Systemd 244 Released With New Init System Features For Black Friday

[aht0]

copying here the relevant part about it from the 3 posts above

More ignorant bullshit on your part.

One thing is what third party project they accepted and host on their infrastructure, one thing is what they actually make themselves.

And yes one of my main gripes is with coreutils, which IS a GNU project. I've yet to find something I can't do with busybox, that is like 1/10th of the size of their crap. Seriously, just look at the "true" tool. That's 35 kbytes to just return "true" when called.

Also their build system (Autotools) is ass.

Make is OK I guess.

I find it HILARIOUS that you whine over GNU Core Utils being "too big" but behave like rabid attack dog if anyone dares even subtly criticize systemd.

IMHO, GNU has lots of useful software. Contrary to your beliefs I use GNU stuff quite a lot, some of what is always mandatory in my installs, even on BSD.

[aht0]

There is a limit. Once you get past it, having too many options is just as bad as too little.

That'd be fine theory if systemd domination did not mean elimination of all other options. limit=0 can not be defined as 'too many options' but as 'zero options'

For core components, you don't want too many options you can choose as this means a lot of duplication in all the distro.

That used to be the strength of Linux. Options and choices. Monoculture is never good.

This is not true and you need to fuck off with this bs.
Before systemd everyone was using more or less the same script-based init and more or less the same userspace core applications anyway too.

Actually, if you actually bothered really checking facts, you'd emerging picture contrary your claim. runit for example was first released ~15 years a go, upstart ~13 years a go, OpenRC ~12 years a go. They ALL predate systemd (it's been around slightly less than a decade).

Daemontools and it's various iterations for service management have existed nearly 20 years (since 2001).

I don't see why this is a problem. Doesn't BSD license (used in such applications) encourage you to take it and never contribute back?

Functionally, no difference and you know it, despite parroting old idiocy.

If someone does not want to contribute back, he is not going to, despite the license. If they do want to contribute back - they are going to. Desire to reduce your future maintenance load could be equally potent motivator - it's easier to submit your patches and let OS developers fix the problems pre-release than work around problems cropping up and try to patch these in-house "post-release".

You want to lock your device in order to prevent modification but it has GPL software in it? Just lock the boot loader and it works same. Or dump the sources in unusable form (follow the letter of the law but violate the spirit). So, in effect if some user does not want to contribute back then license makes literally zero difference.

There isn't much more to take, and new stuff coming to BSD is not really a thing.

Funny claim, since you aren't even using any of the BSD's and just parrot your belief based on prejudice.

Can I remind you that BSD does indeed ignore POSIX when they see fit too? Neither Linux nor BSD are fully POSIX-compliant.

There is no willing, willing ignorance backed by contempt against POSIX.

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/dads-use-posix-standards.html

https://wiki.freebsd.org/AvoidingLinuxisms

Where FreeBSD breaks it's POSIX-compliance in base OS, is it's signal.h where it does not define SIGRTMIN and SIGRTMAX.

For comparison, let me remind you general attitude from Linux. "We know better, we are better and we are not going to follow it, we go beyond POSIX, it's outdated" etc. Very similar attitude to MS Windows.

But the problem isn't POSIX, the problem is using kernel features. Linux kernel features are not the same as BSD kernel features (actually these features are different even from a BSD to another)

Problem is by now two-fold.

• Emulation of non-standard (read:non-POSIX) system calls found in newer Linux. It's the reason why Linux ABI in FreeBSD is stuck on Linux 2.6.3x (it's emulating either CentOS6 or optionally CentOS7, 32/64-bit variants both). It's better in NetBSD (somewhere around Linux 3.2x), but it may have had negative consequences security-wise for NetBSD (happened to read some audit once) because binary emulation ain't easy to implement, complicated code is far more prone to errors and OpenBSD gave binary emulation of Linux up completely because they did not like resulting security implications and code complexity. At all.
• systemd. You want to emulate it properly, depending on particular component you may have to emulate most of the suite. Interlocked, interdependent tightly coupled interfaces do that. Plus, it's changing. Yeah, OpenBSD has some stubs. elogind exist, it's not enough.

There is also WolfSSL and MbedTLS that are both real and serious projects (can be found and used in OpenWrt among other things)

That's actually good. Crypto is one area tho where I'd first check the background of developers. Do they have background in math, cryptograhy AND security. If yes, then even better.

and dnsmasq and something from systemd project and a whole lot of others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...erver_software

Well, dnsmasq is not per se DNS server, it is "DNS forwarder" which is not nearly the same animal. What it CAN serve, is DHCP. Same thing with systemd-resolved. It's not DNS server, it's at best haphazardly written placeholder stub and at least year a go it still exposed rather weird resolving issues and behaviour (I don't sit on BSD all the time you know).

It's not like outside of it there are no other applications.

After we exclude dnsmasq and systemd-resolved due the fact they are NOT in fact DNS servers but at best forwarders, then what would be your reasonably good-featured alternatives to Bind and Unbound?
DNS servers were also just a random example I came up with. Life has shown that unexpected critical flaws may hit from literally any direction. HeartBleed, CRACK and other such security flaws illustrate my case. Not to mention whole debacle around Spectre/Meltdown. You just never know.

Y didn't break anything in any way, shape or form.
Y offers a better way to do something and someone else contributed a way using Y to the upstream software that was accepted as it was indeed considered useful and merged.
If X can't be arsed to contribute or maintain a way to run the same software on X systems, then it's their own problem.
If the upstream software does not want to merge a way to run on X systems, then it is their own problem, not Y problem.

[/quote]
Y offers a better way to do something and someone else contributed a way using Y to the upstream software that was accepted as it was indeed considered useful and merged while Y was fully aware his creation was in the future going to hurt alternative components and due the "vendor-lock/viral" nature of Y's offering - other OS'es who also made use of said alternative components. Because Y has strong personal opinion that non-Linux FOSS OS' should just die off, he don't give flying fuck about the consequences his creation has.

[arokh]

You realized that you don't actually have any arguments other than your BSD friends not liking systemd for reasons you don't even understand. I'm sure you have better things to do than complaining about an awesome piece of software like systemd indeed. It's loved by admins and you managed to claim it takes control away from them trollol, you obviously never worked professionaly maintaining *nix systems.

[aht0]

You realized that (1)you don't actually have any arguments (2)other than your BSD friends not liking systemd (3)for reasons you don't even understand. I'm sure you have better things to do than complaining about an (4)awesome piece of software like systemd indeed. (5)It's loved by adminsand (6)you managed to claim it takes control away from them trollol, (7)you obviously never worked professionaly maintaining *nix systems.

(1) I've posted a ton. If you cannot read, it's your disability.
(2) Bs, when I switched from Linux to BSD, I did it especially because of systemd. As typical lennartware-product (like PulseAudio) initial versions were too buggy and made simply using Linux too frustrating.
(3) No, It appears to me that you do not have basic ability to read and understand written text. Or refuse to understnad
Otherwise that sentence in itself would not have been so empty of any meaning.

(4) It's "awesome" for enterprise users. For anyone else it's from "meh" to that "fucking piece of buggy lennartware-shit".
(5) Admins are not the entirety of Linux user base.
(6) I never wrote that. Somebody else might have tho. Again exemplifies your basic inability to read and understand what's written.
(7) Linux ain't Unix, so no. But my first jobs included maintaining Linux systems. In fact I was first hired to be sysadmin by the very school I learned IT in. After compulsory draft into military I chose that occupation because I liked that life much more.

[arokh]

You've posted a lot of complete non-sense, that's all. As far as I can tell, it's the usual conspiracy theory fear of "Redhat is taking over the world and it's a huuuuge problem". This whining about "imprisoning" BSD is the stupidest thing I ever heard, you don't seem to comprehend that it's a different OS with absolutely no connection to Linux. I really wonder why a complete noob like you is so opinionated on the Linux init system, you obviously have never contributed a line of code yourself. BSD devs are welcome to contribute the code they need.

You don't seem to understand the word "parroting". It's what you are doing when you are expressing the opinions of "systemd refugees" on facebook or some BSD forum users. You've completely failed to provide a relevant reason as to why systemd is bad. Get off the internet and stop complaining about free software OK, like you said you have better things to do. Like start coding shims for BSD for example.

[aht0]

You've posted a lot of complete non-sense, that's all.(1) As far as I can tell, it's the usual conspiracy theory fear of "Redhat is taking over the world and it's a huuuuge problem". This whining about "imprisoning" BSD is the stupidest thing I ever heard, you don't seem to comprehend that it's a different OS with absolutely no connection to Linux. (2)I really wonder why a complete noob like you is so opinionated on the Linux init system, (3)you obviously have never contributed a line of code yourself. (4)BSD devs are welcome to contribute the code they need.

You don't seem to understand the word "parroting". It's what you are doing when you are expressing the opinions of "systemd refugees" on facebook or some BSD forum users. You've completely failed to provide a relevant reason as to why systemd is bad(5). Get off the internet and stop complaining about free software OK, like you said you have better things to do. Like start coding shims for BSD for example.

(1) Let's see about conspiracy theories or associations.

• U.S Army Major General Nicholas Justice has publicly declared that U.S military-industrial complex is 'the largest client of RHEL'. (Fact One).
• RHEL-hired/associated devs (exclusively!) are developing systemd. (Fact Two).
• Most Linux distros, at this point, are using systemd. (Fact Three).
• systemd devs are a group of privileged people who have direct control/say-so over the direction of developing systemd. When they don't want code contribution from "outside", they will reject and there's not a thing anyone else really can do about it. Forking ain't really a practical option because no single developer can compete with group of hired devs. RHEL thus (because RHEL is employer of said devs), has total control over development of systemd. (Fact Four).
• We have by now determined that RHEL has total control over systemd (see Fact Four), thus we can conclude that RHEL has subtle control over majority (see Fact Three) of Linux distros - subtle, in the form of "by shaping systemd development as it wishes, RHEL can steer the direction Linux distros using their systemd, develop". In fact, the scope of it's subtle control is increasing because systemd keeps replacing stand-alone components in GNU/Linux distros (Fact Five).
• RHEL is a business entity, not some non-profit software steering commitee, so it's primary goal is to make money. Thus RHEL can be greatly influenced by what it's larger customers want to see in it's products. RHEL can only comply if it does not want to lose it's customers to competitors (like Oracle Corporation, which has very similar distro among it's offerings AND capability for additional software engineering if need should arise). Conclusion: RHEL can be influenced/dictated by governmental organizations (Fact Six). Precise degree of incluence: unknown.

It absolutely looks like RHEL has no control over anything and all "conspiracy theories" are groundless, not.

(2) 'Noob' is a derogative form of 'newbie'. Most often used in gaming, in insulting manner. Considering the fact my first Unix/Linux association happened on Red Hat Linux 5.2 nearly two decades a go (back in the beginning of a 1999) your assumption is void.

(3) Don't worry, I have. Not for Linux, admittedly. But you were coming out with a general assumption I can negate.
(4) Are they indeed? Your claim would seem to contradict with L.Poettering's publicly declared opinion that BSD's should simply die. In that light I find your claim rather arguable.
(5) If I repeated all the "why's" again, you'd accuse me of "parroting", completely ignoring the fact that you seem to simply choose to be in flat denial about ANY argument I bring forth.

[AsuMagic]

Pretty amusing how essentially most arguments there can be used against linux as well.

[arokh]

Of course Redhat has control, what exactly is the problem with that? It's only natural. Other distributions are free to use whatever they want, of course they use systemd as it's the best solution. Do you have any technical issues with Pulseaudio? Which of your PR's have been rejected?

Obviously your first encounter with Linux does not decide whether you're a complete noob or not, the fact that you are on here complaining about nothing does. BSD can adapt or die, it's all up to their devs and really has nothing to do with systemd at all. In case you haven't noticed, Unix has been slowly dying since Linux showed up. Too bad nobody cares to provide code for your hobby OS anymore, go cry in the BSD section?

[aht0]

Of course Redhat has control, what exactly is the problem with that? It's only natural. Other distributions are free to use whatever they want, of course they use systemd as it's the best solution.

Oh noes, there are no problems with some profit-seeking megacorporation controlling the development of Linux. We all know RH/IBM and their shareholders are morally so much better than shareholders of, lets say, an Oracle Inc. CEO of the former cannot come to work without feeding all the stray cats on the way and Oracle's shareholder meetings can be described as "Minions of the Devil in planning session".
(Sarcasm mode OFF)

Do you have any technical issues with Pulseaudio? Which of your PR's have been rejected?

There's no point trying to patch something fundamentally flawed. Running sound over multiple abstraction layers in userspace is not going to produce good responsive sound. No hardware mixing, documentation is lacking, advanced configuration delves into mystical - or you'll have to go read sources.

Obviously your first encounter with Linux does not decide whether you're a complete noob or not, the fact that you are on here complaining about nothing does.

Then you simply have no idea what "noob" or "newbie" means and should educate yourself about picking and using better, more appropriate terminology.

BSD can adapt or die, it's all up to their devs and really has nothing to do with systemd at all. In case you haven't noticed, (1)Unix has been slowly dying since Linux showed up. (2)Too bad nobody cares to provide code for your hobby OS anymore, (3)go cry in the BSD section?

(1)BSD ain't UNIX. It's Unix-like.

(3) But you and all the hardcore fanboys keep coming into BSD section every time there's positive news about BSD.. you can't take little criticism, it's instantly "go cry elsewhere..". Why can't you follow your own advice each time BSD shows itself competitive but it has to go delve into "BSD is still baaaaaadd.."?

(2) I noticed something recently that gives you pretty good answer. Let me also remind you that Dell, Intel, Netflix, DARPA etc are also contributors to FreeBSD but none of them could ever actually direct the development, lol.. There's the crucial difference.

[arokh]

Oh noes, there are no problems with some profit-seeking megacorporation controlling the development of Linux. We all know RH/IBM and their shareholders are morally so much better than shareholders of, lets say, an Oracle Inc. CEO of the former cannot come to work without feeding all the stray cats on the way and Oracle's shareholder meetings can be described as "Minions of the Devil in planning session".
(Sarcasm mode OFF)

Redhat isn't controlling the development of Linux (which is a kernel), Linus Torvalds is. Redhat is a distribution, other distributions are free to use whatever they like. Systemd is the superior alternative, which is why everyone is using it. This is fact, get that through your tinfoil hat.

There's no point trying to patch something fundamentally flawed. Running sound over multiple abstraction layers in userspace is not going to produce good responsive sound. No hardware mixing, documentation is lacking, advanced configuration delves into mystical - or you'll have to go read sources.

You just proved you have no idea what you are talking about and never actually used Pulseaudio. I'm running emulators like RetroArch and RPCS3 over Pulseaudio with perfect responsiveness, at the same time that I'm streaming bluetooth audio to my box over A2DP. If I want hardware mixing I have an asound.conf ready to go with pasuspender, but I actually never use it because there's no need. Pulseaudio's software mixing is brilliant.

Then you simply have no idea what "noob" or "newbie" means and should educate yourself about picking and using better, more appropriate terminology.

You're the very definition of a noob, configuring Pulseaudio is "mystical" to you. Here's my config:

load-default-script-file = yes
default-script-file = /etc/pulse-daemon.conf.d/system.pa
avoid-resampling = true
default-sample-rate = 48000
alternate-sample-rate = 44100

(1)BSD ain't UNIX. It's Unix-like.

Are you trying to say "Berkley Unix" is not Unix? Just be quiet fool, get off the internet so your stupidness doesn't spread.

(3) But you and all the hardcore fanboys keep coming into BSD section every time there's positive news about BSD.. you can't take little criticism, it's instantly "go cry elsewhere..". Why can't you follow your own advice each time BSD shows itself competitive but it has to go delve into "BSD is still baaaaaadd.."?

(2) I noticed something recently that gives you pretty good answer. Let me also remind you that Dell, Intel, Netflix, DARPA etc are also contributors to FreeBSD but none of them could ever actually direct the development, lol.. There's the crucial difference.

Sorry, I'm never in the BSD section. Any other idiotic arguments?