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.
I've had a job now for about 10 years where a large fraction of the time I wear a software engineer's hat. Looking back now, I can point to a lot of design decisions in the software I work on that made me go "WTF?" when I first saw them as a young'un, but after having to contend with them for a good number of years, and thinking about how I would do them differently, I've come to the conclusion that the original WTF may be ugly and could use some polish, but the decisionmaking that produced it was fundament
its the other way around. we used to have small, simple programs that did not take whole systems to build and gigs of mem to run in. things were easier to understand and concepts were not overdone a hundred times, just because 'reasons'.
now, we have software that can't be debugged well, people who are current software eng's have no attention span to fix bugs or do proper design, older guys who DO remember 'why' are no longer being hired and we can't seem to stand on our giants' shoulders anymore. again, because 'reasons'.
1) The only thing that systemd might do faster is boot. Since Linux servers are not booted that often, that is a trifling advantage, at best. Certainly not worth breaking everything that works.
2) Systemd does not always boot faster. Only under certain circumstances.
3) More resource intensive generally means slower on the same hardware. Systemd may boot faster, but it runs slower.
4) There are ways to improve boot speeds without breaking everything that works.
That's not what I am suggesting. Maybe the analogy was imperfect.
Systemd is like cars compared to horse carriages in early 1900s. They were a not-so-good alternative to the established method. Horse-based transportation was a mature solution which reached its limits, and cars at the time were a worse alternative in most ways.
I say, give it time. See if it would grow into something better. Flinging poo at systemd is like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car, back in the 1900s. True at the moment, but in ti
Flinging poo at systemd is like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car, back in the 1900s. True at the moment, but in time proven to be shortsighted.
Do you have credible proof that it will be proven to be shortsighted? If not, you might want to say the following, much less exciting statement:
"Flinging poo at systemd might be like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car"
Or do you believe in proof by analogy? By this proof methodology, you could have proven in 1944 that there won't be any nuclear bomb explosion next year, because a nuclear bomb is like the proof of Fermat's last theorem - it hasn't been built yet and won't be by next year.
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.
Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let me explain some of the problems that I've had with su.
Oh wait. I've never had problems with su. Ever. What is up with this???
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
its the other way around. we used to have small, simple programs that did not take whole systems to build and gigs of mem to run in. things were easier to understand and concepts were not overdone a hundred times, just because 'reasons'.
now, we have software that can't be debugged well, people who are current software eng's have no attention span to fix bugs or do proper design, older guys who DO remember 'why' are no longer being hired and we can't seem to stand on our giants' shoulders anymore. again, because 'reasons'.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah. Much like walking being a much simpler way to get anywhere, compared to driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing except that sometimes it's not fast enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to imply that systemd is faster? (Score:2)
1) The only thing that systemd might do faster is boot. Since Linux servers are not booted that often, that is a trifling advantage, at best. Certainly not worth breaking everything that works.
2) Systemd does not always boot faster. Only under certain circumstances.
3) More resource intensive generally means slower on the same hardware. Systemd may boot faster, but it runs slower.
4) There are ways to improve boot speeds without breaking everything that works.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what I am suggesting.
Maybe the analogy was imperfect.
Systemd is like cars compared to horse carriages in early 1900s. They were a not-so-good alternative to the established method.
Horse-based transportation was a mature solution which reached its limits, and cars at the time were a worse alternative in most ways.
I say, give it time. See if it would grow into something better. Flinging poo at systemd is like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car, back in the 1900s. True at the moment, but in ti
Re: (Score:2)
You mean it's the sensible thing to do?
When systemd reaches the level of, say, a 1930s car then get back to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Flinging poo at systemd is like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car, back in the 1900s. True at the moment, but in time proven to be shortsighted.
Do you have credible proof that it will be proven to be shortsighted? If not, you might want to say the following, much less exciting statement:
"Flinging poo at systemd might be like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car"
Or do you believe in proof by analogy? By this proof methodology, you could have proven in 1944 that there won't be any nuclear bomb explosion next year, because a nuclear bomb is like the proof of Fermat's last theorem - it hasn't been built yet and won't be by next year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently some people enjoy driving from the living room to the WC when they need to take a leak.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a driver's license.
And you of course missed the point.
Re: (Score:2)
This might sound strange, but I sure wish the younger generations would get over themselves and "grow up".
No, I think this more has to do with a combination of hubris and Red Hat capturing a number of open source utility projects.
Re: (Score:2)
This might sound strange, but I sure wish the younger generations would get over themselves and "grow up".
No, I think this more has to do with a combination of hubris and Red Hat capturing a number of open source utility projects.
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)