Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Group Calls For Boycotting Systemd

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

  • drSeehas
    replied
    Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
    ... I'm barely more interested in KDE and Xfce. ...
    LXDE/LXQt?
    Enlightenment?
    ?toil??

    Leave a comment:


  • Ibidem
    replied
    So someone (apparently affiliated with the group that inspired this) went ahead and forked systemd 208 as "uselessd" (they suggest parsing it as "use less" or "useless", whichever you prefer).
    http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/

    It can compile and run on musl, uClibc, and FreeBSD systems; the last-mentioned is as a service manager started by init, requires a bit of mucking around to use, and is missing a lot of functionality/barely partly working.

    Most of the systemd features other than the process supervisor have been removed.
    I found out about this when I updated aports.

    Still not interested.
    The init I'm really interested in weighs 492 lines right now, and may be less by the time it's done.
    And if you say "But gnome depends on systemd", I'll say "Good riddance!" I've hated it since I first tried it (Dapper Drake, on a Thinkpad 600x with 64 megs of RAM and a 500 MHz CPU ). And I'm barely more interested in KDE and Xfce. The only desktop a computer should have is the one it sits on.

    Well, OK, I use CDE sometimes; but it's the only DE I'd consider.

    I've written sysv-style init scripts several times, including a networking service because there aren't enough of them already (or at least enough that work right ). I've hacked together a couple rc scripts to start built-from-scratch systems.
    And guess what? I liked it, and I want to do it again.

    But I might try writing a dependency-based init in make first, just because make is a dependency-based language.

    Leave a comment:


  • bmourit
    replied
    Um... No one is trying to force you to do anything. If anything, those "boycotting" are the ones attempting to force it out!

    Am I the only one who thinks "organizing" a boycott is a little... unnecessary? I mean, anyone who cares that much will likely switch distros anyway, correct? That, or implement something else themselves...

    It seems like a sad waste of time and energy that could be better spent on developing a viable, modern alternative. If we don't like it, then we make something better. Crying doesn't solve anything.


    Originally posted by phred14 View Post
    I don't mind that. Feel free to use systemd, I really don't mind that either.

    But I don't want to use systemd, and it need go no farther than that. You need not know or understand my reasons - they may matter to me, but they don't have to do you. When someone comes out and says, "systemd has won" as was posted earlier in this thread, it's not far to imagine some glee in the idea that I too will be forced to run systemd soon.

    Why do you care! Is your life that boring that you have to try to control my computer, too? Get a life!

    (The next thing someone else on this thread will do, besides schooling me on how stupid, backward, and retarded I am, will be to tell me to "get a life" and just go ahead and use systemd, already.)
    Last edited by bmourit; 20 September 2014, 05:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke
    replied
    I was talking about the FIRMWARE source code

    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    It would still need to be properly signed once compiled in order to get it past the existing bootloader and/or firmware checks.
    If it was iPhone firmware being hacked, recompiled from leaked source, and force-flashed by an external "bus pirate" device, the firmware checks would be what was removed, allowing any bootloader to be used that supported the processor in question, thus any operating system compiled to that architecture. Actually, the compiler might be a bigger problem: does anyone know exactly what architecture (presumably some kind of ARM) Apple is using?

    Leave a comment:


  • ogait87
    replied
    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    It would still need to be properly signed once compiled in order to get it past the existing bootloader and/or firmware checks.


    Has Linus ever personally spoke out against tivoization? From what I gather, preventing such things has never been one of his goals, but I can't speak to that with any confidence.
    Linus says in debconf 2014 that he personaly does not like tivoization. But the social contract he pretends for the kernel is giving and receiving the source code. The trivoization clause seams to prevent that.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mg5_gxNXTo#t=2841

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke View Post
    I suspect even an iPhone could be unlocked if the source code for the firmware was leaked.
    It would still need to be properly signed once compiled in order to get it past the existing bootloader and/or firmware checks.

    Originally posted by Luke View Post
    Speaking of that, I just thought of a way to prevent use of the kernel by the makers of tivoised devices without relicensing it: move some key functionality needed to start it to GRUB and copy it into all other Linux bootloaders willing to be licensed under the GPL3. Only that code would have to be relicensed. Make enough changes that cutting and pasting GPL 2 code from an older version won't work.
    Has Linus ever personally spoke out against tivoization? From what I gather, preventing such things has never been one of his goals, but I can't speak to that with any confidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke
    replied
    Systemd can't turn open source into closed source and is itself FOSS

    Originally posted by jbernardo View Post
    As it was too late to edit my post, here is the rest of it:

    "We want our images to be trustable (i.e. signed). In fact we want a fully trustable OS, with images that can be verified by a full trust chain from the firmware (EFI SecureBoot!), through the boot loader, through the kernel, and initrd. Cryptographically secure verification of the code we execute is relevant on the desktop (like ChromeOS does), but also for apps, for embedded devices and even on servers (in a post-Snowden world, in particular)." (http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-...x-systems.html)

    With this, we will no longer have linux. We'll have a tivo, that only runs something mandated by the hardware seller, and that the user can't change. Right now, I can replace the firmware on my routers with DD-WRT, or Tomato, or whatever else. I can install plain linux on a chromebook. I can install linux on a laptop. With this? Possibly the only linux allowed will redhat, and all ARM devices will become non-upgradeable/customisable appliances, to throw away every year as they become "obsolete".
    Am I the only one who is scared of this "tivoisation" by design? Apparently for the lennart-fans here, this is a "good thing"(tm).
    Keep in mind, any distro with open source, even one of "signed filesystem images," could be rebuilt from the source to ignore signatures or replace keys with the uses, for use on unlocked hardware. It would be like having the source code for the firmware of a locked system, plus a Bus Pirate to forcibly reflash it with your hacked version. I suspect even an iPhone could be unlocked if the source code for the firmware was leaked.

    I do believe that as a community FOSS software authors should refuse to assist in the development of locked throwaway junk, anything likely to be desired for such a system should be licensed under GLP3 to explicitly forbid its use by these OEMs. If they are going to treat the owners of devices as black hats, than we should treat the makers of tivoised hardware as freeloading, code-mooching parasites.

    Speaking of that, I just thought of a way to prevent use of the kernel by the makers of tivoised devices without relicensing it: move some key functionality needed to start it to GRUB and copy it into all other Linux bootloaders willing to be licensed under the GPL3. Only that code would have to be relicensed. Make enough changes that cutting and pasting GPL 2 code from an older version won't work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Awesomeness
    replied
    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
    What's wrong with german cars?
    Nothing. They are the best cars in the world, unlike US cars which nobody likes (US motor industry is dead for a reason).
    And soon non-systemd distros become Detroit.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    Originally posted by jbernardo View Post
    I was more hoping for something from the "systemd cabal" (as they called themselves in that blog post) stating clearly that the machine owner will always have the keys, and will be able to sign, build and install his own packages. They are the ones pushing for this "all signed tamper proof" OS, so something more specific would be nice.
    They cannot. To be secure, the signing verification has to be done from the hardware up, so it depends on the hardware provider if you own the keys or not.

    But locked bootloaders have existed for linux for ages (android phones), so the situation cannot go worse. On the other hand, knowing cryptographically, as a consumer, what you run on your computer is still pretty difficult sometimes, so the situation can certainly get better.

    Leave a comment:


  • torsionbar28
    replied
    Originally posted by michal View Post
    For me it's simple - I don't like german cars, I don't own any and I don't give a shit about them. I don't waste my life on whining on german motorization
    What's wrong with german cars? I guess everyone has a preference, but seems odd to exclude based on country of origin.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X