I read them but they are just a load of meaningless diatribes but i see you say that LP is a fine programmer producing readable code and has skill.
"Exactly lol. Linux only. Not portable. " - yes, thats the point. until the other OSs implement things like cgroups, it has zero chance of being portable.
"Lennart actively pushed Gnome to use systemd, the forum threads are still available if you want to find them." - he provided them with a library to avoid logind. So were you offering to maintain the unmaintained ConsoleKit for Gnome to use?
"If the init system dictates what logging system you must use, then that's poor design. " - i don't see why other than its another vague way of trying to damn the far better logging system.
"Also, corrupt binary logs are harder to read than corrupt text logs." - grasping at straws, if a file is completely splattered with binary zeroes then it is unreadable no matter what format it was before.
"It's full of self-contradictions" - only because you cherry picked phrases from the answers and didn't give the full context
"The "biggest myths" page is an example of what Karl Marx referred to as the dialectic (which to Marx meant BS, rather than an approach to the truth)." - Dictionary definition of "dialectic" - discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth" and that describes the Myths page perfectly
He was asking about "kdbus" - your response indicates your level of comprehension (lack thereof) and makes the rest of your post worthless (not even a good troll).
"You seem to be making the tacit assumption that everything works perfectly." - i said "better" not perfect as that is impossible. Ted Ts'o comments are fine but i don't get the "they don't listen" bit, if they didn't you wouldn't still be able to start your binaries with your current init scripts or have logs forwarded to syslog etc.
its more of an issue in USA when you have long distances to travel. i always find i'm more tired after a long journey in a small engined car because the comfort levels are better in a larger engined car but if you are doing short journeys its not an issue.
I think you are really tilting at windmills. Yes, there can be solutions and work arounds found for most if not all problems. I'd rather have a system that does it better without having to resort to scripts all over the place to make up for deficiencies in the system.
The whole of your post is all knee-jerk and full of the ignorant shit that is always poured out by the anti-mob. Its about time you got a new record or moved to Devuan or similar.
I've not got a problem with it, its sounds like it might be good but needs a lot of stress testing once it near inclusion. i was just altering the anti-mob to the next thing to be anti about.:o)
Does that mean you went to www.linuxfromscratch.org and downloaded and compiled it all? thats the only way your "how I want my system to work (not how some other person thinks it should...)" would work in reality.
"The configuration files for the programs differ little when systemd is involved." who is talking about them? I'm talking about systemd config files to start services etc
"The startup scripts are intended to go away, and be replaced by unit files, which are indeed easier to write than init scripts as they are simply a collection of variables." - they have gone but systemd allows you to still run them if you wish to configure it so. you have a very simplistic idea of a unit file if you think they are just full of variables
"They are organized into sections segregated by square brackets like a windows ini file, but AFAICT the names of the variables are all globally unique anyway (corrections welcome) so you could reasonably just stuff a unit file into a script that would suck it into the environment and then do stuff based on the unit file to implement a really dumb shell script that would be more difficult to customize than what we have now — init scripts which can implement as much functionality as desired." I know what the configuration files look like and there is bugger all chance of putting an execute bit on it and it working as a sysvinit run script. Again, there is more to unit files than "variables"
systemd unit file definition "A unit configuration file encodes information about a service, a socket, a device, a mount point, an automount point, a swap file or partition, a start-up target, a watched file system path, a timer controlled and supervised by systemd, a temporary system state snapshot, a resource management slice or a group of externally created processes. "
"Several competing init systems which didn't bring baggage with them already existed, but Lennart is a real NIH kind of guy so he didn't start with one of those." if he used one of those then he'd be bringing baggage into the mix. He already had the bare bones of a new init written before it morphed in systemd. Nothing wrong with a clean slate now and again.
I think you need to read up about cgroups - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - or are you saying cgroups are a solution looking for a problem?
"Most distributions use standard init script libraries where such initialization can take place." -not really, you can't always transfer a script from one distro to another and expect it to work without modification which is another problem systemd has addressed
"Systemd makes it easier for distro maintainers to write startup scripts, which is something a lot of them wanted" - don't you mean configuration files like unit, target and service files? Why would they be using startup scripts, one of the main points was to get rid of scripts.
"Poor understanding of interfaces by the lead developers." - thats a new one - where did you get that from, give us some backup to see what you mean.
"Poor understanding of portability by the lead developers." - portable to where? its a linux system.
"Poor understanding of separation of concerns." - eh? expand, please
"Scope creep (there is no reason Gnome should depend on systemd)." - thats Gnomes problem, LP issued a library to allow Gnome to avoid using logind but GNOME decided not to use it.
"Binary files are a symptom of idiocy......more specifically, binary/text is not something that should be decided by the init system." only the journal has an element of binary and as a journal, it shits all over syslog/rsyslog with better content. Don't try the "corruption" argument as ALL file types can be made unreadable when corrupted.
I think you need to read the Systemd Biggest Myths page.
yep, i'm getting lazy. it gets boring reading the same old inaccurate crap about systemd.
You didn't make any arguments to answer, you just made some vague comments and predictions with no substance that suits your opinion. Now who is getting lazy or have you run out of anti-systemd comments that haven't been refuted?
i've got no problem with people who do not like systemd (in the same way i don't like liver) but when they come out with crap and lies to justify it then it gets tedious.
"There is an issue with systemd though. No other system manager, be it launchd, or any other brand has network connectivity where it is set to receive data. With systemd being this huge blob of code, it wouldn't be far-fetched to see a remote root hole in it, which would cause widespread compromise." yuou need to read about it more until you understand it, it just looks like you've just been reading the inaccurate posts of the anti-mob
"Has systemd actually seen a code audit? With all this new, relatively untested code, it is only a matter of time before it is exploited." - its open source, go and do your own code audit. And its not that untested either.
"The reason I don't use systemd isn't fear of old code, but basic security practices. I don't seem to see any focus on security when it comes to systemd, and because of that, it is not an acceptable product when it comes to enterprise production systems." - just where do you get your information from?
Slashdot Mirror
You'll have to be supportive as for some ACs, it is probably the biggest achievement they'll ever attain
they still work but at a much reduced capacity so if you had double the panels you usually require, you should be ok-ish.
Its only a disappointment because it doesn't agree with you.
I read them but they are just a load of meaningless diatribes but i see you say that LP is a fine programmer producing readable code and has skill.
"Exactly lol. Linux only. Not portable. " - yes, thats the point. until the other OSs implement things like cgroups, it has zero chance of being portable.
"Lennart actively pushed Gnome to use systemd, the forum threads are still available if you want to find them." - he provided them with a library to avoid logind. So were you offering to maintain the unmaintained ConsoleKit for Gnome to use?
"If the init system dictates what logging system you must use, then that's poor design. " - i don't see why other than its another vague way of trying to damn the far better logging system.
"Also, corrupt binary logs are harder to read than corrupt text logs." - grasping at straws, if a file is completely splattered with binary zeroes then it is unreadable no matter what format it was before.
"It's full of self-contradictions" - only because you cherry picked phrases from the answers and didn't give the full context
"The "biggest myths" page is an example of what Karl Marx referred to as the dialectic (which to Marx meant BS, rather than an approach to the truth)." - Dictionary definition of "dialectic" - discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth" and that describes the Myths page perfectly
"I can read code. When systemd writes good code, I'll support it." - can you provide us with your code reviews or just point out the "bad" code?
you've just proved you don't know anything about systemd
He was asking about "kdbus" - your response indicates your level of comprehension (lack thereof) and makes the rest of your post worthless (not even a good troll).
"You seem to be making the tacit assumption that everything works perfectly." - i said "better" not perfect as that is impossible.
Ted Ts'o comments are fine but i don't get the "they don't listen" bit, if they didn't you wouldn't still be able to start your binaries with your current init scripts or have logs forwarded to syslog etc.
the post was not worth a point by point rebuttal, its just the same drivel that has been rebutted many times before
its more of an issue in USA when you have long distances to travel. i always find i'm more tired after a long journey in a small engined car because the comfort levels are better in a larger engined car but if you are doing short journeys its not an issue.
You can always set up your own AntiSystemd or SysVinit conference to counter.
the section "Employers with the most hackers" says 46% RedHat
I think you are really tilting at windmills. Yes, there can be solutions and work arounds found for most if not all problems. I'd rather have a system that does it better without having to resort to scripts all over the place to make up for deficiencies in the system.
The whole of your post is all knee-jerk and full of the ignorant shit that is always poured out by the anti-mob. Its about time you got a new record or moved to Devuan or similar.
I've not got a problem with it, its sounds like it might be good but needs a lot of stress testing once it near inclusion. i was just altering the anti-mob to the next thing to be anti about. :o)
Does that mean you went to www.linuxfromscratch.org and downloaded and compiled it all? thats the only way your "how I want my system to work (not how some other person thinks it should...)" would work in reality.
This seems to say more than what you think were the reasons for adoption. https://wiki.debian.org/Debate...
"The configuration files for the programs differ little when systemd is involved." who is talking about them? I'm talking about systemd config files to start services etc
"The startup scripts are intended to go away, and be replaced by unit files, which are indeed easier to write than init scripts as they are simply a collection of variables." - they have gone but systemd allows you to still run them if you wish to configure it so. you have a very simplistic idea of a unit file if you think they are just full of variables
"They are organized into sections segregated by square brackets like a windows ini file, but AFAICT the names of the variables are all globally unique anyway (corrections welcome) so you could reasonably just stuff a unit file into a script that would suck it into the environment and then do stuff based on the unit file to implement a really dumb shell script that would be more difficult to customize than what we have now — init scripts which can implement as much functionality as desired." I know what the configuration files look like and there is bugger all chance of putting an execute bit on it and it working as a sysvinit run script. Again, there is more to unit files than "variables"
systemd unit file definition "A unit configuration file encodes information about a service, a socket, a device, a mount point, an automount point, a swap file or partition, a start-up target, a watched file system path, a timer controlled and supervised by systemd, a temporary system state snapshot, a resource management slice or a group of externally created processes. "
"Several competing init systems which didn't bring baggage with them already existed, but Lennart is a real NIH kind of guy so he didn't start with one of those." if he used one of those then he'd be bringing baggage into the mix. He already had the bare bones of a new init written before it morphed in systemd. Nothing wrong with a clean slate now and again.
I think you need to read up about cgroups - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - or are you saying cgroups are a solution looking for a problem?
"Most distributions use standard init script libraries where such initialization can take place." -not really, you can't always transfer a script from one distro to another and expect it to work without modification which is another problem systemd has addressed
"Systemd makes it easier for distro maintainers to write startup scripts, which is something a lot of them wanted" - don't you mean configuration files like unit, target and service files? Why would they be using startup scripts, one of the main points was to get rid of scripts.
"Poor understanding of interfaces by the lead developers." - thats a new one - where did you get that from, give us some backup to see what you mean.
"Poor understanding of portability by the lead developers." - portable to where? its a linux system.
"Poor understanding of separation of concerns." - eh? expand, please
"Scope creep (there is no reason Gnome should depend on systemd)." - thats Gnomes problem, LP issued a library to allow Gnome to avoid using logind but GNOME decided not to use it.
"Binary files are a symptom of idiocy......more specifically, binary/text is not something that should be decided by the init system." only the journal has an element of binary and as a journal, it shits all over syslog/rsyslog with better content. Don't try the "corruption" argument as ALL file types can be made unreadable when corrupted.
I think you need to read the Systemd Biggest Myths page.
yep, i'm getting lazy. it gets boring reading the same old inaccurate crap about systemd.
You didn't make any arguments to answer, you just made some vague comments and predictions with no substance that suits your opinion. Now who is getting lazy or have you run out of anti-systemd comments that haven't been refuted?
i've got no problem with people who do not like systemd (in the same way i don't like liver) but when they come out with crap and lies to justify it then it gets tedious.
read this to update yourself http://enotty.pipebreaker.pl/2...
"There is an issue with systemd though. No other system manager, be it launchd, or any other brand has network connectivity where it is set to receive data. With systemd being this huge blob of code, it wouldn't be far-fetched to see a remote root hole in it, which would cause widespread compromise." yuou need to read about it more until you understand it, it just looks like you've just been reading the inaccurate posts of the anti-mob
"Has systemd actually seen a code audit? With all this new, relatively untested code, it is only a matter of time before it is exploited." - its open source, go and do your own code audit. And its not that untested either.
"The reason I don't use systemd isn't fear of old code, but basic security practices. I don't seem to see any focus on security when it comes to systemd, and because of that, it is not an acceptable product when it comes to enterprise production systems." - just where do you get your information from?
"are systemd service descriptor files distribution independent?" see Point 21 here, it might answer your question. http://0pointer.de/blog/projec...
"A distinction with no difference." - how little you know