Originally posted by slalomsk8er
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
systemd Rolling Out "run0" As sudo Alternative
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by back2未來 View Post[ basic criticism is, that systemd is binaries, while some predecessors are scripts utilizing more basic system tools, that are under strong review(?) ]
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Artim View PostIf doas could do exactly everything sudo does with no drawbacks it would have replaced sudo a long time ago. Nothing you need to "educate yourself" about, common sense and logik is everything you need.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLief View Postsystemd is actually extremely modular; pretty much every service can be replaced or disabled.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't know and do you a favor and save you the effort of looking this up.
There. Now you know better.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by holunder View PostBTW, please come to the Fediverse/Mastodon, Phoronix!
And I don’t mean Mastodon•social because many instances are already blocking them for bad moderation.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by rafanelli View PostSo if systemd needs to be broken up. Then how? And why was it not designed in a more modular fashion to begin with?
The breaking up of systemD, for it to work, would have to be like Wayland, a set of protocols and extensions, so each implementation has to still be the same in the way they communicate with each other.
Oh, wait, we just described D-bus...
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you can, right now, write software to replace any single part of systemD, all you have to do is correctly interface with what you don't want to rewrite via D-Bus.
- Likes 6
Comment
-
Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
No. This is just patently false and the back and forth hard dependencies between systemD packages have been well documented for years at this point. You not personally running into this issue is textbook "runs fine on my machine" denialism and ignorant at best, flat out dishonest at worst.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't know and do you a favor and save you the effort of looking this up.
There. Now you know better.
- Likes 7
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kjell View Postsystemd is vendor lock-in at this point
You can't opt-out of most features unless you compile it yourself
Packages are gradually starting to depend on functionality of systemd
We no longer have the freedom of choice as they're pushing more and more features into a single point of failure.. XZ vulnerability depended on functionality of systemd (edit: for those missing the bigger point, such problems are a biproduct of feature creep. Also, let's not discuss how buggy core components are, like systemd-networkd & systemd-resolved, and how many attack vectors systemd introduces with the amount of modules they provide).
How far will this go?
systemd/GNU/Linux
I'm fine with systemd as an init system. It works well enough, and people are used to it by now. What I don't like is the forcing of all of it's other completely unrelated modules on us, especially when they're simply worse than things that already exist most of the time. Myself and a friend have had to replace systemd-resolvd several times because it simply does not work with VPNs properly.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by Artim View PostSo do things the proper way first before you ask how to do something the proper way, that's simply not supposed to be a thing.
Before some programs (mainly text editors) started implementing this by hand, how did you deal with it? How were you editing files for example in /etc? If you can't "sudo" your text editor because Gtk refuses to run as root or whatever, then what?
IMO, the "proper" way you describe kind of sucks.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment