Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systemd's Plan For Stateless Systems, Factory Resets

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    'Dictatorships' actually work in certain scenarios, like warzones. The officer is a dictator. When it comes to lives, you dont fuck around. Similar with a business situation. You're a boss, you're tasked with a project from bigger bosses and handed a time-frame with finite resource. Like 99% of projects. You're not going to run a democratic state if you have a team of guns who know their roles, and you're relying on them to do it. It's not as if dictator's don't listen totheir advisors. How many did Hitler have? 13 (unlucky number, eh)?

    Same goes with communism which has actually worked very well in smaller circles.

    Don't ask me to cite the sources, as this is all historical stuff amd freely available, but it remains true nonetheless =)

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by CTown View Post
      Let's not forget many of Systemd's new sandboxing features are to compete with Android; an OS that is only a few years old and killing when it comes to adoption and market penetration.
      You must be on drugs, pal. The last thing I want on my desktop (let alone on my servers) is an Android-wannabe pseudo-OS.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
        You must be on drugs, pal. The last thing I want on my desktop (let alone on my servers) is an Android-wannabe pseudo-OS.
        If we are to be pals, you should know that I'm the last person to be on drugs.

        Not everything of course. Mainly, seperating the system and user data and more efficient and powerful interprocess communication. I doubt anyone who does low level Linux Desktop stuff wants to copy Android verbatim. Considering that even Google has an alternative OS for desktop usage (Chrome OS)
        Last edited by CTown; 06-20-2014, 02:03 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by CTown View Post
          Considering that even Google has an alternative OS for desktop usage (Chrome OS)
          I wouldn't call it an alternative and I wouldn't call it desktop usage.

          ---

          Well, at least it's getting clearer why systemd has so many apologists and what sort of people they are. The same sort as those who praise Ubuntu Unity and other "single-task" desktop UIs.

          Tablet people. iThings generation.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
            The last thing I want on my desktop (let alone on my servers) is an Android-wannabe pseudo-OS.
            Ah yes, just like replacing a script-based init system with a service supervisor turns Linux exactly into Windows (something you've said in a previous post), adding app sandboxing turns Linux exactly into Android. Err...

            FFS prodigy_ get at least a bit more sophisticated with what you write. This is beyond ridiculous.

            Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
            Well, at least it's getting clearer why systemd has so many apologists and what sort of people they are. The same sort as those who praise Ubuntu Unity and other "single-task" desktop UIs.

            Tablet people. iThings generation.
            And here we go with the ad-hominems,.

            Just FYI, I can't stand Ubuntu Unity or Gnome3, I use a classic desktop with a boring old panel at the bottom and an old-school hierarchical menu (none of that new fancy fullscreen big icon stuff), basically the Win95 concept, except with a better looking theme. I will also not own a tablet, least of all an Apple one, but not even an Android one. Too restricting. A netbook is what I have, and should I get to replacing it, it'll be another netbook (yes, they do still exist).

            And yet I'm here, being a supposed "apologist" for systemd <- that in itself is a ridiculous thing to say, systemd doesn't have or need "apologists", there's just people who, instead of spewing conspiracy theories, are actually discussing the technical merits of systemd.

            PS. prodigy_ won't see this. He can't handle being called out on the ridiculousness of his posts, he put me on ignore. Because that's the sure fire way to win an argument! But I wrote this post anyway, for others to see. Maybe I suffer from a bit of this

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
              I wouldn't call it an alternative and I wouldn't call it desktop usage.

              ---

              Well, at least it's getting clearer why systemd has so many apologists and what sort of people they are. The same sort as those who praise Ubuntu Unity and other "single-task" desktop UIs.

              Tablet people. iThings generation.
              Here's a clue as to why none of your arguments hold any water with anyone: you're a complete and utter moron and they don't make any sense.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                PS. prodigy_ won't see this. He can't handle being called out on the ridiculousness of his posts, he put me on ignore. Because that's the sure fire way to win an argument! But I wrote this post anyway, for others to see. Maybe I suffer from a bit of this
                I want to think he's a troll, I really do, but then I'm well aware of so many other groups of people who hold to their bullshit beliefs and refuse to be called on them that it seems possible someone that blinded by ideology could come from the open source world...

                Anti-Vaxxers
                Fundamentalist Christians/Muslims/Whatever
                Homoeopaths
                GM Nutters
                ...

                Could go on.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                  Well, at least it's getting clearer why systemd has so many apologists and what sort of people they are. The same sort as those who praise Ubuntu Unity and other "single-task" desktop UIs.

                  Tablet people. iThings generation.
                  So, you think essentially every desktop environment and distro maintainer falls in this category? LXQt, XFCE, openSUSE, ArchLinux, this is what you think they all are?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    psychoticmeow: It is completely fine to call out bullshit arguments, but don't make it personal. Personal attacks does not benefit the discussion, the person under attack, or you.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by jonnor View Post
                      psychoticmeow: It is completely fine to call out bullshit arguments, but don't make it personal. Personal attacks does not benefit the discussion, the person under attack, or you.
                      I doubt anything can benefit discussions with prodigy. I wouldn't really call them "discussions" anyway. He's on my ignore list, and my life certainly has improved since, but sadly people keep quoting him :/

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by jonnor View Post
                        psychoticmeow: It is completely fine to call out bullshit arguments, but don't make it personal. Personal attacks does not benefit the discussion, the person under attack, or you.
                        He's not wrong because he's a moron, he's wrong because his arguments don't make any sense. Or in other words: I'm perfectly capable of arguing without insulting anyone, but prodigy isn't capable of making an coherent argument.

                        Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                        I doubt anything can benefit discussions with prodigy. I wouldn't really call them "discussions" anyway. He's on my ignore list, and my life certainly has improved since, but sadly people keep quoting him :/
                        Sorry :S

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                          So, you think essentially every desktop environment and distro maintainer falls in this category? LXQt, XFCE, openSUSE, ArchLinux, this is what you think they all are?
                          Ever heard of coercion? And no it doesn't mean someone is literally holding a knife to your throat. There are other, much more subtle ways. Systemd is about forcing dependencies and limiting choices as much as possible and in the end distro/software maintainers are affected by this behavior in the same way as regular users. You can't just fork everything even if you know C as the back of your hand.

                          ---

                          And since people keep asking what's wrong with systemd (although it's been explained over and over) - here's a nice list of most important issues:
                          http://boycottsystemd.org/

                          It's by no means comprehensive but it won't take much time to read and is straight to the point. I'm not the author but I'd sign under every word.
                          Last edited by prodigy_; 06-20-2014, 09:00 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                            And since people keep asking what's wrong with systemd (although it's been explained over and over) - here's a nice list of most important issues:
                            http://boycottsystemd.org/
                            Oh boy, this is exciting!

                            1. systemd flies in the face of the Unix philosophy: "do one thing and do it well," representing a complex collection of dozens of binaries1. Its responsibilities grossly exceed that of an init system, as it goes on to handle power management, device management, mount points, cron, disk encryption, socket API/inetd, syslog, network configuration and other things.
                            So basically they don't understand the actual architecture of systemd, that the dozens of binaries can be reduced to a very minimal set, and that it is more than an init system, that each binary is responsible for "doing one thing and doing it well".

                            2. systemd's journal files (handled by journald) are stored in a complicated binary format2, and must be queried using journalctl. This makes journal logs potentially corruptable. Oh, an embedded HTTP server is loaded to read them. QR codes are served, as well.
                            Potentially corruptable? Says who, and why are they more potentially corruptable than any other log? And how does this discount the benefit of actually having structured data being logged?

                            And it doesn't need an embedded HTTP server to read them, and when exactly are QR codes served? It seems to be trying to paint a picture of runtime bloat where there isn't any.

                            3. systemd's team is noticeably chauvinistic and anti-Unix, due to their open disregard for non-Linux software and subsequent systemd incompatibility with all non-Linux systems. Since systemd is very tightly welded with the Linux kernel API, this also makes different systemd versions incompatible with different kernel versions. This is an isolationist policy that essentially binds the Linux ecosystem into its own cage, and serves as an obstacle to software portability.
                            Boo fucking hoo. Want the functionality? Don't like the developers? Implement the API, you're free to do so.

                            4. udev and dbus are forced dependencies. In fact, udev merged with systemd a long time ago3.
                            And dbus is becoming kdbus. What of it? This isn't so much an argument as a simple statement of fact.

                            5. By default, systemd saves core dumps to the journal, instead of the file system. Core dumps must be explicitly queried using systemd-coredumpctl4. Besides going against all reason, it also creates complications in multi-user environments (good luck running gdb on your program's core dump if it's dumped to the journal and you don't have root access), since systemd requires root to control. It assumes that users and admins are dumb5.
                            The unstated premise is that doing this is inherently a bad thing, but it is never explained why, instead they cite a potential system configuration issue as though that is the fault of systemd. I've just checked, and you can in fact access core dumps without being a root user.

                            6. systemd's size makes it a single point of failure. As of this writing, systemd has had 9 CVE reports, since its inception in March 20106. So far, this may not seem like that much, but its essential and overbearing nature will make it a juicy target for crackers, as it is far smaller in breadth than the Linux kernel itself, yet seemingly just as critical.
                            Again, the init process itself isn't that large, and is the area of primary concern. The author doesn't understand the architecture as discussed previously.

                            7. systemd is viral by its very nature. Its scope in functionality and creeping in as a dependency to lots of packages means that distro maintainers will have to necessitate a conversion, or suffer a drift. As an example, the GNOME environment has adopted systemd as a hard dependency since 3.8 for various utilities, including gdm, gnome-shell and gnome-extra-apps7. This means GNOME versions >=3.8 are incompatible with non-Linux systems, and due to GNOME's popularity, it will help tilt a lot of maintainers to add systemd. The rapid rise in adoption by distros such as Debian, Arch Linux, Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE and others shows that many are jumping onto the bandwagon, with or without justification. It's also worth noting that systemd will refuse to start as a user instance, unless the system boots with it as well - blatant coercion8.
                            Oh no, it's a virus/cancer/conspiracy! People are adopting systemd without justification!

                            8. systemd clusters itself into PID 1. Due to it controlling lots of different components, this means that there are tons of scenarios in which it can crash and bring down the whole system. But in addition, this means that plenty of non-kernel system upgrades will now require a reboot. Enjoy your new Windows 9 Linux system! In fairness, systemd does provide a mechanism to reserialize and reexecute systemctl in real time. If this fails, of course, the system goes down. There are several ways that this can occur9. This happens to be another example of SPOF.
                            This is the third time the authors lack of understanding of systemd has shown through, not everything in systemd is part of the systemd init process. Tries to make a point about how the init can fail, and be restarted safely, but if the restart fails can crash the system. This is of course true, it could crash the system, but is exceptionally unlikely. And some nonsense about how this makes Linux literally Windows.

                            9. systemd is designed with glibc in mind, and doesn't take kindly to supporting other libcs all that much10.
                            Ok, is this a problem for Linux users, the platform that systemd was developed for? even then, in the referenced mailing list message Lennart politely declines to accept patches for a libc incompatible with glibc, with a set of reasonable exceptions, so it's not totally out of the question.

                            10. systemd's complicated nature makes it harder to extend and step outside its boundaries. While you can more or less trivially start shell scripts from unit files, it's more difficult to write behavior that goes outside the box, what with all the feature bloat. Many users will likely need to write more complicated programs that directly interact with the systemd API, or even patch systemd directly.
                            The author never explains any scenarios in which it would be necessary for users to patch systemd and assumes that using the systemd API is a bad thing all the while discounting the advanced features you get right out of the box.

                            11. Ultimately, systemd's parasitism is symbolic of something more than systemd itself. It shows a radical shift in thinking by the Linux community. Not necessarily a positive one, either. One that is vehemently postmodern, monolithic, heavily desktop-oriented, choice-limiting, isolationist, reinvents the flat tire, and is just anti-Unix in general. If your goal is to pander to the lowest common denominator, so be it. We will look for alternatives, however.
                            The author summarises their position by disparaging anyone who disagrees with a whole stream of negative connotations that they have failed to make a valid case for.

                            None of these arguments stood up to more than five minutes scrutiny, often repeat themselves, and are shrouded in a sea of references to things that are either attack pieces or fairly innocuous statements and documentation.

                            Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                            It's by no means comprehensive but it won't take much time to read and is straight to the point. I'm not the author but I'd sign under every word.
                            It doesn't even come close to being a decent criticism, of course you'd sign under every word. These same points have been brought up time and time again, only to be torn down as the clear bullshit they are, yet here you are bringing them back up again.

                            Do you learn prodigy? Or do you wake up every morning with no memory of the previous day?

                            Here's someone else's rebuttal from 60 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7640104
                            Last edited by psychoticmeow; 06-20-2014, 10:14 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                              Ever heard of coercion? And no it doesn't mean someone is literally holding a knife to your throat. There are other, much more subtle ways. Systemd is about forcing dependencies and limiting choices as much as possible and in the end distro/software maintainers are affected by this behavior in the same way as regular users. You can't just fork everything even if you know C as the back of your hand.
                              So, they are coercing KDE and XFCE into supporting socket activation, for example? How exactly did they do that?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                                I doubt anything can benefit discussions with prodigy. I wouldn't really call them "discussions" anyway. He's on my ignore list, and my life certainly has improved since, but sadly people keep quoting him :/
                                I'm sorry, I will stop quoting posts that seem a little out there ex. a person who quotes a tiny piece of my long post just to say that he will never run an Android-like OS on a server. Of course not, who would even try that. I thought he wanted to be my friend... then he goes on to insinuate I have a tablet! That guy...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X