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.
I remember about this other guy from Germany who was very certain about himself and was very persuasive. He had a whole bunch of radical ideas that upset the existing order and had tons of energy to get them implemented. His followers (and he had hordes of very fanatical followers) were quick to idolize him and thwart anyone who would dare to disagree. Things were going to be So Much Better in this new system, so the struggles to get there would be well worth the cost.
In the long run, he's not going to be satisfied until he's created his own OS, kernel and all because he calls anything he didn't write a "broken concept," whatever that is, and does his best to shove his version down everybody's throat. And, since his version is far more complex, far more pervasive and much, much harder to use or maintain, the community suffers. I do wish he would get off the pot and start developing the One True (Pottering) kernel so that the rest of the world can go back to ignoring him.
In the long run, he's not going to be satisfied until he's created his own OS, kernel and all because he calls anything he didn't write a "broken concept," whatever that is
How about we get someone to fork the Systemd that distros have adopted and start working on fixing it,
paring it down, and removing unneeded functionality into separate optional related projects?
Systemd out of the box is modular and optional. You can replace the modules with other modules of your choosing. The people complaining about systemd however don't want modules that communicate they want loosely integrated commands which use the command line. You could write a module that also had a solid command line interface but then that looks a lot like systemd.
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: (Score:0)
I remember about this other guy from Germany who was very certain about himself and was very persuasive. He had a whole bunch of radical ideas that upset the existing order and had tons of energy to get them implemented. His followers (and he had hordes of very fanatical followers) were quick to idolize him and thwart anyone who would dare to disagree. Things were going to be So Much Better in this new system, so the struggles to get there would be well worth the cost.
I recall also that his big new syste
The way this should end (Score:4, Insightful)
In the long run, he's not going to be satisfied until he's created his own OS, kernel and all because he calls anything he didn't write a "broken concept," whatever that is, and does his best to shove his version down everybody's throat. And, since his version is far more complex, far more pervasive and much, much harder to use or maintain, the community suffers. I do wish he would get off the pot and start developing the One True (Pottering) kernel so that the rest of the world can go back to ignoring him.
Re: (Score:2)
In the long run, he's not going to be satisfied until he's created his own OS, kernel and all because he calls anything he didn't write a "broken concept," whatever that is
How about we get someone to fork the Systemd that distros have adopted and start working on fixing it, paring it down, and removing unneeded functionality into separate optional related projects?
Re: (Score:2)
Systemd out of the box is modular and optional. You can replace the modules with other modules of your choosing. The people complaining about systemd however don't want modules that communicate they want loosely integrated commands which use the command line. You could write a module that also had a solid command line interface but then that looks a lot like systemd.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should arrange a meet between Poettering and Terry A. Davis (TempleOS!)