Here's a list of actual problems that should have been solved instead of introducing the nightmare of systemd upon the Linux (Debian specifically) world:
- Forceful, unconditional kernel operations. When I say "unmount this filesystem," I'm not asking a question. When I say "terminate this process," I expect the process to be removed from memory and the runqueue, regardless of consequences.
- When I say "reboot" I mean "reboot." Hangs are not okay, ever.
- Actual, real soft NFS failures. Do not hang duri
I disagree on SELinux, not because its interface is well-designed (it is not), but because it is needed for some things.
On the rest, I fully agree. And instead, systemd solves things that were already solved and does it badly. The amount of stupidity in that decision is staggering.
That is not true, unfortunately. In some environments you need two effective lines of defense and sometimes SELinux is the only thing that can provide the second one.
Also, any proper engineer knows that mistakes do happen and that the proper way to deal with that is redundancy, in software usually called "dense in depth".
So your solution is that rather than using libraries in a project, that each project should rewrite support for that feature from scratch? And you think this is going to increase security? Dozens of implementations of feature X that are only tested as much as the single project that uses that code. Reimplementation after reimplementation, no one in one project looking at the code in a different project because they don't share any - it's all uniquely written.
I really struggle to reconcile the Slashdot view that systemd is total crap and the fact that every major Linux distro has switched to it.
It seems like Lennart is an asshole with no clue about security, but despite that it does seem to offer enough for people who sell Linux, people who offer commercial support for it, seem to think it's better.
Red Hat said it hadn't affected sales when they did an interview here.
And then you could look at why people use Linux and not Windows. And you would not be surprised at the masses willing to run trash and the smaller group that finds it unacceptable.
Seriously, have you thought even one minute about what you just posted?
Sure, just like the tiny group of Slackware users who always argued that it was better because of its "more pure UNIX approach", talking about how package managers are essentially garbage (Slackware's package manager essentially unpacks a tarball and says good luck; removal wasn't a feature last time I saw this argument surface).
I really struggle to reconcile the Slashdot view that systemd is total crap and the fact that every major Linux distro has switched to it.
The Linux ecosystem is not sane. Redhat wanted more control of Linux so they pushed systemd. GNOME developers are easily distracted by shiny things (as proof I submit GNOME 3) so they went ahead and made GNOME dependent on it. And then Debian (which most Linux distributions are based upon) adopted systemd because GNOME depended on it. There were some other excuses, but that's the biggest reason. You can blame Redhat and Debian for this clusterfuck, and really, only a small handful of people in the Debian community are actually responsible for Debian's involvement. Debian's leaders were split almost down the middle on whether they should go to systemd. This is why major changes should require a 2/3 vote (or more!)
Slashdot bitching is not really a good indication of the Linux community in general. It's certainly not an indication of what people who know what they're doing (like distro maintainers) feel.
The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the
expense of it.
-- Josh Billings
Problems with Linux that should have been solved (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a list of actual problems that should have been solved instead of introducing the nightmare of systemd upon the Linux (Debian specifically) world:
- Forceful, unconditional kernel operations. When I say "unmount this filesystem," I'm not asking a question. When I say "terminate this process," I expect the process to be removed from memory and the runqueue, regardless of consequences.
- When I say "reboot" I mean "reboot." Hangs are not okay, ever.
- Actual, real soft NFS failures. Do not hang duri
Re:Problems with Linux that should have been solve (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree on SELinux, not because its interface is well-designed (it is not), but because it is needed for some things.
On the rest, I fully agree. And instead, systemd solves things that were already solved and does it badly. The amount of stupidity in that decision is staggering.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not true, unfortunately. In some environments you need two effective lines of defense and sometimes SELinux is the only thing that can provide the second one.
Also, any proper engineer knows that mistakes do happen and that the proper way to deal with that is redundancy, in software usually called "dense in depth".
Re: (Score:1)
So your solution is that rather than using libraries in a project, that each project should rewrite support for that feature from scratch? And you think this is going to increase security? Dozens of implementations of feature X that are only tested as much as the single project that uses that code. Reimplementation after reimplementation, no one in one project looking at the code in a different project because they don't share any - it's all uniquely written.
Great idea. Dist that out now!
Re: (Score:2)
I really struggle to reconcile the Slashdot view that systemd is total crap and the fact that every major Linux distro has switched to it.
It seems like Lennart is an asshole with no clue about security, but despite that it does seem to offer enough for people who sell Linux, people who offer commercial support for it, seem to think it's better.
Red Hat said it hadn't affected sales when they did an interview here.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you could look at why people use Linux and not Windows. And you would not be surprised at the masses willing to run trash and the smaller group that finds it unacceptable.
Seriously, have you thought even one minute about what you just posted?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, just like the tiny group of Slackware users who always argued that it was better because of its "more pure UNIX approach", talking about how package managers are essentially garbage (Slackware's package manager essentially unpacks a tarball and says good luck; removal wasn't a feature last time I saw this argument surface).
Re:Problems with Linux that should have been solve (Score:5, Informative)
I really struggle to reconcile the Slashdot view that systemd is total crap and the fact that every major Linux distro has switched to it.
The Linux ecosystem is not sane. Redhat wanted more control of Linux so they pushed systemd. GNOME developers are easily distracted by shiny things (as proof I submit GNOME 3) so they went ahead and made GNOME dependent on it. And then Debian (which most Linux distributions are based upon) adopted systemd because GNOME depended on it. There were some other excuses, but that's the biggest reason. You can blame Redhat and Debian for this clusterfuck, and really, only a small handful of people in the Debian community are actually responsible for Debian's involvement. Debian's leaders were split almost down the middle on whether they should go to systemd. This is why major changes should require a 2/3 vote (or more!)
Re: (Score:2)
"Redhat wanted more control of Linux so they pushed systemd" is "insightful?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
people who offer commercial support for it, seem to think it's better.
There's your reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot bitching is not really a good indication of the Linux community in general.
It's certainly not an indication of what people who know what they're doing (like distro maintainers) feel.