Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian To Seek A General Resolution Over Their Init System Policy

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

  • andyprough
    replied
    You are completely mischaracterizing the timeline of events described in that LWN article. The downtime was not in any way a direct result of the prank. It was due to a later reboot of an already misbehaving build server that decided not to come back up.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by andyprough View Post
    The April Fools joke was a home page message that said. "WE TURNED ALL DEVUAN'S SHITTY WEBSITES INTO PROPER GOPHERHOLES". Anyone who couldn't see through that, especially on April 1, but really on any day, was born without any sense of humor or discernment.
    If it would have been just that, pretending the site was hacked, label it under "funny" and call it a day. The maintainers spreading FUD about how the packages and repositories might be compromised is where it went from funny to "OMFG, my system is compromised; WTF do I do" unfunny. Pretending the site is hacked is one thing, pretending the repositories are compromised isn't funny.

    Regardless of ones' distribution of choice, there's an inherent level of trust we have to have with those who maintain our distributions. When those we have to trust joke about things we have no choice but to trust them with, they lose that credibility and trust regardless if they're a Linux distribution maintainer "joking" about a security breach, a police officer "joking" about finding your mom stabbed 43 times, your doctor "joking" about how you're now HIV positive; doesn't matter who they are or what they do, cross a certain line and you lose that inherent credibility and trust.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karl Napf
    replied
    Originally posted by andyprough View Post
    The April Fools joke was a home page message that said. "WE TURNED ALL DEVUAN'S SHITTY WEBSITES INTO PROPER GOPHERHOLES". Anyone who couldn't see through that, especially on April 1, but really on any day, was born without any sense of humor or discernment.
    You mean like the admins of the devuan.org website? They disconnected the build servers from the compromised site and crippled Devuan's ability to build packages for month.

    You mean that harmless joke that cost Devuan one of its core contributors and very nearly a second?

    LWN has a write-up of the incident: https://lwn.net/Articles/786593/

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by dwagner View Post
    That is exactly what I mean: If your package has to "support" some particular init software, that is a sign of poor design decisions. If your executable requires some additional script to be started - that is bad enough already - but if that script then also has to take into consideration particularities of software A or B calling exec() on it - that is even worse.
    So in your perfect world the end users each have to create their own init scripts for all the daemons that they want to run at boot? What exactly is it that you think that maintainers do?

    Leave a comment:


  • andyprough
    replied
    The April Fools joke was a home page message that said. "WE TURNED ALL DEVUAN'S SHITTY WEBSITES INTO PROPER GOPHERHOLES". Anyone who couldn't see through that, especially on April 1, but really on any day, was born without any sense of humor or discernment.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    lol I didn't know this, but I'd say it's believable for the Devuan project.
    The "joke" was the Devuan team pretended they were hacked and then pretended to act like their packages were vulnerable and then ended up posting:

    Dear D1rs,

    we have analysed in depth the attack from the "Green Hat Hackers" that
    compromised the Devuan infrastructure in the last hours, and we
    concluded that you all are:

    ***** APRIL FOOLS *****

    :P
    Jokes like if Arch posted an "Arch Linux by Microsoft" banner or if they swapped the primary link to Arch Wiki to go the Manjaro Wiki (it sucks) are funny; Repacing the Suse Gecko with the Geico Gecko would be funny. Pretending that you've been hacked and that the repositories could contain malicious code makes them look incompetent and like assholes when the "joke" is revealed.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by ThanosApostolou View Post
    Reading the comments (those who are relevant to the topic), I guess we can all agree that maintaining just the packages for other init systems (like openrc) is not a big deal, but the real effort is maintaining all the init scripts for the packages that need them. The early adaptions of systemd didn't have systemd service files for all packages but they have an automatic procedure to translate the old init scripts to fake systemd services. For example in Debian this is still done for minidlna, which is using an old init script which gets detected by systemd and creates a systemd service (I'm using it on raspberrypi and it's a bit buggy since systemd overrides don't always work, but it's functional).

    So, I am wondering maybe it's time for someone to implement the exact opposite, since systemd is now the standard norm. Like a daemon which reads systemd files and translates them to simple init scripts, of course by ignoring the extra functionality that systemd has (like dependencies or whatever) and be easily override-able so that distros can easily fix them when the automation isn't perfect. I personally like very much systemd, but has anyone think about this?
    Afaik the script-to-unit "conversion" is done on the fly by systemd itself when it finds scripts in the usual locations.

    Systemd configuration is pretty much all text files with an easy and static syntax (as they are supposed to be easy to write and easy to parse for a machine).

    So yes, nothing stops making a shell script to do the conversion (best if on package install, you don't need to do this on boot every time) and either fall back to sane defaults if it can't convert some systemd-only functionality or convert what it can to "the old way" like socket-based service activation that in a classic system should be done through inetd or xinetd or something similar.

    And if you are using a decent and modern init like OpenRC that is able to deal with more advanced functionality.

    The only thing that keeps this from happening is that most of the serious people that dislike systemd are actually using other distros where this isn't a problem.

    But yeah, this should be the ONLY way forward for projects like Devuan in case their parent distro stops requiring SysV init support in their packages, or drops init scripts alltogether.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by Britoid View Post
    Didn't they destroy all their build infrastructure because of a silly Aprils fools day joke?

    No one should trust a distro with that level of incompetence, imagine if Debian or Fedora did something like that.
    lol I didn't know this, but I'd say it's believable for the Devuan project.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThanosApostolou
    replied
    Reading the comments (those who are relevant to the topic), I guess we can all agree that maintaining just the packages for other init systems (like openrc) is not a big deal, but the real effort is maintaining all the init scripts for the packages that need them. The early adaptions of systemd didn't have systemd service files for all packages but they have an automatic procedure to translate the old init scripts to fake systemd services. For example in Debian this is still done for minidlna, which is using an old init script which gets detected by systemd and creates a systemd service (I'm using it on raspberrypi and it's a bit buggy since systemd overrides don't always work, but it's functional).

    So, I am wondering maybe it's time for someone to implement the exact opposite, since systemd is now the standard norm. Like a daemon which reads systemd files and translates them to simple init scripts, of course by ignoring the extra functionality that systemd has (like dependencies or whatever) and be easily override-able so that distros can easily fix them when the automation isn't perfect. I personally like very much systemd, but has anyone think about this?

    Leave a comment:


  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
    How was the implementation botched?
    Originally posted by Hibbelharry View Post
    Why is the implementation bodged?
    I know this is a very lame way to respond to something, but me and many others have explained exactly what we take issue with so many times over and over again that I just don't have the energy go into any detail. It's the same thing with 9/11 truthers as nobody really has the energy to go into any kind of detail to explain for the n:th time that you don't need to literally melt metals to significantly weaken them and thus the "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel so it had to be a controlled demolition"-argument is long since debunked.

    The basic gist of what people take issue with in systemD is that is's a functionally monolithic rat's nest of unstable internal APIs with a massive case of feature creep and a plainly managed by people whose attitude to user feedback and even bug reports can only be described as toxic. There's numerous cases of them trying to brush off legitimate bug reports as "harassment" and just plain refusing to accept a bug report because it doesn't crash or break anything in the use case the reporter discovered it.

    Originally posted by Tomin View Post
    Would you please write it systemd. It's not systemD or SystemD but systemd. Thank you!
    If you're going to use a naming convention where you take an english language word, tack on something the end and then write it all in lower case you can be damn sure people will want to have at least some kind of separation between that english language word and what's been tacked on. That being either a space or starting the tacked on bit with an upper case letter.

    So would you prefer I wrote it "System D", "system d" or "systemD"?

    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    imbeciles who can't spell systemd properly feel entitled to judge its implementation
    Considering you know damn well I capitalize the D on purpose, as I've told you this multiple times when you've moaned about it, this just reminds me of the famous Confucius quote:

    "When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile stares at the finger".

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X