systemd 250 Released With A Huge Number Of New Features, Improvements

[Phil995511]

That's obviously not going to happen, the major distro's switched to systemd a decade ago because it's the superior solution. You have the choice to use a non-systemd distro, or build your own (why don't you?).



Could you explain why it's an open door to easy installation of viruses? Sounds like you haven't even looked at the code or documentation regarding the mentioned feature.

Merry xmas everyone

- Debian offers this however :

https://wiki.debian.org/systemd

Installing without systemd


Jessie installs systemd by default on new installs. Should one desire to install without systemd, i.e use sysvinit-core instead (old sysV5 init), it is possible to use preseed to replace systemd with sysvinit at the end of the install (This probably won't work if selecting one of the desktop environments that require systemd specific features however). If using a preseed file already, just make sure to set the preseed value

preseed/late_command="in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core"

If not using a preseed file, this can be added to the boot arguments instead by hitting TAB at the boot menu on the desired entry and appending the above preseed line at the end of the boot command.

There may still be a few bits of systemd installed, but at least init itself is not systemd and cleaning up any remaining pieces should not be too hard.


- For answer your second questioning, to create a new Linux distribution and maintain it, you have to be a whole team...

- Finally, if you create a malware installation script using a universal Linux package install command from SystemD, all distributions using SystemD can be infected ... Don't you think ? The use of package installation commands specific to each distribution is a guarantee against this type of problem.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

[Phil995511]

raise this issue with your therapist. meanwhile you can learn how systemd is spelled

You seem to be sorely lacking in education ;-(

[arokh]

- Debian offers this however :

https://wiki.debian.org/systemd

Installing without systemd

Just because it's possible, I wouldn't say they "offer" it. You'll end up doing a whole lot of manual work and end up with an unsupported system. Good luck filings bugs in that state. I suppose you'll need to write startup script for all your services manually too.

But sure, if you have the technical know how, installing a system without systemd is certainly possible.

- For answer your second questioning, to create a new Linux distribution and maintain it, you have to be a whole team...

I wasn't asking a question, I was making a statement. You are incorrect, as I've rolled my own distro for a decade.

- Finally, if you create a malware installation script using a universal Linux package install command from SystemD, all distributions using SystemD can be infected ... Don't you think ? The use of package installation commands specific to each distribution is a guarantee against this type of problem.

No, I don't think. Please explain why a properly implemented security policy won't prevent this? I don't think you've delved too much into either documentation or code seeing as you consistently spell systemd wrong.

[Phil995511]

Just because it's possible, I wouldn't say they "offer" it. You'll end up doing a whole lot of manual work and end up with an unsupported system. Good luck filings bugs in that state. I suppose you'll need to write startup script for all your services manually too.

But sure, if you have the technical know how, installing a system without systemd is certainly possible.



I wasn't asking a question, I was making a statement. You are incorrect, as I've rolled my own distro for a decade.



No, I don't think. Please explain why a properly implemented security policy won't prevent this? I don't think you've delved too much into either documentation or code seeing as you consistently spell systemd wrong.

Which distribution do you say you launched ? Was it a native distro or a clone of an existing distro ?

A Linux distribution worthy of the name must, in addition to being accessible to the public, be maintained by security updates. Only one person cannot maintain a distribution and provide it with the necessary security.

Today anyone can create their own custom ISO, for example with the tool below, but can we talk about independent distribution then, I don't think so :

https://fai-project.org/FAIme/

Take a Linux kernel, add a desktop environment and softs to it, all this on his personal machine, a certain number of people like me have done so to learn and discover. But this practice does not mean that we have created a Linux distribution...

I stop there, I have something other than to post on this forum.

Happy end of year celebrations.

[arokh]

Which distribution do you say you launched ? Was it a native distro or a clone of an existing distro ?

I forked a minimal distribution, reworked the toolchain and extended the package set to my needs. Today it's a whole different beast.

A Linux distribution worthy of the name must, in addition to being accessible to the public, be maintained by security updates. Only one person cannot maintain a distribution and provide it with the necessary security.

What exactly are you talking about? Worthy of the name? I argued that you can build your own distribution, and you can! It covers my security needs 100% and I'm using it as a daily driver for my HTPC, and I've also ported it to several ARM platforms (it even earned me some freebies from the manufacturer) . It's available on github (albeit an older version, I don't publish my updates anymore due to time constraint).

Today anyone can create their own custom ISO, for example with the tool below, but can we talk about independent distribution then, I don't think so

It seems that what you "think" and what is reality are two different things. I'm not talking about an online ISO creator, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from creating your own distribution completely from scratch if you will.

I don't really understand people these days, when you are this little knowledgeable you should be more humble and open to learning on technical forums. Insisting on fallacies just makes you look stupid.

I stop there, I have something other than to post on this forum.

That sounds like a great idea.

Happy end of year celebrations.

You too

[cl333r]

there would be a new feature for installing packages, it would be compatible with all distributions using systemD ... I'm trying to do some research, but I don't have not yet found more details on this point.

I learned about it from a youtube tutorial, so no wonder you couldn't find it with a google search.

[coder]

If you know anything about open source development, it is most definitely 100% black & white.

If you know anything about... reality... there can be some solution to a problem that has benefits and drawbacks. Just because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks doesn't mean the solution is optimal.

You stated that distributions should accomodate for a systemd alternative,

No, you're probably confusing me with someone else. Due to the amount of work, I'm okay with a particular distro either tying itself to systemd or not.

Tell me, what would be the incentive to do so when systemd works great and people are happy with it?

You're confusing "good" with "great". In the eyes of some, it's merely "adequate", and the activation energy of replacing it is greater than the pain suffered from its downsides. Same reason SYS-V init stuck around for so long, really.

Why don't you elaborate on what the actual problem with that is,

I think I already did, in talking about the need to wholesale upgrade/downgrade systemd, if you hit a show-stopper bug or security flaw in just one part.

In the realm of software, monolithic solutions have long been frowned upon, due to the ways they impair customization and because it's too hard to get everything right. Isolating components also improves testing and portability. These are long-accepted, general principles.

Open source makes the situation slightly less dire, since someone can patch a bug or security flaw, with sufficient motivation, but that just ends up being something of a crutch rather than truly eliminating the benefits of modularity.

what should instead be done and what is your contribution to that?

The core systemd developers are paid employees of Redhat tasked primarily with its development. I have different specializations & priorities, and so does my employer. We use systemd not by choice, but by default. While I believe a truly modular solution would be better, the pain experienced by systemd's shortcomings doesn't exceed the activation energy needed to actively pursue a different solution. This doesn't nullify any of my points. It would take "a lack of technical competence and understanding" not to comprehend that.

[intelfx]

In the short term, sure. However, the focus should be on adding the ioctls to the driver APIs, as the long-term solution, while using a bolt-on database as a band aid.

You can't just "add ioctls" if the hardware lacks the capability to self-describe. And even in the opposite case, it needs a ton of effort in every driver that no one is really willing to spend.

I was allowing the possibility that the driver supports a general query of some sort, but isn't smart enough to parse out the relevant bits. This could be harnessed by a userspace component, assuming the format of the response is somehow regular enough, for some class of devices, that userspace could do that reliably for them.

It's a bit of a contrived case. I don't think it applies to anything except SCSI/ATA storage devices, and udev is already doing that (see how block device probing works).

[coder]

I guess it's the same old sense of entitlement to dictating how other people should be running their project.

Do you allow anyone who watches movies to have an opinion about them, except other film makers? What about allowing consumers to have opinions about products they buy? It's the same thing. I'm allowed to have an opinions about what I deem is a better solution than the one I'm currently stuck with. That does not qualify as a sense of entitlement.

What I don't understand is why you're apparently so threatened by any form of criticism. Why are you so invested in systemd, exactly how it is? I justified my compaints. Now it's your turn to explain your defensiveness.

[coder]

- Debian offers this however :

https://wiki.debian.org/systemd

Installing without systemd


Jessie installs systemd by default on new installs. Should one desire to install without systemd, i.e use sysvinit-core instead (old sysV5 init), it is possible to use preseed to replace systemd with sysvinit at the end of the install (This probably won't work if selecting one of the desktop environments that require systemd specific features however).

1. That's a pretty big caveat that desktop environments don't support it.
2. Nobody as arguing that we want to stick with the bad old SYS-V Init.

IMO, it feels like choice for its own sake, rather than to provide a meaningfully viable alternative.

- Finally, if you create a malware installation script using a universal Linux package install command from SystemD, all distributions using SystemD can be infected ... Don't you think ? The use of package installation commands specific to each distribution is a guarantee against this type of problem.

This is sort of the old "monoculture" argument against having a dominant software component or ecosystem. It's not completely wrong, but if you're really concerned about that, maybe you also don't even want to run Linux?

IMO, there are enough other mitigations one can use against malware that security-by-obscurity needn't be employed. Also, if you're using a niche package management solution, then the component builds/packages are far more likely to have issue (i.e. due to fewer people testing them and probably fewer maintainers, as well). So, it's not without costs.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

And to you, as well!