Lennart Poettering's long story short: "`su` is really a broken concept
Declaring established concepts as broken so you can "fix" them.
Su is not a broken concept; it's a long well-established fundamental of BSD Unix/Linux. You need a shell with some commands to be run with additional privileges in the original user's context.
If you need a full login you invoke 'su -' or 'sudo bash -'
Deciding what a full login comprises is the shell's responsibility, not your init system's job.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday August 29, 2015 @11:55AM (#50415925)
Just like he considers exit statuses, stderr, and syslog "broken concepts." That is why systemd supports them so poorly. He just doesn't understand why those things are critical. An su system that doesn't properly log to syslog is a serious security problem.
He did say something about this. It was taken as a personal attack, and now linus just doesn't care. I imagine that there is a lot of internal politics that we are not privy to. After being forced to use systemd with RHEL 7.0, it is obvious that systemd did not "win" on technical merits.
So, I get marked troll for pointing out that a lying troll is a lying troll. Way to go anti-systemd loons.
No, Poetering does not "consider exit statuses, stderr, and syslog "broken concepts."", that's why systemd works so well with exit statuses, stderr and syslog, unlike sysvinit which throws stderr on the console where no one will see it and has no way of checking the status of launched daemons.
That's much better than systemd where messages typically don't make it to the journal.
with systemd the only times messages don't make it to the journal is when either: 1. the unit file explicitly says to send the messages to the console or 2. an init script is being used and it ends the messages somewhere else
in both cases systemd does exactly what sysvinit does.
The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the
expense of it.
-- Josh Billings
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Lennart Poettering's long story short: "`su` is really a broken concept
Declaring established concepts as broken so you can "fix" them.
Su is not a broken concept; it's a long well-established fundamental of BSD Unix/Linux. You need a shell with some commands to be run with additional privileges in the original user's context.
If you need a full login you invoke 'su -' or 'sudo bash -'
Deciding what a full login comprises is the shell's responsibility, not your init system's job.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Just like he considers exit statuses, stderr, and syslog "broken concepts." That is why systemd supports them so poorly. He just doesn't understand why those things are critical. An su system that doesn't properly log to syslog is a serious security problem.
Re: (Score:2)
He did say something about this. It was taken as a personal attack, and now linus just doesn't care. I imagine that there is a lot of internal politics that we are not privy to. After being forced to use systemd with RHEL 7.0, it is obvious that systemd did not "win" on technical merits.
Re: (Score:1)
So, I get marked troll for pointing out that a lying troll is a lying troll. Way to go anti-systemd loons.
No, Poetering does not "consider exit statuses, stderr, and syslog "broken concepts."", that's why systemd works so well with exit statuses, stderr and syslog, unlike sysvinit which throws stderr on the console where no one will see it and has no way of checking the status of launched daemons.
Re: (Score:1)
That's much better than systemd where messages typically don't make it to the journal.
with systemd the only times messages don't make it to the journal is when either:
1. the unit file explicitly says to send the messages to the console
or
2. an init script is being used and it ends the messages somewhere else
in both cases systemd does exactly what sysvinit does.