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.
Poettering is so very wrong on many things, having a superficial and shallow understanding of why Unix is designed the way it is. He is just a hobbyist, not a hardened sys admin with years of experience. It's almost time to throw popular Linux distros in the garbage can and just go to BSD
Poettering is very productive and he brings a lot of new code to the Linux ecosystem. That's why his often controversial projects remain so successful: at the end of the day, he is the guy who delivers.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday August 29, 2015 @12:53PM (#50416235)
He bring new code, but brings nothing new. That's called re-inventing the wheel, and in Poettering's case, the old wheels worked better and didn't go flat as often, and were easier for average people to fix.
He bring new code, but brings nothing new. That's called re-inventing the wheel, and in Poettering's case, the old wheels worked better and didn't go flat as often, and were easier for average people to fix.
Oh come on, admit it. Unix always had the reputation that the "average person" couldn't do anything with it.
What we're dealing with now is something that neither "average person" nor "master geek" find easy to fix.
What we're dealing with now is something that neither "average person" nor "master geek" find easy to fix.
This is the best summary I've seen of the whole systemd thing. They try to Apple-ize linux but it's half-baked and neither more user-friendly or more reliable than the stuff they replace.
``They try to Apple-ize linux but it's half-baked and neither more user-friendly or more reliable than the stuff they replace.
I've had the same complaint about CUPS -- Apple's screwball replacement for simple lpd -- for years. (And it's not just the Linux version that, IMHO, sucks. I recently had to live through using CUPS in an Apple shop and getting hard copy of anything was a real time sink.) I have a hard time figuring out what problem CUPS was intended to solve. All I can come up with was that it was shiny and new whereas lpd was old (but reliable). For my trusty, rock-solid HP LaserJet, I keep an old Linux distribution running so I can set it up using LPRng. A couple of lines in a text file and -- Voila! -- I have a print queue. Time spent^Wwasted in CUPS' GUI never seemed to make anything work.
Systemd and well, just about anything Poettering touches is more obtuse than what it replaces, has commands that are difficult to remember, require more typing (making them prone to typos), and don't make much sense. Am I looking for the status of "servicename" or am I looking for the status of "servicename.target"? What's the difference? The guy's pushing me back to Slackware. Or, as someone above mentioned, BSD.
Nothing that Poettering is doing now addresses "The problem".
That's any of the usual FUD that are claimed to be problems for actual consumer end users. That is perhaps the single most frustrating aspect of his current nonsense. He's insisted on making sweeping changes to the parts that don't need fixing and are the least relevant to "the problem".
LP's previous fix was done to the sound system pulseaudio. Similarly with majestic scope and intentions. Has it changed what I can do with sound? No, not really.
Its still not complete.... at least from the user perspective looking inward. I have an audio slider on my Fedora Desktop. there are still several audio mixer devices that not found/detected. How about we ask LP to finish that work (realized by a finished product in redhat desktop product) rather than "fixing" everything else.
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: (Score:4, Interesting)
Poettering is so very wrong on many things, having a superficial and shallow understanding of why Unix is designed the way it is. He is just a hobbyist, not a hardened sys admin with years of experience. It's almost time to throw popular Linux distros in the garbage can and just go to BSD
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
He bring new code, but brings nothing new. That's called re-inventing the wheel, and in Poettering's case, the old wheels worked better and didn't go flat as often, and were easier for average people to fix.
Re: (Score:2)
He bring new code, but brings nothing new. That's called re-inventing the wheel, and in Poettering's case, the old wheels worked better and didn't go flat as often, and were easier for average people to fix.
Oh come on, admit it. Unix always had the reputation that the "average person" couldn't do anything with it.
What we're dealing with now is something that neither "average person" nor "master geek" find easy to fix.
Re: (Score:1)
Why did you AC this? It's right on and you should be getting credit...
Re: (Score:3)
What we're dealing with now is something that neither "average person" nor "master geek" find easy to fix.
This is the best summary I've seen of the whole systemd thing. They try to Apple-ize linux but it's half-baked and neither more user-friendly or more reliable than the stuff they replace.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
I've had the same complaint about CUPS -- Apple's screwball replacement for simple lpd -- for years. (And it's not just the Linux version that, IMHO, sucks. I recently had to live through using CUPS in an Apple shop and getting hard copy of anything was a real time sink.) I have a hard time figuring out what problem CUPS was intended to solve. All I can come up with was that it was shiny and new whereas lpd was old (but reliable). For my trusty, rock-solid HP LaserJet, I keep an old Linux distribution running so I can set it up using LPRng. A couple of lines in a text file and -- Voila! -- I have a print queue. Time spent^Wwasted in CUPS' GUI never seemed to make anything work.
Systemd and well, just about anything Poettering touches is more obtuse than what it replaces, has commands that are difficult to remember, require more typing (making them prone to typos), and don't make much sense. Am I looking for the status of "servicename" or am I looking for the status of "servicename.target"? What's the difference? The guy's pushing me back to Slackware. Or, as someone above mentioned, BSD.
Re: (Score:2)
Might not be an important point, but CUPS existed for years before Apple bought it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing that Poettering is doing now addresses "The problem".
That's any of the usual FUD that are claimed to be problems for actual consumer end users. That is perhaps the single most frustrating aspect of his current nonsense. He's insisted on making sweeping changes to the parts that don't need fixing and are the least relevant to "the problem".
How about previous work.. Is that done? (Score:2)