Wayland 1.7.0 Marks an Important Release 189
jones_supa writes: The 1.7.0 release of Wayland is now available for download. The project thanks all who have contributed, and especially the desktop environments and client applications that now converse using Wayland. In an official announcement from Bryce Harrington of Samsung, he says the Wayland protocol may be considered 'done' but that doesn't mean there's not work to be done. A bigger importance is now given to testing, documentation, and bugfixing. As Wayland is maturing, we are also getting closer to the point where the big Linux distros will eventually start integrating it to their operating system.
Great, when will I use it? (Score:1)
I keep hearing about Wayland release this, and Wayland release that. That's all great - keep releasing new versions, that's progress. But I want to know, when can I install a GNU/Linux distro and start using Wayland. I know, it's next year, but we'll said that for a couple of years now and I'm running out of patience.
Re:Great, when will I use it? (Score:5, Informative)
You can use Wayland in Fedora today: http://fedoramagazine.org/gnom... [fedoramagazine.org]
Re: Great, when will I use it? (Score:1)
Re: Great, when will I use it? (Score:2)
Redhat is based on Fedora. CentOS is as well - while CentOS base is the same as Redhat, they also take other Fedora features, such as Xen, when it's useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Fedora is based on Red Hat. RHEL is another operating system also based on Red Hat. CentOS is based on RHEL, so it's a descendant of Red Hat but not of Fedora.
Nope. Red Hat used to be a linux distribution, but now it's a company. Fedora is where features are tested before they get into RHEL, and CentOS is based on RHEL. But Red Hat Linux isn't a thing any more.
Re: (Score:2)
One may well think of the relationship between RHEL and Fedora as similar to the one between Ubuntu and Debian.
Fedora is as close to bleeding edge as you can get without going rolling release, and a major testbed for what RH will put into RHEL down the road.
Also means that if you can get your project to become part of the Fedora install set you have pretty much made it...
Re: (Score:3)
FYI you may want to try xpra (not wayland, but still). It's better than X forwarding, but operates on principles that translate to the Wayland stack if you dig into it.
Besides, I know portions of NCAR use VirtualGL (at least last I was involved). It does some stuff Xpra doesn't and currently only works with an X stack, but again it operates on principles that don't really intrinsically use the X11 network features.
Of course you may simply be referring to the fact that such approaches has not yet evolved i
Documentation (Score:3)
That's the right way to do it. They use pelican, xmlto with some customized XSLT and graphviz for maintainable high-level diagrams.
Pretty cool. So far I have only used sphinx (and doxygen before), but these days there are a lot of great documentation options out there.
Remoting status using Wayland? (Score:3, Interesting)
After it was announced a year or two ago, I have heard nothing about RDP support in Wayland. Is it getting to the point that Wayland will have first-class support for transparently remoting apps with RDP? Anyone know the status on this? There's precious little info about this on the interwebs, and no real information on what the workflow looks like, say with ssh forwarding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remoting should be done at the toolkit level. This is where it belong. Similarly to sftp, gtkclient->ssh->intertubes->ssh->gtkapp
in practice you would call "gtkclient user@host:/path/to/gtk/application" which would connect the ssh pipes, set envar GTK_BACKEND to "pipe" and run the app. Gtk api get serialized both way, piped through ssh and run locally on your gtkclient which use what ever display backend your desktop is set to. This way you get the absolute minimal network traffics with zero lag
Re: (Score:2)
That's just priceless. We've gone from completely ignoring the fact that RDP has taken the world by storm in the last 20 years to really stupid alternate approaches.
You could't create more Unix fragmentation if that's what you were actually trying for.
Re: (Score:2)
We've moved from displaying remote applications from the xlib level over ssh, to the toolkit level over ssh (as parent described). It's Unix moving forward, finally.
Microsoft's proprietary RDP protocol or alternatives such as VNC work differently (and usually pretty slow, since they work similarly to xlib, passing compressed bitmap images over the wire). If you want a remote desktop and your network link is fast enough, that's fine, but for most cases, toolkit-over-ssh is more secure and efficient.
Re: (Score:1)
Microsoft's proprietary RDP protocol or alternatives such as VNC work differently (and usually pretty slow, since they work similarly to xlib, passing compressed bitmap images over the wire).
What you say only applies to VNC. RDP only passes bitmaps when it needs to draw bitmaps. The protocol sends rendering primitives to a thin client, much like X. It can even send fonts or a video/audio stream to let the client do the rendering or decoding.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, RDP can be a security risk. It can be mitigated, but hasn't been in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this security risk any different than any other method which allows relatively-insecure* remote logins to a general-purpose computer?
For a long time, I had the default RDP port forwarded to my Windows 7 desktop computer at home -- open for all manner of fuckery -- out of sheer laziness on my part. Nothing bad happened, even though it was simply a username/password combo (and both the username and the password were
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it presents hazards never even dreamed of by X or VNC.
In one case I know of (no, I am bound to not name names here), RDP was a vector for a CryptoLocker attack. A reasonably secure operation (AV on email, IDS, strong user training, etc) granted an outside support person a temporary RDP connection to diagnose a problem. It seems the support person opened a bad email on his own machine while connected and CryptoLocker took advantage of the RDP forwarded file shares to encrypt the fileserver.
OOOPS
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it presents hazards never even dreamed of by X or VNC.
X has always been a breathtaking hazard for reasons entirely the fault of X.
In one case I know of (no, I am bound to not name names here), RDP was a vector for a CryptoLocker attack. A reasonably secure operation (AV on email, IDS, strong user training, etc) granted an outside support person a
AV and IDS are worthless against targeted attacks.
temporary RDP connection to diagnose a problem. It seems the support person opened a bad email on his own machine while connected and CryptoLocker took advantage of the RDP forwarded file shares to encrypt the fileserver.
You can do the same with SSH.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you invent RDP or something? You'll break your back bending that far backwards to absolve it of the incident I wrote about.
The attack wasn't targeted, it was a shotgun style spam opened at a bad moment.
You CAN do that with ssh but it's far from the default setting.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you invent RDP or something? You'll break your back bending that far backwards to absolve it of the incident I wrote about.
I fail to understand how the repercussions of social engineering attacks are the fault of a remote access technology unrelated to initial compromise.
Especially given root cause from your story seems to be acceptance followed by execution of unauthenticated, untrusted messages.
You CAN do that with ssh but it's far from the default setting.
Name a popular Linux distro which fails to enable ssh, port redirect and scp by default. I dare you to name one.
suse, debian, ubuntu, fedora, centos all DEFAULT setting. Every unix system I've ever used or connected to in the past de
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are desperately working to miss it!
The file sharing that allowed the nasty on the remote terminal to get at the fileserver was not required and was not part of the reason for allowing that RDP connection. But it was there because RDP in the wild overshares by default.
SSH and X don't tend to overshare by default. You can do port redirection, but only by explicitly asking for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are desperately working to miss it!
Right back at ya.
The file sharing that allowed the nasty on the remote terminal to get at the fileserver was not required and was not part of the reason for allowing that RDP connection. But it was there because RDP in the wild overshares by default.
SSH and X don't tend to overshare by default. You can do port redirection, but only by explicitly asking for it.
Can you explain the difference between a share allowed with an RDP connection and the use of SCP over SSH which is enabled and allowed by default?
If you own the client and the client logs on to something it would seem to me this is game over you must assume everything the client has access was compromised unless you have reason to believe otherwise... as we already know SSH provides file system access by default to all clients. I'm failing to comprehend the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
SCP moves one file. SSH doesn't move any. RDP makes every file the target has access to directly accessible as a file share on the client even if you don't want it to.
CryptoLocker running on the client wouldn't have seen the files the target could access at all had the connection been VNC, X, or ssh.
Re: (Score:2)
SCP moves one file. SSH doesn't move any. RDP makes every file the target has access to directly accessible as a file share on the client even if you don't want it to.
CryptoLocker running on the client wouldn't have seen the files the target could access at all had the connection been VNC, X, or ssh.
So this is just a security by obscurity play. The assertion is since a particular instance of malware lacks a feature set enabling it to detect and subvert SSH connections from a compromised client then SSH is more secure than RDP even though both offer functionally equivalent access.
Sounds like all the wrong lessons have been learned from this security breach.
Also worth noting RDP maps the clients local resources to remote server not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you send bitmaps over the line when the only thing that matters is the rendering and state of standardized widgets?
Because sending a bitmap Just Works. A bitmap is a bitmap, and 10 years from now, will still be a bitmap. Rendering and standardized widgets change all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah if you're remoting on a LAN. Those of us who remote access our linux boxes online crave something faster.
It's quite telling when users of a display system that was built around network transparency opt to instead install programs that offer alternatives like Xrdp.
Re: (Score:2)
RDP is actually usable over bad ADSL connections. With real, modern programs. X is barely usable over such a connection unless you're using a Motiff app from 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RDP is still 10 times quicker than anything linux has to offer in this area
Except for RDP, of course. Linux offers RDP, and this protocol is obviously not 10 times quicker than itself ;)
Pardon my pedantic attempt at levity. I haven't actually used RDP in Linux for ages, so I don't know how current implementations compare to those used in modern Windows, but I glanced on Wikipedia and found something you might find interesting: "In 2009, rdesktop was forked as FreeRDP, a new project aiming at modularizing the code, addressing various issues, and implementing new features. FreeRDP c
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh interesting. Makes sense, but I disagree about that being the right way to do it. The way you describe is hackish, having to run a client. We need the ability to simply remote log into a machine and run the binary and have it work. This is disappointing, if this is indeed the way they've chosen to go. Shouldn't matter what widget set an app uses; it should work (by some definition of the word "work") whether locally, or on a remote machine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
gtkclient->ssh->intertubes->ssh->gtkapp
Which means that I have to install/maintain a gtkapp on ever desktop that needs to access gtkclient. No thanks. In a corporate environment, that could be thousands of desktops.
This is the sort of architecture that only Microsoft could love, with per-seat licenses for each user.
With X, it is: Xclient->network->Xserver
And Xserver is available on numerous OSs, so there's no desktop lockin.
RDP not as good at seamless... (Score:2)
Compared to X11, RDP isn't good for seamless graphical element integration into the local environment (though integration of audio makes it better on another front, and performance wise RDP runs circles around X11).
All that said, I'm not one to be down on Wayland. Xpra demonstrates how a linux graphical environment is best remoted, and it doesn't really use the X protocol at all for the business end of things. It interjects as a compositor and window manager, with a dummy X server to satisfy the demands of
Re: (Score:2)
I actually disagree with this, well if I interpreted it correctly.
If you're saying that exporting an entire desktop isn't as good as exporting a single app then I agree with you. But the single app thing is actually supported by RDP.
If you're saying that the app should seamlessly integrate into the user environment completely taking on the target environment's look and feel, then I disagree. I greatly prefer to know which if of my programs are part of the local environment and which are part of a remote ses
Re: (Score:2)
People here keep saying that but none, possibly until now, of those have actually done it. How for instance can I launch an application window on a Win7 box with RDP fully licenced for one user onto the Win7 box next to it instead of an entire desktop? Let's assume I don't care what happens on the screen of the box that actually has the application to make things easier. Any ideas?
Trivial in X in 1995 but this feature in RDP doesn't seem to be putting
Re: (Score:2)
Well you need a service that implements that part of the RDP spec of course. Windows 7 doesn't. Windows Terminal Services on servers have always had that capability when using Windows clients, though it seems to require a bit of hoohaaa to setup.
Windows server 2008 onwards supports RemoteApp which is apparently an easy implementation of the same thing though I've never seen it in practice.
A quick google search also shows a product called SeamlessRDP which seems to be compatible with Windows RDP clients, tho
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take a look at SeamlessRDP - which may scratch the itch of a couple of users wanting an old version of AutoCAD LT that runs under Wine but not under any 64 bit MS Windows. Yes there's Virtualbox, VNC etc but they want their single window. Yes there's X on MS Windows but the menus misbehave.
I looked at MS Server 2008 but then I found that the 200 page windows licencing for dummies
Re: (Score:1)
Biggest issue here: Wayland -itself- has _NO_ support for network/RDP. Its merely a protocol between applications.
And there is the issue: GNOME/KDE (cant say for Enlightenment) are basically repurposing their X11 stuff. As you know the Xserver was network transparent, so neither GNOME/KDE has any capabilities to piggyback on. So I assume the answer here is "no time soon".
As for Weston, I have not tested it, but Weston does include RDP support from what I can tell.
Re: (Score:1)
As you know the Xserver was network transparent, so neither GNOME/KDE has any capabilities to piggyback on
Which really is still not a big deal, because...
As for Weston, I have not tested it, but Weston does include RDP support from what I can tell.
The best seamless remoting implementation for X11 is no longer actually using the X protocol. Xpra does remote X applications using compositing and window management hooks rather than anything involved in the X11 protocol interaction.
Of course it's entirely plausible that specific scenarios could be better done in the toolkit, but I think the scenarios are frankly limited compared to the complexity of making it happen. At the same time real time encode of gr
Re: (Score:3)
Avoid the gnome3 stuff and network transparency works as required even on slow connections.
Re: (Score:3)
The major think breaking said transparency was that everyone and their dog wanted to use OGL for something, and bypassing X by talking straight to the hardware and dumping the result as a bitmap into X again.
This approach is by its very nature not network transparent, as it assumes that the program code lives on the same machine as the hardware used to draw the result.
there are implementations for doing this over the network, but nobody seemed interested in adopting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After it was announced a year or two ago.
It wasn't "announced" as such. Wayland developers have always said that on the protocol level Wayland does not support remote applications. They cited many reasons why adding this support to the Wayland protocol itself would be bad and defeat the purpose of Wayland which was to reduce the complexity of that part of the graphic subsystem, and why remote support was one of the single biggest bottlenecks of X11.
They then proceeded to say that there is nothing in Wayland preventing someone from adding remote su
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, but just to make things clear, there is an RDP backend in Wayland. There is a Slashdot announcement from 2013 [slashdot.org].
However it's been a bit of a mystery to people if that code actually is in usable state and how it is operated.
Re: (Score:3)
There was an RDP backend on top of Weston. There's a big difference. Wayland as a protocol does not have any concept of network rendering. They said it themselves on their docs, any remoting abilities need to be written as a separate piece such as a server sitting on top of the compositor, or handled entirely on the client side.
They demonstrated the former using Weston, but it has nothing to do with the Wayland protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear, are you asking about Microsoft's Remote Desktop Protocol working with Wayland?
Well it's originally based on an ITU-T recommendation, there are open source client implementations for most of it so yes. And from what I gather it's supposed to work [tizen.org] but I haven't tried it.
try before you buy? (Score:2)
Anyway to try it on hardware without using vm?
Re: (Score:2)
Do they do that for their bleeding edge, this may not work version?
The release of Some Software is now available (Score:4, Insightful)
<rant>
For those of us who have not heard of Wayland, the following is how the summary reads:
The x.y.z release of Some Software is now available for download. The project thanks all who have contributed, and especially the desktop environments and client applications that now converse using Some Software. In an official announcement from Some Author of Some Company, he says the Some Software protocol may be considered 'done' but that doesn't mean there's not work to be done. A bigger importance is now given to testing, documentation, and bugfixing. As Some Software is maturing, we are also getting closer to the point where the big Linux distros will eventually start integrating it to their operating system.
So what does Some Software actually do and why should I be interested? I know that I can Google Some Software, but is it really that hard to start with the summary with the following:
The x.y.z release of Somesoftware, a package which does blah blah blah, is now available for download. ...
After all, phrases such as "As Wayland is maturing", imply that this is a relatively new piece of software still under development of which everyone is not familiar, especially for those of us using BSDs, Solaris, and Slackware.
</rant>
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
To point out why there is a fuss about Wayland (Score:3)
Only the bits of X they consider important.
It was planned as more an alternative MS style window system for *nix boxes than a "replacement" for X, but has adopted more X style features (eg. choice of window management instead of one style fits all) as the project has progressed.
It's the differences that have people arguing and putting people down for wanting to run applications from 2013, 2005 or (shock horror!) commercial *nix software that still has bits fr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Best i can tell, you can use Wayland as a display driver for Xorg (THE X server right now, iirc).
Frankly that is the way i see myself using Wayland, as basically a way to render the whole X session using OGL. This instead of using X as a "minimal" container for a OGL "window".
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Welcome back. I noticed you have a relatively low UID and are one of the long history of slashdot users to return from your 10 year walk in the jungle. Much has changed on Slashdot and unfortunately it's not the same as it used to be. Here's a summary list of changes:
- Slashdot is now Dice's personal blog. We do videos and they ignore all complaints which happen weekly.
- Slashdot attempted to roll out Beta which was hated universally by all and spawned a couple of Slashdot forks.
- Bitcoin (a virtual currenc
Real engineers write specs and docs (Score:3)
So a) they got to v1.7.0 of an implementation before they finished the initial protocol they were implementing, and b) they are NOW increasing their work on documentation and testing.
This is why actual engineers, including software engineers, either laugh or cry over these programmers who think they should be treated with respect.
dafuq is wayland (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
low level GUI plumbing. It is X without the networking stuff, and assumes you have a GPU to play around with.
Re: (Score:2)
Wayland is a replacement for the X window server. (X is the software the sits between your graphics drivers and your desktop environment.) X is ancient at this point and has fundamental issues with its design that mean security issues which can't be fixed without breaking backward compatibility. X has a lot of features that it is required to support to maintain backward compatibility that no one uses any more - modern systems work by just pushing blocks of pixels to it. Wayland only supports this method of
comprised of? (Score:3)
From TFA:
>Wayland's developer documentation is comprised of three different pieces.
Where's that guy from Wikipedia to fix their grammar?
Is Wayland dependent on Systemd? (Score:3)
If so, why?
Re: (Score:3)
You can already run GNOME on Wayland on Fedora 21. I don't know when they will switch to it by default, but last time I heard anything about it the target was at Fedora 22.
Re: (Score:2)
Fedora 22 (due in three months) target is to have login screen on Wayland. Fedora 23 (October?) should have fully working GNOME session on Wayland.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, login screen in F22 and default in F23. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
GNOME? does anyone even run that shit after the GNOME team ruined it?
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a lot of people use GNOME. The 3.0-3.6 versions were a bit shaky, but starting with 3.8 I would say that it's been quite good again.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't know anyone that uses it. Mate, Cinnamin, KDE, xfce4....but no GNOME users.
I've Debian 8 testing with default desktop in a vm....GNOME still awful for me. Won't even talk about systemD troubleshooting which was the purpose of making that vm
Re: (Score:2)
I use gnome on one PC because I want to know for sure when I post how bad it sucks that I'm right. Fedora 20 for the record; and Gnome 3 manages to crash on me multiple times an hour some days doing nothing exciting (and with 16GB of RAM).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
As Wayland is maturing, we are also getting closer to the point where the big Linux distros will eventually start integrating it to their operating system.
Will I grow old and die before this event?
They're targeting GNU HURD as their primary platform.
It's supposed to be used to play the next Duke Nukem release.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Actually, the opposite is happening. Lot's of BSD users are so annoyed by the anti-systemd trolls joining their community that their are now moving back to Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
anti-systemd trolls
Nice revisionist history. It's the systemd guys that have been acting like children and constantly attack Linux users for pointing-out bugs. After posting a reproduction script to the mailing list about a problem with systemd ignoring the exit status from a script, I was told by one of the main devs that he hoped my mother got cancer. Joke's on him. She died of cancer in 1977. You also have kids like http://slashdot.org/~Eunuchswear here that post some nasty replies, and it appears from looking at the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'll be amazed if the GP does. Not because he chooses to take the high road, but because he's spouting BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> She died of cancer in 1977.
Which means you're old enough to know better than to engage with angry, irrational children. Next time just ignore them rather than arguing with them. They obviously think that those of us that care about a script's exit status, stedrr not being logged in the journal, or high priority syslog messages being dropped are just old and out of touch. You're obviously not going to convince them with facts and logic after they're so emotionally (well, anger anyway) invested in de
Re: (Score:1)
One of the huge problems I have is that when others try the examples given they find:
systemd does log high priority messages
systemd does not ignore stderr
systemd does not ignore exit codes.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to boil down to this behavior having changed, for the better, with more recent systemd versions. But RHEL is using a "old" version.
Re:Linux distros (Score:4, Informative)
> moderated my posts down.
I think three of my last four systemd posts were marked as trolls even though I gave specific examples of bugs. The systemd community is simply toxic.
Last night, I created a bug at:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/e... [freedesktop.org]
With a script I found from:
http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/... [reddit.com]
that I was able to use to reproduce two different systemd bugs with on a Red Hat 7 and a CentOS 7 system. It is a well written and very self-explanatory example. I can no longer find the bug. It looks like they deleted it.
Re: (Score:1)
What was the bug#
Re: (Score:1)
the number.
what was the bug number.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Linux distros (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not saying deleting bugs is cool - at least a WONTFIX or link to a DUP is appropriate - but are you sure it was opened successfully? What was the bug #?
The above said - I do see your point from a usability, if not strict "proper functioning" standpoint; previously for forking services that did some sort of constant time initialization and checking (opening files, sockets, etc) if the initialization failed they could report back and the startup script could return that result - systemd doesn't seem to support that. However there are other problems with the old way too (as you're checking result code I assume you're scripting) - startup could hang and you never get a result.I suppose the solution is similar for both cases - pick a point of time in the future and check if the status is as expected.
Maybe this is a feature request? As stated in the reddit, it only makes sense for forking services. It's not something I'd ever want, but maybe you could give a use case?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually that bug may already be fixed upstream, and the proper place to report it is to RH bugtracker.
Basically, RH has used a "old" systemd version for RHEL7.
Sadly these kinds of issues muddy the water regarding systemd critique, as it allows blanket dismissal of complaints...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Disclaimer: I'm from the pro-systemd camp, and while I've tried to keep my posts as nice as possible I'm sure I've slipped from time to time. For that, I'm sorry.)
Re: (Score:2)
The venom is clearly not coming from them, at least not the majority of it.
Well, I guess venom is an inadequate description for systemd...
Re: (Score:2)
I find it entertaining that people even post drivel like this. Why is it that the hate and venom must not be justified? Why not judge software on its merits, situations on the facts? I don't give a rat's backside who spews more venom; I care if the software works and if they actually fix problems or not.
Its equally possible that the systemd people are wonderful and being hated on by idiots as that they're all jerks being hated on by righteous geniuses. You shouldn't pick sides based on who's yelling.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interestingly biased comparison.
I can repeat it for you; one side (Microsoft) has built a certain software (Windows) which has been adopted by billions of people worldwide. The other side has nothing but flamewars.
Its not true though, is it? Just because something is adopted doesn't mean its best, or even good -- it just means it was adopted at all. You see the fallacy now, right?
Microsoft didn't release Windows 8 because they thought it sucked. Same for Vista, and Windows Me. They thought th
Re: (Score:2)
That's a flood-length post? How much do you suck at typing exactly?
Those 174 words took me no longer than 2 minutes to write; maybe you should do something more productive than troll.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a cute rant, but you'll note that my post makes no judgement on the software. I was really commenting on someone else's statement on systemd trolls. Did you also inform the person above that what they post is drivel?
Let's be honest, there's a huge anti-systemd circlejerk on slashdot, and very few people are actually using logical arguments to justify their hate. Given that all the major distros have adopted it, it's clear as day that the reaction against systemd is a mostly emotional one.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly i think that after Poettering went live with his rant about the Linux community, the whole systemd issue has turned into a "gamergate" style shit storm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
fuck you...I guess your kind would rather whine
Yeah, that's really productive.
I bet Red Hat is regretting associating themselves with systemd by hiring its creator and main developer. I know when I call their support that they're fed-up with dealing with systemd-created problems.
Re: (Score:2)
This is fun -- a troll is pretending to be me.
It was me that made the [incorrect] suggestion about Type=forking.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Has it been tested? No.
Has it been audited? No.
It listens to network ports so all it takes is a single vulnerability in systemd and you can exploit the entire machine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a long time UNIX guy, started way back in 1988. So far I like systemd. Have been using it on OpenSuSE.
Can't see what is the fuzz all about.
There are plenty of non systemd linuxes anyways.
I particularly love the systemd logging system.
Re:Linux distros (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Software "done", but neither tested nor documented yet. So, what do we have then? Shipped 1.7.0 because it compiled?
Protocol done, nobody said the implementation was done except you so crawl back under the bridge.
Re: (Score:2)
The open development process would be impossible if the code was not released early on. This is not just some Red Hat's or Samsung's internal project which is shipped only after it is fully polished inside the house.
Of course, if it in the coming months or years never attains the state where you can expect it to compile properly or to have complete documentation, then some whining would be understandable. So you have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Compositor is the "image mixer" which draws the final framebuffer by composing together the application framebuffers.
There is an RDP backend in Wayland already, but there seems to be some confusion about how to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Watching that is just as likely to drive people away, as the attitude of the presenter is up there with the one displayed by the systemd maintainers...
Re: (Score:2)
Says that he resigned back in 2009.
And hmm, Collabora. I keep bumping into that company for some reason...