Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How To Use Systemd For Application Sandboxing & How To Easily Crash Systemd

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by Rubble Monkey View Post

    I like that he gave the whole blog a good look, but what I didn't like (which for some reason applies to most systemd defenders) is that he calls "missing the bigger picture" "throwing a tantrum". He even admits that valid points were brought up (which is admirable to do for something he supports that much) but he still tries to make the author look childish and discredit him instead of just correcting him!
    While some systemd defenders as you name can be childish, the same applied to some detractors as well when they first started insulting which is called hypocrisy..

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      ...this is exactly the kind of thing I, and a few million others, foresaw when systemd first appeared. Ahem. Trying hard to suppress a told-you-so.
      Yeah and Linux never panicked...
      And this is not really a bug, because the crash happened due to an assert. Asserts get removed on release code (because it's some kind of primitive unit test). For some reasons some distributions didn't remove it. This is why some could reproduce the crash and some not.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by nils_ View Post

        Why would you give nginx write access to its data directory?
        Owncloud.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Rubble Monkey View Post
          I like that he gave the whole blog a good look, but what I didn't like (which for some reason applies to most systemd defenders) is that he calls "missing the bigger picture" "throwing a tantrum". He even admits that valid points were brought up (which is admirable to do for something he supports that much) but he still tries to make the author look childish and discredit him instead of just correcting him!
          That's because the reasonable points are few and far in betweeen random anti-systemd bullshit.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            ...this is exactly the kind of thing I, and a few million others, foresaw when systemd first appeared. Ahem. Trying hard to suppress a told-you-so.
            What, that the main bugs would be minor bugs seen only with debug code left in?

            Meanwhile, crashing scripts hard or using them to privilege-escalate is still a child's play (as the latest mysql vulnerability demonstrated).

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Rubble Monkey View Post

              I like that he gave the whole blog a good look, but what I didn't like (which for some reason applies to most systemd defenders) is that he calls "missing the bigger picture" "throwing a tantrum". He even admits that valid points were brought up (which is admirable to do for something he supports that much) but he still tries to make the author look childish and discredit him instead of just correcting him!
              Yes, it was comprehensive and a good read

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Rubble Monkey View Post
                I like that he gave the whole blog a good look, but what I didn't like (which for some reason applies to most systemd defenders) is that he calls "missing the bigger picture" "throwing a tantrum". He even admits that valid points were brought up (which is admirable to do for something he supports that much) but he still tries to make the author look childish and discredit him instead of just correcting him!
                He also does explain why that blog post could be described as a tantrum. A rant about systemd as a whole triggered by a minor bug.

                Comment


                • #18
                  I would like systemd-nspawn allowed the creation of unprivileged containers

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Rubble Monkey View Post

                    I like that he gave the whole blog a good look, but what I didn't like (which for some reason applies to most systemd defenders) is that he calls "missing the bigger picture" "throwing a tantrum". He even admits that valid points were brought up (which is admirable to do for something he supports that much) but he still tries to make the author look childish and discredit him instead of just correcting him!
                    If Ayer cares as much about modular design and replaceable components as he claims, then he should be cheering on at least some of systemd’s work in making security more usable and major subsystems more modular. Instead, he’s cherry-picking what he considers negatives (some of which, I admit, are legitimate criticisms) and then calling for a complete replacement of systemd. This is what turns a critique into a tantrum.
                    Also, Ayer made more than his share of cheap shots in his post (from using dog whistle terms to misrepresenting a project's architecture, management and development).

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Hi yall,

                      Re-posting, because of what might politely be called, "strident pro-systemd" peeps...

                      Over this past year, I've seen a lot of frequently-used but logically invalid arguments for using systemd.  This blog post is meant to serve...


                      GreekGeek :-)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X