Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux > #53543 > unrolled thread

The Danger of Systemd

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux

Contents

  The Danger of Systemd "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-02-04 14:23 +0000
    Re: The Danger of Systemd Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-04 15:06 +0000
      Re: The Danger of Systemd "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-02-04 15:20 +0000
        Re: The Danger of Systemd "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-02-04 19:27 +0100
    Re: The Danger of Systemd flyer <snowflyer09o@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 15:12 +0000
      Re: The Danger of Systemd "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-02-04 15:34 +0000
        Re: The Danger of Systemd Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-02-04 09:53 -0600
          Re: The Danger of Systemd "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-02-04 16:07 +0000
            Re: The Danger of Systemd Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2019-02-04 19:05 +0000
              Re: The Danger of Systemd "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-02-04 19:14 +0000
              Re: The Danger of Systemd Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2019-02-05 14:00 +0200
                Re: The Danger of Systemd Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-02-05 15:13 -0600
                Re: The Danger of Systemd Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-02-05 16:32 -0500
                  Re: The Danger of Systemd Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2019-02-06 09:35 +0200
                Re: The Danger of Systemd Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2019-02-05 21:35 +0000
      Re: The Danger of Systemd William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2019-02-04 17:04 +0000
        Re: The Danger of Systemd Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2019-02-04 19:11 +0000
    Re: The Danger of Systemd DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-02-04 12:15 -0500
    Re: The Danger of Systemd "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-02-04 19:22 +0100
    Re: The Danger of Systemd Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2019-02-06 22:08 +0100
      Re: The Danger of Systemd "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-02-07 17:00 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#53543 — The Danger of Systemd

For those of you -- and that certainly includes MOST of you --
who still believe that systemd is just another "init" system, you
are terribly mistaken.

The vision and goal of systemd is to become the one-and-only, de facto
interface between all user space and the kernel:

http://0pointer.de/public/gnomeasia2014.pdf

Keep in mind that this is the vision of one company, RedHat,
and its horde of lackeys led by Poettering.  There has been
no community assent, or even desire, to invoke the development
of systemd.  It is purely a unilateral and renegade movement sponsored
by RedHat that is being forced by the acquiescent and cowardly distros.

Fortunately, due to the incompetence of Poettering and his cohorts,
the grandiose schemes expressed in the above document have not been
fully realized, but the intention is still very much alive.

The future of Linux will see more and more incursion of systemd
with the cowardly distros slavishly accepting it all without
question.

This was NEVER the vision of Stallman and GNU and certainly not
of Torvalds.

Because of systemd, Linux will fail as a free OS.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#53544

"F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> writes:
> The future of Linux will see more and more incursion of systemd
> with the cowardly distros slavishly accepting it all without
> question.

Maybe, but the historical situation is the opposite of acceptance
without question: Debian alone had a >7000-message discussion about it.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53546

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:06:16 +0000, Richard Kettlewell vomited this
verbiage that I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a
variety of possible reasons:

> 
> but the historical situation is the opposite of acceptance
> without question: Debian alone had a >7000-message discussion about it.
>

They have to do more -- a LOT more -- than just talk.

The developers at Gentoo, for example, have created eudev as a
response to the systemd appropriation of udev.  This represents
a significant step towards rejecting the hegemony of systemd.

Fortunately, I still utilize static device nodes and require
neither udev nor eudev, but I recognize the extreme importance
of having this alternative.

However, with systemd looming, I always wonder just how much
longer I will be able to choose static device nodes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53560

On 2/4/19 4:20 PM, F. Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:06:16 +0000, Richard Kettlewell vomited this
> verbiage that I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a
> variety of possible reasons:
> 
>>
>> but the historical situation is the opposite of acceptance
>> without question: Debian alone had a >7000-message discussion about it.
>>
> 
> They have to do more -- a LOT more -- than just talk.
> 
> The developers at Gentoo, for example, have created eudev as a
> response to the systemd appropriation of udev.  This represents
> a significant step towards rejecting the hegemony of systemd.
> 
> Fortunately, I still utilize static device nodes and require
> neither udev nor eudev, but I recognize the extreme importance
> of having this alternative.
> 
> However, with systemd looming, I always wonder just how much
> longer I will be able to choose static device nodes.

or boot when an unimportant partion fails to mount during boot up.

I think that list can be made quite long, I can over see some stupid 
design flaws, but the thing that horrifies me most is the huge amount of 
serious security vulnerabilities that has already been discovered in 
systemd and those will just be more the more things it eats up, also 
reading some of the comments in the code just makes me think of a bunch 
of Indian developers who has no grasp of what they are doing.

-- 

  //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53545

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:23:24 +0000, F. Russell wrote:

> For those of you -- and that certainly includes MOST of you --
> who still believe that systemd is just another "init" system, you are
> terribly mistaken.
> 
> The vision and goal of systemd is to become the one-and-only, de facto
> interface between all user space and the kernel:
> 
> http://0pointer.de/public/gnomeasia2014.pdf
> 
> Keep in mind that this is the vision of one company, RedHat,
> and its horde of lackeys led by Poettering.  There has been no community
> assent, or even desire, to invoke the development of systemd.  It is
> purely a unilateral and renegade movement sponsored by RedHat that is
> being forced by the acquiescent and cowardly distros.
> 
> Fortunately, due to the incompetence of Poettering and his cohorts, the
> grandiose schemes expressed in the above document have not been fully
> realized, but the intention is still very much alive.
> 
> The future of Linux will see more and more incursion of systemd with the
> cowardly distros slavishly accepting it all without question.
> 
> This was NEVER the vision of Stallman and GNU and certainly not of
> Torvalds.
> 
> Because of systemd, Linux will fail as a free OS.

What is systemd?
Is there a systema?
How about a systemb?
systemc?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53547

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:12:20 +0000, flyer vomited this verbiage that I
considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible
reasons:

> 
> What is systemd?
> 

That's a very good question.  There is little essential information
about such things.

The "d" suffix stands for "daemon," or, "demon."

A daemon is a running program whose sole purpose is to stand by
in the background and "listen" for certain system occurrences and
then to respond accordingly.

Some computer users may find such daemons to be welcome because
they enjoy the supposed "magic" which they bring.

Other computer users may find such daemons to be entirely useless
clutter that complicate both their understanding and control of
their own systems.

The truth is that ALL daemons, without exception, are purely
OPTIONAL on a GNU/Linux system and their presence or absence
should be the free choice of the user.

Systemd eliminates that free choice.















Is there a systema?
> How about a systemb?
> systemc?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53548

On 4 Feb 2019 15:34:28 GMT, F. Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:12:20 +0000, flyer vomited this verbiage that I
> considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible
> reasons:
>
>>
>> What is systemd?
>>
>
> That's a very good question.  There is little essential information
> about such things.

Then I would guess you have not bothered to look.
    $ grep systemd /local/doc/urls | wc -l
    29
that I have bookmarked during my systemd research.

Then there are the
        $ man -k systemd | wc -l
        187
man page documents.


>
> Systemd eliminates that free choice.

Only if you pick a distribution which requires it to be installed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53549

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:53:24 -0600, Bit Twister vomited this verbiage that
I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible
reasons:

> 
>> Systemd eliminates that free choice.
> 
> Only if you pick a distribution which requires it to be installed.
>

Once their BUS1 is forced into the kernel then there will
be no way to avoid systemd.

Developers will no longer be willing or even able to maintain
two separate and alternative versions of their software. 

You will note that BUS1 is not mentioned in your cited docs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53564

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 16:07:37 +0000, F. Russell scribbled:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:53:24 -0600, Bit Twister vomited this verbiage
> that I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of
> possible reasons:
> 
>>> Systemd eliminates that free choice.
>> 
>> Only if you pick a distribution which requires it to be installed.
>
> Once their BUS1 is forced into the kernel then there will be no way to
> avoid systemd.
> 
> Developers will no longer be willing or even able to maintain two
> separate and alternative versions of their software.
> 
> You will note that BUS1 is not mentioned in your cited docs.

What you are talking about is called kdbus.  And it ain't gonna happen, 
because Linus doesn't want it.

-- 
With respect,
= Aragorn =

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53566

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 19:05:00 +0000, Aragorn vomited this verbiage that I
considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible
reasons:

> 
> What you are talking about is called kdbus. 
>

No. I'm talking about bus1:

http://bus1.org


These guys are INCOMPETENT.  Kdbus was a failure and bus1 is also
becoming a failure.  So now they are trying to go with dbus-broker.

But RedHat wants to control the kernel IPC as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53594

with <q3a2cs$ce7$1@dont-email.me> Aragorn wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 16:07:37 +0000, F. Russell scribbled:
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:53:24 -0600, Bit Twister vomited this verbiage

>> that I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety
>> of possible reasons:
>>>> Systemd eliminates that free choice.
>>> Only if you pick a distribution which requires it to be installed.
>> Once their BUS1 is forced into the kernel then there will be no way
>> to avoid systemd.
*SKIP*
> What you are talking about is called kdbus.  And it ain't gonna
> happen, because Linus doesn't want it.

Who / what is 'Linus'?

-- 
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53598

On Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:00:57 +0200, Eric Pozharski wrote:
> with <q3a2cs$ce7$1@dont-email.me> Aragorn wrote:


>> What you are talking about is called kdbus.  And it ain't gonna
>> happen, because Linus doesn't want it.
>
> Who / what is 'Linus'?
>

Try putting      Linus linux
in the first box at https://encrypted.google.com/advanced_search
and see what pops up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53601

Eric Pozharski wrote:
> with <q3a2cs$ce7$1@dont-email.me> Aragorn wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 16:07:37 +0000, F. Russell scribbled:
>>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:53:24 -0600, Bit Twister vomited this verbiage
> 
>>> that I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety
>>> of possible reasons:
>>>>> Systemd eliminates that free choice.
>>>> Only if you pick a distribution which requires it to be installed.
>>> Once their BUS1 is forced into the kernel then there will be no way
>>> to avoid systemd.
> *SKIP*
>> What you are talking about is called kdbus.  And it ain't gonna
>> happen, because Linus doesn't want it.
> 
> Who / what is 'Linus'? 

He's the inventor of the middle finger.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=nvidia-linux-rant-three-years

He also runs some kind of software operation.

He's known for not being gentle with lesser individuals,
which on balance is probably a good thing.

He went in for a tuneup.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-is-doing-a-good-and-brave-thing/

But if something endangers the openness of what he works
on, I trust him to have an opinion on it. They didn't
cut off his middle finger, merely loosened up the
tendons on it a bit so it doesn't stay permanently extended.

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53631

with <q3cvdj$hr3$1@dont-email.me> Paul wrote:
> Eric Pozharski wrote:
>> with <q3a2cs$ce7$1@dont-email.me> Aragorn wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 16:07:37 +0000, F. Russell scribbled:
>>>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:53:24 -0600, Bit Twister vomited this verbiage

>>>> that I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety
>>>> of possible reasons:
>>>>>> Systemd eliminates that free choice.
>>>>> Only if you pick a distribution which requires it to be installed.
>>>> Once their BUS1 is forced into the kernel then there will be no way
>>>> to avoid systemd.
>>> What you are talking about is called kdbus.  And it ain't gonna
>>> happen, because Linus doesn't want it.
>> Who / what is 'Linus'? 
> He's the inventor of the middle finger.

Got it.  No wories, after last intervention he won't pose a problem.

*CUT*

-- 
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53602

On Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:00:57 +0200, Eric Pozharski scribbled:

> with <q3a2cs$ce7$1@dont-email.me> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 16:07:37 +0000, F. Russell scribbled:
>>
>>> Once their BUS1 is forced into the kernel then there will be no way to
>>> avoid systemd.
>>
>> What you are talking about is called kdbus.  And it ain't gonna happen,
>> because Linus doesn't want it.
> 
> Who / what is 'Linus'?

Linus Benedict Torvalds, the creator and at present time still lead 
developer of the Linux kernel.

           https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

-- 
With respect,
= Aragorn =

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53552

On 2019-02-04, flyer <snowflyer09o@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is systemd?
> Is there a systema?
> How about a systemb?
> systemc?

The d stands for daemon, not "the fourth iteration of " . A daemon is a
program which runs in the background to carry out some continuing or
episodic task. systemd is a program whose primay purpose is to start up
all of the programs and daemons needed to run a linux system. It is a
replacement for an older system called sysVinit (which came from bsd)
which had a bunch of bash script to start of the various things needed
at boot, and which had become old and clunky and slow systemd has
excited much discussion, because of some of the design decisions made (
and because it is very different in its working from sysVinit). It
sacrifices readability for speed. 
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53565

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 17:04:06 +0000, William Unruh scribbled:

> systemd is a program whose primay purpose is to start up all of the
> programs and daemons needed to run a linux system. It is a replacement
> for an older system called sysVinit (which came from bsd) [...]

Um, no, sysvinit comes from <insert drum roll> AT&T System V Unix. :p  

BSD's init is a derivative of System V init and it is compatible with it, 
but it does work somewhat differently.  Slackware and its derivatives are 
the only GNU/Linux distributions I know of that use the BSD init style. ;)

-- 
With respect,
= Aragorn =

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53554

On 2/4/2019 9:23 AM, F. Russell wrote:
> For those of you -- and that certainly includes MOST of you --
> who still believe that systemd is just another "init" system, you
> are terribly mistaken.
> 
> The vision and goal of systemd is to become the one-and-only, de facto
> interface between all user space and the kernel:
> 
> http://0pointer.de/public/gnomeasia2014.pdf
> 
> Keep in mind that this is the vision of one company, RedHat,
> and its horde of lackeys led by Poettering.  There has been
> no community assent, or even desire, to invoke the development
> of systemd.  It is purely a unilateral and renegade movement sponsored
> by RedHat that is being forced by the acquiescent and cowardly distros.


Lucky you have all the code needed to keep your system systemd-free forever.



> Fortunately, due to the incompetence of Poettering and his cohorts,
> the grandiose schemes expressed in the above document have not been
> fully realized, but the intention is still very much alive.


What incompetence?


As of May 2014 (5.75 years ago)

<quote>
What we already cover:
init system, journal logging, login management, device management, 
temporary and volatile file management, binary format registration, 
backlight save/restore, rfkill save/restore, bootchart, readahead, 
encrypted storage setup, EFI/GPT partition discovery, virtual 
machine/container registration, minimal container management, hostname 
management, locale management, time management, random seed management, 
sysctl variable management, console managment
</quote>

Slide 67 from your link
http://0pointer.de/public/gnomeasia2014.pdf


And most distros have now adopted systemd as the default.  So rather 
than incompetent, I'd say Poettering et al are very competent and 
successful.


systemd doesn't much matter to me one way or the other, but I would 
probably lean - politically and technically - toward the side of 
adhering to the Unix philosophy of 'keep it simple'.



> The future of Linux will see more and more incursion of systemd
> with the cowardly distros slavishly accepting it all without
> question.

When's FeebLinux being released?


> This was NEVER the vision of Stallman and GNU 

<quote>
Stallman, however, has long stood apart from the world of open-source 
and Linux – he regards “open-source” as a weak form of openness, and 
insists on referring to Linux as GNU/Linux. Thus, it wasn’t a surprise 
that, when asked whether he had an opinion on the systemd controversy, 
he replied with a flat “no, I don’t.”

“I’ve never seen it, I’ve never used a system that had it; I know it’s 
free software, so ethically speaking, it’s not an issue – it’s just a 
convenience question.”
</quote>

Mar 2015
https://www.networkworld.com/article/2900305/opensource-subnet/stallman-joins-the-internet-talks-net-neutrality-patents-and-more.html#comments




> and certainly not of Torvalds.

<quote>
I don't actually have any particularly strong opinions on systemd 
itself. I've had issues with some of the core developers that I think 
are much too cavalier about bugs and compatibility, and I think some of 
the design details are insane (I dislike the binary logs, for example), 
but those are details, not big issues.
</quote>



> Because of systemd, Linux will fail as a free OS.

No.

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/archive/v240.tar.gz
and
https://github.com/systemd/systemd

The src files I checked were LGPL 2.1 licensed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53559

On 2/4/19 3:23 PM, F. Russell wrote:

> Fortunately, due to the incompetence of Poettering and his cohorts,
> the grandiose schemes expressed in the above document have not been
> fully realized, but the intention is still very much alive.
> 
> The future of Linux will see more and more incursion of systemd
> with the cowardly distros slavishly accepting it all without
> question.
> 
> This was NEVER the vision of Stallman and GNU and certainly not
> of Torvalds.

systemd/Linux vs GNU/Linux ?


-- 

  //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53646

F. Russell wrote:



> Because of systemd, Linux will fail as a free OS.


Idiot

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux

csiph-web