a desktop session?
The systemd-timedated does almost the same for the date and time.
What?! Who the hell changes time on computers? This is not a $5 digital watch! Every reasonable system has got ntpd installed and is set to UTC. The rest is done by selecting the time zone you are in. And stay away from changing time zones by adjusting time! We are not in Windows world where time handling has been fucked up entirely.
And the systemd-logind is basically a dbus wrapper to provide access to log-out/shutdown/etc functions.
Why do I need a daemon to log out from a session?
Think outside the box. Maybe your linux system is embeded in the flight systems of an airliner or vehicle that really does need the capability of changing timezones. Maybe your linux system needs to communicate with other devices that don't deal with system clocks the same way or don't use UTC. And, as for logging out or shutdown, maybe you don't need it, but surely, it is foreseeable that some applications might benefit from it instead of having to each role their own solution.
Look at it this way, some use cases don't need cron, either, but it doesn't mean it isn't useful for those use cases that really do need it.
I would have expected that BSD would be deliriously happy that the evil gaze of Poettering hadn't alighted upon their operating system. Why would you voluntarily infest your system with his daemon spawn?
Because bloody systemd will be needed if you want to run some brain-dead Linux-only piece of crap software. That's why.
Emulating systemd allows that software to work on OpenBSD. On the other hand, emulating it means that (a) its working may remain somewhat on the sane side and (b) that emulation will only be installed if the port requires it, therefore limiting the damage.
And, FYI, OpenBSD could not care less about Poettering and his evil gaze.
Chances are that is false. What is much more likely is that one of the systemd modules, say logind might be required, but not all of systemd. Isn't that how software development is supposed to be -- use an existing library that provides the required functionality instead of everybody building their own version?
Except no one wants MS Windows methods of doing stuff. They've been trying to invent UNIX since the DOS days. Their latest OS is utter hell, so why do a tiny amount of Windows centric NIH kids get to fuck up almost every distro?
This is the biggest fuck up in Linux history, and it will force a mass migration to a BSD.
That's fine, because systemd is not the "windows" way and anybody claiming it is is just blowing smoke. While I prefer upstart to systemd, the reality is systemd is a bunch of individual modules (you know the linux way of one program for one task) that work together. However, when compiling it, you just set switches for the pieces you want to use. You don't have to use all of the modules and those that you do use will coexist with upstart and other init scripts.
There is a lot of fud about systemd, and like I said, it isn't my preference, but it isn't the end of the world that many people want you to believe.
Mebbe this will motivate some distro to do a similar; I, for one, would go for a distro without systemd nor Gnome, which I never use. Gnome is expendible. For those who like Gnome, why not do it this way?
There is no need on linux to a translation to system calls. Being built on the linux kernel it just makes the system calls it needs. As for Gnome requiring systemd, it doesn't. It uses logind which is just one part of it. People keep implying that systemd is this huge monolithic init system. It isn't. It is made up of numerous individual daemons that you are free to include or not. For instance, you can use all of your current init scripts or upstart and just include logind if you want to use gnome-shell.
Just like distro's compile the kernel with what features they want to include or not, the same is true with systemd.
Exactly, it would seem this will simply emulate the behaviour for applications that expect it, sitting on a DBUS interface. Since it now seems the whole systemd mess will not go away, I would assume this is the "correct" approach to manage it.
I can only wish non-RH GNU/Linux distrost adopted the same approach.
There is no need to emulate. Any distro can implement what portions of systemd to include or to exclude by simply clicking on the portions they want and off the portions they don't want. Systemd isn't an all or nothing choice. The distros can use as much or as little of it as they please.
Does Bill Gates have any credentials to show he is an expert in the field of teaching history?
Why fault the US liberals? The whole US economy is based on consumerism. Liberal and conservative both are guilty of over-consumption.
I am not arguing that teaching them to be self sufficient may not be the better choice, but both methods are still "helping." Sometimes self-sufficiency is beyond the realm give the nature of the person and the circumstances. For instance, providing direct help for to the victims of the Ebola outbreak is more useful than teaching them how to create their own treatment. Even if they had their own ability to create their own treatments, there are opportunity costs. Would developing these treatments in the sense of being self-sufficient outweigh the same effort being put into crop production?
While helping others to become self-sufficient, sometimes those to whom much have been given are called upon to help those without. Conceptually, teaching a man to fish is better than feeding him for a day, but sometimes one's excesses can relieve a lot of pain and suffering until that new skill is mastered.
Am I really? If I keep feeding them today, next day and next day (this time with 3 extra kids) then instead of helping them, I just taught them dependence.
Whether your assistance is in feeding them or in helping them to become self sufficient, it is still assistance. Now, if your motivation is to make them dependent on you, that is a different issue. However, there is no evidence to support that is Bill Gate's intention with his philanthropy.
It does matter. That's precisely why I posted it.
You are tasked with providing a compelling argument as to why it doesn't matter.
Maybe if you can articulate how your or my spending habits relate to the topic of the spending habits of Google or Bill Gates, I could formulate an argument -- compelling or otherwise, but until then, there is no argument to make as they are unrelated topics except at the most superficial of levels.
There is no difference.
I don't know what you spend your disposable income on, but I'm certain it's for stupid stuff.
You should, instead, be spending your money on cameras, guitars, and computers.
I like cameras, guitars, and computers.
It matters not what you or I spend our disposable income on. The issue brought up, was about how Bill Gates and Google spend their disposable income.
Are there any fewer poor after Gates' pumped billions into help? Make a fire and man will be warm for rest of a day, set man on fire and he will be warm for rest of his life.
Whether you feed them for a day or the rest of their life, you are still helping them, are you not?
Their motivation, in this area and all of the other scattered stuff, like cars and drone delivery and rocket prizes and stuff is called, "R&D."
They aren't worried about foreseeable payback.
You can bet your ass they will stumble across some neat shit.
All that advertising stuff has given them deep pockets.
Bill Gates buys art and tries to fix hunger and poverty with his billions.
Google is more into implementing theoretical junk to see if there is something there or if there's something nearby.
Bill Gates is using his billions to help the poor. Google is using theirs to find the next big thing. It doesn't take Quantum AI to see the difference.
Really? Redhat network administrators didn't know systemd was coming in RH7? Then they should be fired. Now, debian administrators, that's a different story. That decision was just recently made. But even so, why rant about RH? It's been common knowledge for a long time that systemd was coming.
Microsoft Ireland would be constrained by european law from exporting the data. Is that not the case?
No. If that were the case, they would have said so. Instead they said, that it is Microsoft USAs data and the request needs to go through them. If it were European law that came into play, the US would already have the data as it is needed for a criminal investigation.
Effectivally, one Microsoft entity is arguing it is US property and the other is arguing it is Irish property. Neither wants to give the data up because it will have negative connotations to their subscribers. So, they are playing games.
I am not confusing the two. Microsoft Ireland says they can't give the data because it belongs to Microsoft USA. Microsoft USA says they can't give the data because it belongs to Microsoft Ireland. They both can't be right.
So there is a treaty convering funds in accounts held by international banks. Tell us why a company should be obligated by a treaty that doesn't apply to the industry in which it operates?
Because in modern banking, actual paper money isn't shipped back and forth, it is wired electronically and the treaty includes the records of transactions. Effectively, like the emails the warrant is wanting to get at.
Some of us do understand it. Others define it as a copyable bunch of electrons because that allows them to steal movies and TV shows and games without listening to their conscience.
Others, like myself, understand digital is still property, but do it anyway because our own countries don't show these things on anything like an acceptable schedule. And we partly mollify our consciences by buying the DVDs later.
It has nothing to do with stealing. It does have to do with taxation. Intellectual property isn't taxable like personal tangible property and real property is.One can sell the right to use intellectual property, but one cannot sell the intellectual property itself.
Are you serious? Are you that much of an idiot?
There is a reason there is *intellectual* property law.
Property laws exist immaterial of what form the property takes -- trademarks and patents are all nothing more than ideas in our heads put to paper, and they are protected for a reason.
I can see this reasoning on another site, but I'd think the readers of Slashdot would have an understanding of what digital property entails.
The reason there is intellectual property law is precisely because the things covered under it are not tangilbe personal property.
Microsoft doesn't need to own the physical server. They have control over the content stored on it. Your local bank doesn't own your funds. It does, however, have control over those funds.
If you think possession of child pornography is legal in Ireland then I've got a bridge for you to buy. I'll make you buy it twice for bringing in a "think of the children" flawed argument in a ridiculous attempt to bolster your position.
You miss the point. What people are arguing for in their support of Microsoft is that content related to US criminal activiity would be off limits if the US company stored the content on an overseas server. Whether that content is about a mob hit, ponzi scheme, terrorist attack, and yes, even child porn, it would be off limits.
The simple point to remember in this case is that an individual is suspected of criminal activity in the US and it is believed his emails have evidence of such activity. Microsoft is refusing to turn those over, even though there is a court order to do so, on the grounds that the US lacks jurisdiction because Microsoft happened to store said emails in Ireland.
No, it won't. Europeans will still have the same protections they do under their laws. However, US citizens committing a crime in the US won't be able to store their data on foreign servers of American companies and have it safe from authorities. In otherwords, if a US crime is committed, it doesn't matter where the US company hosts its server farm, it is still under the control of that company and subject to the authorities.
You are incorrect. the case would impact Europian Microsoft customers as well. Indeed, the account in question is almost certainly held by a non-American.
Only if those European Microsoft customers broke a US law and used Microsoft to house the data about such criminal activity on their servers. The US still needed a warrant in this case to obtain the data in question. It would take a US court to tell Microsoft to turn over data on a foreign citizen and there would have to be cause to do that. So, it is likely that the only European Microsoft customers that would be effected are those that happen to break US laws.
But if an American visits a foreign country, they and their property are subject to the laws of that county. We expect the same of foreign visitors entering our country. And if that foreign countries data protection laws differ from those of the USA, they should still be honored.
Having some foreign government insist on the right to root around in their citizens possesions while in this country, either as a tourist or a refugee would open up a human rights as well as an intellectual property can of worms. Imagine an H-1B worker's home country insisting on receiving copies of all of their work product while employed here.
But the criminal in question didn't visit Ireland and leave his data there. Microsoft didn't visit Ireland, either, but it did send the data there. Also, this is not tangible personal property. It is a bunch of electrons.
As for the H-1B worker, that is a strawman argument and has nothing to do with this. Here is a concrete example of what is going on here. I steal a painting in the US and send it via FedEx to Amerstam where it sits in FedEx's hangar waiting to be picked up. The feds arrest me and ask FedEx to send the painting back for evidence. Should FedEx say no, because it is now in their possession in a foreign country? Before you answer, the courts have already answered it and said yes, FedEx would need to return it as long as it is still in their possession.
Or, lets say two child pornographers both store the pictures they have taken in the US (so US law is broken) on Google's servers and one of the pornographers pictures happen to reside on a server under Google's control in Ireland and the other on a server under Google's control in the US. Is guy who had the luck of his data being routed to Ireland off scott free while the other guy goes to jail, when both of these accounts and servers are under Google's control? While the courts haven't answered this question, they have done so with banking and found that US banks must still turn over seized assets of US bank holders even if those assets are now held in foreign countries. Most other countries also have the same laws, too.
So, the question really is whether or not a criminal should be able to use a US company to hide it's data just because the US company has a server farm somewhere other than the US?
Maybe the US should suspend all Microsoft contracts it has while Microsoft refuses to comply with the court order.