Systemd 237 Released With WireGuard Support, Keyboard See-Saw/Rocker Changes

[starshipeleven]

When an interface is defined by a single implementation and that implementation changes the interface over time as and when its developers see fit, distros cannot simply create an alternative implementation as doing so risks their distro being incompatible with applications which depend on subtle implementation details of the "official" implementation.

When you have a separate standards group or even just a set of popular shared conventions (as was the case prior to systemd), you have much more assurance that applications will be portable and less reliant on the implementation details of a single implementation. Developers are forced to be more liberal in what they accept and conservative in what they send in order to be maximally compatible.

Are you talking of GNOME or of systemd? because Systemd project daemons are covered by the Interface Stability Promise, so they have a stable (retrocompatible) and documented API. See here. https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Sof...tabilityChart/

It's interesting that you have associated me with an anti-systemd crowd.

It's either that, or you like to live dangerously. People don't usually employ textbook FUD tactics for giggles.

[cybertraveler]

A good FUD post, kudos to you. Looks technical and has the right amount of logic in it to fool people that don't know enough of the topic.

[snip]

Beware of people that not only comprehend what you post and can also see through your disguise and help lesser minds to do the same.

As someone said "there is always a bigger fish".

Oh sh!t. I've been outed. My disguise and "FUD" tactics have been revealed by the master fish. /s

By the way. Where you said "I don't know why you say "additional" ", you actually quoted my (non abstract) examples of existing central points of attack (them being Linux and GCC) directly above your comment.

I could add more detail and concrete examples to further explain my points and respond to some of your "debunking", but it wouldn't be worth my time as you appear to think I am acting in bad faith.

[oiaohm]

Oh sh!t. I've been outed. My disguise and "FUD" tactics have been revealed by the master fish. /s

By the way. Where you said "I don't know why you say "additional" ", you actually quoted my (non abstract) examples of existing central points of attack (them being Linux and GCC) directly above your comment.

I could add more detail and concrete examples to further explain my points and respond to some of your "debunking", but it wouldn't be worth my time as you appear to think I am acting in bad faith.

Really you missed that sysvinit with it usage of bash/dash/shell script was also a nice central point of failure. A true Turing complete scripting language with highest privilege on the system,

The one thing particularly about systemd unit files is they are intentionally not turing complete this makes a very big difference from security. Thinking once you leave the unit file you are in cgroups/namespaces with systemd as well. Any not to specification action in a unit file will be done inside cgroups/namespace.

Sorry but I would say you a clueless you have looked a systemd and not closely looked a the prior default in most distributions sysvinit to find many bits of evil.

So like it or not there was always a central point of failure since the first desktop Linux Distributions. Really there were in fact across sysvinit using Linux system about 40 different groups who could cause a multi distribution central point of failure. Of course the fact that these parts did not work with each other that great picking up that there was a hostile party involved would have been hard.

Really cybertraveler go away look at sysvinit in detail and you will find it was a total nightmare. Anyone who as seriously gone over the prior init options for Linux knows all of them were security nightmares with many central points of failure.


I like you boo hoo I am being called out I will now not provide concrete examples. Problem here I have a huge list of concrete examples of the prior init systems issues. I did give some in earlier post.

Really the work on systemd is allowing flatpak that will allow properly portable applications on Linux because systemd fixed up cgroups/namespaces.

alternative implementation as doing so risks their distro being incompatible with applications which depend on subtle implementation details of the "official" implementation.

This problem was already true before systemd existed just read debian bugzilla back in history with the bugs around runit and other init solutions. There are many applications that depending on unique features of sysvinit like how it reaps zombies. Also attempt running gnome in the time sysvinit ruled the without consolekit.

Lot of the arguments against systemd you can delete the word systemd and insert sysvinit and be perfectly correct. Most people did not bother looking under the hood with sysvinit to understand how far up the creek in barded-wire canoe without a paddle they are and it only gets worse once you look at the old dbus, consolekit, hald.....

[starshipeleven]

I could add more detail and concrete examples to further explain my points and respond to some of your "debunking", but it wouldn't be worth my time as you appear to think I am acting in bad faith.

Do it for the people if not for me.

[pcxmac]

I get why people like it (convenience) but I also get why moths fly towards flames.

[starshipeleven]

I get why people like it (convenience) but I also get why moths fly towards flames.

You're gifted. Publish a scientific paper, because there is no defintive answer for why months fly towards flames.

[arokh]

When an interface is defined by a single implementation and that implementation changes the interface over time as and when its developers see fit, distros cannot simply create an alternative implementation as doing so risks their distro being incompatible with applications which depend on subtle implementation details of the "official" implementation.

Which interface is it you are worried about?

When you have a separate standards group or even just a set of popular shared conventions (as was the case prior to systemd), you have much more assurance that applications will be portable and less reliant on the implementation details of a single implementation. Developers are forced to be more liberal in what they accept and conservative in what they send in order to be maximally compatible.

What applications exactly? Portable to what?

It's interesting that you have associated me with an anti-systemd crowd. I am neither anti-systemd nor do I speak for that crowd (assuming there is such a thing). Your comment makes me wonder why you'd say that. I expect you don't have a strong rebuttal, so you are falling back on primitive sophistry (mis-characterization, poising the well and transfer of values by association). Your "clueless" comment is a simple ad hominem attack.

You are not anti-systemd? That's a joke right?

Yes indeed, I thought a simple attack was the most befitting one to your post. Perhaps you'd prefer a more "abstract" attack?

Still waiting for someone to actually post a real problem with systemd and to provide alternative code. Meanwhile the rest of the world already moved on to systemd a long time ago.

[cybertraveler]

Which interface is it you are worried about?



What applications exactly? Portable to what?



You are not anti-systemd? That's a joke right?

Yes indeed, I thought a simple attack was the most befitting one to your post. Perhaps you'd prefer a more "abstract" attack?

Still waiting for someone to actually post a real problem with systemd and to provide alternative code. Meanwhile the rest of the world already moved on to systemd a long time ago.

Your communication style is baffling to me. I looked at your post history and I can instantly see that you're spewing insults and expressing anger at people in almost every post you make. These are extracts from your last 8 comments made on this forum. All extracts are words directed people on this forum (including me):

clueless

braindead

your own incompetence

Perhaps try creating a thread somewhere titled "Hey everybody, I'm a complete noob

an idiot who is incapable of understanding (and learning) how software works

grow up

just because you are incompetent does not mean everybody is obligated to spend time spoon feeding you.

you're still incompetent

Learn it or STFU

yet another absolutely clueless newbie

This is a technical forum. There's no need to speak with people this way if you don't agree with them. If you think someone is incorrect, you don't have to be impolite; doing so is unlikely to help people see your perspective.

[oiaohm]

This is a technical forum. There's no need to speak with people this way if you don't agree with them. If you think someone is incorrect, you don't have to be impolite; doing so is unlikely to help people see your perspective.

We are not to swear words yet. Technical forums are not known for being 100 percent polite. Particularly when you are constantly getting stuff wrong.


cybertraveler
I'm definitely not saying that everyone who fully supports systemd is less capable of more complex abstract thought. I am saying though that there are likely a large number of systemd full-supporters who do struggle to comprehend this stuff (we are not all born equal).

It not like you don't do underhanded insults. I am sorry but I don't attempt to suger coat insults neither does arokh.

Now you were talking about systemd.

I could add more detail and concrete examples to further explain my points and respond to some of your "debunking", but it wouldn't be worth my time as you appear to think I am acting in bad faith.

So now you wasting time on personal attacks so you don't have to provide more concrete examples. So really you are just proving you are acting in bad faith cybertraveler because you are now attempting to change topic to a topic that is pointless because you have the same bad behaviour just more hidden.

[cybertraveler]

We are not to swear words yet. Technical forums are not known for being 100 percent polite. Particularly when you are constantly getting stuff wrong.


cybertraveler
I'm definitely not saying that everyone who fully supports systemd is less capable of more complex abstract thought. I am saying though that there are likely a large number of systemd full-supporters who do struggle to comprehend this stuff (we are not all born equal).

It not like you don't do underhanded insults. I am sorry but I don't attempt to suger coat insults neither does arokh.

Now you were talking about systemd.



So now you wasting time on personal attacks so you don't have to provide more concrete examples. So really you are just proving you are acting in bad faith cybertraveler because you are now attempting to change topic to a topic that is pointless because you have the same bad behaviour just more hidden.

There's a huge difference between my language and this. He's telling individuals they are idiots and to STFU.

It's obvious that arokh is angry and vitriolic. I don't know what the deal with you and starship is, but I don't get the sense you're trying to see my perspective. I'm not going to plead with you to see my perspective.

Unsubbed from this thread. Enjoy yourselves.