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

Groups > comp.misc > #17905 > unrolled thread

[Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-01 16:43 +0000
    Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2019-05-01 20:16 +0300
      Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2019-05-01 17:37 -0400
        Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-05-01 22:57 +0000
          Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2019-05-04 15:43 -0400
            Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-05-07 01:00 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2019-05-01 21:08 -0400
          Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2019-05-02 10:01 +0000
            Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Steve555 <Steve555@reallybogus.nodomain.nowhere.invalid> - 2019-06-19 16:26 +0000
          Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-02 15:56 +0000
            Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2019-05-02 20:49 -0400
              Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-03 15:51 +0000
              Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2019-05-03 10:14 +0300
          Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2019-05-02 20:19 +0000
            Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2019-05-02 20:50 -0400
              Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2019-05-03 23:16 -0500
            Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2019-05-03 08:16 +0100
    Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-05-01 13:59 -0400
      Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-01 18:23 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-05-01 17:14 -0400
    Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2019-05-01 15:55 -0400
      Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2019-05-01 20:28 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-05-01 21:49 -0300
        Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Steve555 <Steve555@bogus.nodomain.nowhere.invalid> - 2019-06-15 19:55 +0000
          Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2019-06-17 16:49 +0000
            Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Steve555 <Steve555@reallybogus.nodomain.nowhere.invalid> - 2019-06-19 16:43 +0000
              Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-06-19 20:17 +0000
      Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-01 21:18 +0000
      Re: [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-05-02 23:31 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#17905 — [Link Posting] Systemd invasion into Linux Server space - RHEL 7 as Red Hat fiasco

      ####################################################################
      # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
      # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
      ####################################################################

<URL:http://www.softpanorama.org/Commercial_linuxes/Startup_and_shutdown
/systemd.shtml>

The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>
>  Systemd represents an alarming, but pretty understandable trend in linux
>  world -- a Windows-inspired trend toward "push button" type of users and
>  sysadmins. Systemd is becoming the Svchost of Linux -- the component
>  which most veterans Linux sysadmin do not want to use, but which is
>  enforced by Red Hat dominant position in Linux world.
>
>  Systemd Security flaws
>
>  Initially there were some segments of Linux community which did not
>  accept systemd. For example, several veteran Unix sysadmins forked
>  Debian and created Devuan Linux -- a distribution without systemd. That
>  was so obvious slap in the Red Hat face that they allocated more
>  resources to prove that they can dictate their will to the Linux
>  community. So, paradoxically, Devuan has tremendously positive effect of
>  the systemd development forcing Red Hat to double the efforts ;-)
>
>  In any case after 7 years of so of frantic "development" (which mostly
>  means "debugging") systemd in RHEL 7 got into some kind of semi-stable
>  stage (although patches to systemd are still are probably the most
>  frequently issued patches in RHEL 7 ). But the major bugs are always
>  connected with weaknesses in architecture and they can't be removed.
>  They need to be accepted as features.
>
>  If you try to browse systemd related articles you will see that the most
>  active resistance occurred in 2014-2015. After that is dissipated to a
>  very few discussions. May be because everything that should be said was
>  already said and you can't turn RHEL into non-systemd distro. Right now
>  the resistance concentrates in minimalist distributions which can't
>  afford to carry system bloat. Most major distributions such as Suse and
>  Debian adopted systemd because of Gnome. Discussion switched to systemd
>  and journald exploits, which is a new rich and technically interesting
>  field (System Down A systemd-journald exploit Hacker News .)
>
>  Scope creep in systemd definitely leads to new vulnerabilities ( see for
>  example A Systemd Vulnerability Allows Attackers Hack Linux Machines via
>  Malicious DNS response, June 29, 2017.) In other words, due to its
>  complexity systemd proved to be a potential source of new zero-day
>  vulnerabilities and a "perfect target" for attack which allow new
>  generation of stealth exploits. As such it is immensely attractive to
>  intelligence agencies. I am sure that NSA and similar agencies are
>  actively studying this possibility and probably have found some
>  interesting avenues to exploit systemd architectural weaknesses.
>
>  ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17906

Rich <rich@example.invalid>:

> <URL:http://www.softpanorama.org/Commercial_linuxes/Startup_and_shutdown
> /systemd.shtml>
>
> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>
>>  Systemd represents an alarming, but pretty understandable trend in linux
>>  world -- a Windows-inspired trend toward "push button" type of users and
>>  sysadmins. Systemd is becoming the Svchost of Linux -- the component
>>  which most veterans Linux sysadmin do not want to use, but which is
>>  enforced by Red Hat dominant position in Linux world.

That's one tedious, rambling article. It seems to be on the brink of
saying something meaningful but doesn't quite reach that level.

I agree that systemd represents an age-old low-brow antipattern, but on
the other hand, the guild of "sysadmins" didn't manage to come up with
anything better in the preceding decades. In a word, the Linux OS didn't
have an architect; Lennart Poettering got the job by default.

As we stand, systemd and its associated paraphernalia are an unescapable
reality. The good news is all distros are on the bandwagon. Once you
manage to integrate your product on one distro, you'll have managed to
integrate it on a whole bunch of them.


Marko

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

#17915

Marko Rauhamaa  <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>I agree that systemd represents an age-old low-brow antipattern, but on
>the other hand, the guild of "sysadmins" didn't manage to come up with
>anything better in the preceding decades. In a word, the Linux OS didn't
>have an architect; Lennart Poettering got the job by default.

I disagree. SysV init scripts and cron were perfectly fine for non-portable
systems.  There was no reason to replace them with anything.  Why replace
something that works perfectly well?

systemd appears to have been partly motivated by an urge to make laptops
boot faster, and it does in fact do so by better scheduling startup of
processes during booth.  But this is a non-issue for 90% of systems.
But now we are stuck with it on all systems because of the 10% of people
who can benefit from it.

systemd goes against the traditional Unix philosophy of having small 
programs that each do very specific things which are chained together to
do more complex tasks.  It is a huge block of code that has to be taken
as it is.  You can't remove the cron part and leave the startup part or
vice-versa.  It's all there.

But really, systemd, although it is very badly-named and has in fact got
us into more than it has ever got us out of, is just the tip of the iceberg.
gnome3 is coming and it's an even bigger monolithic blob of crap.

>As we stand, systemd and its associated paraphernalia are an unescapable
>reality. The good news is all distros are on the bandwagon. Once you
>manage to integrate your product on one distro, you'll have managed to
>integrate it on a whole bunch of them.

No, not all distros are on the bandwagon, thank God.
--scott


-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

#17916

In comp.misc, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> systemd appears to have been partly motivated by an urge to make laptops
> boot faster, and it does in fact do so by better scheduling startup of
> processes during booth.  But this is a non-issue for 90% of systems.

I think it was more motivated by fast start-up of ephemeral VMs than
laptops, just laptops also benefitted. Certainly if you are trying to
respond to a sudden spike in demand by spinning up more cloud instances,
a long ass boot is not ideal.

> systemd goes against the traditional Unix philosophy of having small 
> programs that each do very specific things which are chained together to
> do more complex tasks.  It is a huge block of code that has to be taken
> as it is.  You can't remove the cron part and leave the startup part or
> vice-versa.  It's all there.

The scuttling of Unix small tool philosophy is indeed a great shame.

> No, not all distros are on the bandwagon, thank God.

And none of the BSDs.

Elijah
------
also systemd crashing and then the computer won't shutdown is a bad failure

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

#17937

Eli the Bearded  <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>In comp.misc, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> systemd appears to have been partly motivated by an urge to make laptops
>> boot faster, and it does in fact do so by better scheduling startup of
>> processes during booth.  But this is a non-issue for 90% of systems.
>
>I think it was more motivated by fast start-up of ephemeral VMs than
>laptops, just laptops also benefitted. Certainly if you are trying to
>respond to a sudden spike in demand by spinning up more cloud instances,
>a long ass boot is not ideal.

Why?  In the VM world, you only need to boot once, then snapshot the system,
then whenever you need it you can instantiate a new running system from that
snapshot, or any number of new running systems.  So booting time is of no more 
importance than it is in the conventional server world where we may reboot 
once or twice a year.
--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

#17942

In comp.misc, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded  <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> I think it was more motivated by fast start-up of ephemeral VMs than
>> laptops, just laptops also benefitted. Certainly if you are trying to
>> respond to a sudden spike in demand by spinning up more cloud instances,
>> a long ass boot is not ideal.
> Why?  In the VM world, you only need to boot once, then snapshot the system,
> then whenever you need it you can instantiate a new running system from that
> snapshot, or any number of new running systems.

I welcome correction if wrong, but that's not how cloud providers launch
instances, presumably because that would require an (image per OS x
hardware profile) rather than just an (image per OS).

Things like network adapters are more flexible to add post boot than CPU
and RAM.

Elijah
------
"private cloud" exists but isn't the driver here

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

#17920

On 2019-05-01, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> gnome3 is coming and it's an even bigger monolithic blob of crap.

and it's totally optional.  I have yet to ever use Gnome3 - simply
install cinnamon or windowmaker or just fluxbox or i3 and call it a day.
To me, exchangeable desktop environments are one of the joys of *nix.

On Windows at work I find myself crippled by lack of multiple
desktops/viewports.  There's a product called Dexpot or something - I
paid like $30 for it - that gets you close, but it's not quite the same.

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

#17921

In article <3isppf-g8n.ln1@rasp.therandymon.com>,
RS Wood  <randy@therandymon.com> wrote:
>On 2019-05-01, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> gnome3 is coming and it's an even bigger monolithic blob of crap.
>
>and it's totally optional.  I have yet to ever use Gnome3 - simply
>install cinnamon or windowmaker or just fluxbox or i3 and call it a day.
>To me, exchangeable desktop environments are one of the joys of *nix.

I use Ubuntu Mate - Ubuntu underneath (including systemd, which is
ok but not wonderful) and old-fashioned GNOME 2 style desktop.

For whatever it's worth. 

Arnold
-- 
Aharon (Arnold) Robbins 		arnold AT skeeve DOT com

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

#18261

On 2019-05-02, Aharon Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
> In article <3isppf-g8n.ln1@rasp.therandymon.com>,
> RS Wood  <randy@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>On 2019-05-01, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>> gnome3 is coming and it's an even bigger monolithic blob of crap.
>>
>>and it's totally optional.  I have yet to ever use Gnome3 - simply
>>install cinnamon or windowmaker or just fluxbox or i3 and call it a day.
>>To me, exchangeable desktop environments are one of the joys of *nix.
>
> I use Ubuntu Mate - Ubuntu underneath (including systemd, which is
> ok but not wonderful) and old-fashioned GNOME 2 style desktop.
>
> For whatever it's worth. 
>
> Arnold
Greetings :-)  It's worth a lot.  I still use your nice book :-)
As for me... slackware or freebsd, and windowmaker.

-- 
  Gnd  -|o----|- Vcc      Hey computer, what's the weather in Sydney?
 trig  -| 555 |- dschrg   $ finger o:sydney@graph.no|tail -1|espeak
  o/p  -|     |- thrsh
  rst  -|-----|- cntrl    Steve555

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

#17925

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2019-05-01, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> gnome3 is coming and it's an even bigger monolithic blob of crap.
> 
> and it's totally optional.  I have yet to ever use Gnome3 - simply
> install cinnamon or windowmaker or just fluxbox or i3 and call it a day.
> To me, exchangeable desktop environments are one of the joys of *nix.
> 
> On Windows at work I find myself crippled by lack of multiple
> desktops/viewports.  There's a product called Dexpot or something - I
> paid like $30 for it - that gets you close, but it's not quite the same.

Do you not yet have W10 on the 'work box'?

If so, you should have MS's take on virtual desktops (tis built in, and 
exposed to users, on W10).

Yes, in typical MS fashion, they copy yet another good idea from Unix 
WM's, and omit about half of the good parts, so it is /technicall/ 
virtual desktops, but just not as good as the offerings on X window 
managers.

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

#17930

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-05-01, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>> gnome3 is coming and it's an even bigger monolithic blob of crap.
>> 
>> and it's totally optional.  I have yet to ever use Gnome3 - simply
>> install cinnamon or windowmaker or just fluxbox or i3 and call it a day.
>> To me, exchangeable desktop environments are one of the joys of *nix.
>> 
>> On Windows at work I find myself crippled by lack of multiple
>> desktops/viewports.  There's a product called Dexpot or something - I
>> paid like $30 for it - that gets you close, but it's not quite the same.
>
> Do you not yet have W10 on the 'work box'?
>
> If so, you should have MS's take on virtual desktops (tis built in, and 
> exposed to users, on W10).
>
> Yes, in typical MS fashion, they copy yet another good idea from Unix 
> WM's, and omit about half of the good parts, so it is /technicall/ 
> virtual desktops, but just not as good as the offerings on X window 
> managers.

I have one of the company's very last Win7 boxes and I'm damned happy
about it - Win10 doesn't look appealing at all.  If they're adding in
virt desktops though that makes it look a little better.  As Windows
goes, Win7 isn't too bad.  Just wish each successive version of Windows
didn't require such astronomically larger disk space - it's not that I
care about the hard drive, as capacity is cheap these days, it's just
the aesthetic of needing so many gigabytes to do such little good.
Windowmaker does everything I need in a desktop, so it's hard to imagine
what the order of magnitude more code provides me as a user.
(advertising, spyware, tracking, telmetry, cough cough).

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

#17932

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
> 
>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> On 2019-05-01, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> gnome3 is coming and it's an even bigger monolithic blob of crap.
>>> 
>>> and it's totally optional.  I have yet to ever use Gnome3 - simply
>>> install cinnamon or windowmaker or just fluxbox or i3 and call it a day.
>>> To me, exchangeable desktop environments are one of the joys of *nix.
>>> 
>>> On Windows at work I find myself crippled by lack of multiple
>>> desktops/viewports.  There's a product called Dexpot or something - I
>>> paid like $30 for it - that gets you close, but it's not quite the same.
>>
>> Do you not yet have W10 on the 'work box'?
>>
>> If so, you should have MS's take on virtual desktops (tis built in, and 
>> exposed to users, on W10).
>>
>> Yes, in typical MS fashion, they copy yet another good idea from Unix 
>> WM's, and omit about half of the good parts, so it is /technicall/ 
>> virtual desktops, but just not as good as the offerings on X window 
>> managers.
> 
> I have one of the company's very last Win7 boxes and I'm damned happy
> about it - Win10 doesn't look appealing at all.  If they're adding in
> virt desktops though that makes it look a little better.

From what I understand from other blog posts, the underlying windows 
system has had the API's for virtual desks for a while, it is just that 
MS never bothered to provide any interface to use it.

Having them makes win a wee bit more tolerable than before, but it is 
still windows.......  with all that comes along with being windows.

> Windowmaker does everything I need in a desktop, so it's hard to 
> imagine what the order of magnitude more code provides me as a user.  
> (advertising, spyware, tracking, telmetry, cough cough).

I think you found the culprit there.....

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

#17939

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:

> I have one of the company's very last Win7 boxes and I'm damned happy
> about it - Win10 doesn't look appealing at all.  If they're adding in
> virt desktops though that makes it look a little better.

Virtual desktops, NFS client and server (in Pro), Windows Subsystem for
Linux. I don't miss Windows 7 at all.

Disk space is a thing. To think my XP system partition was 4 GB
originally, 8 GB when SP2 came out. I think I grew that partition to 60
GB for W7, W10 uses about 40 GB of it. Although that includes 12 GB of
hibernation file that doesn't need to be on the system partition.

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

#17926

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2019-05-01, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> gnome3 is coming and it's an even bigger monolithic blob of crap.
> 
> and it's totally optional.  I have yet to ever use Gnome3 - simply
> install cinnamon or windowmaker or just fluxbox or i3 and call it a day.
> To me, exchangeable desktop environments are one of the joys of *nix.
> 
> On Windows at work I find myself crippled by lack of multiple
> desktops/viewports.  There's a product called Dexpot or something - I
> paid like $30 for it - that gets you close, but it's not quite the same.

WinXP had a way of enabling 4 desktops, it wasn't nearly as flexible
as X. Switching between desktops was clumsy and I don't think you
could start an app on a specific desktop. 

WinXP was the last windows I used, switched completely to Linux and
haven't touched windows since.

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

#17929

Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> writes:

> WinXP had a way of enabling 4 desktops, it wasn't nearly as flexible
> as X. Switching between desktops was clumsy and I don't think you
> could start an app on a specific desktop.
>
> WinXP was the last windows I used, switched completely to Linux and
> haven't touched windows since.

Mac OSX also had one for awhile, but they then morphed it into something
I like less.

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

#17936

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> writes:

> > WinXP had a way of enabling 4 desktops, it wasn't nearly as flexible
> > as X. Switching between desktops was clumsy and I don't think you
> > could start an app on a specific desktop.
> >
> > WinXP was the last windows I used, switched completely to Linux and
> > haven't touched windows since.

> Mac OSX also had one for awhile, but they then morphed it into something
> I like less.

They did? I remember having to download and install a third party in mac 
OS X v10.2.x. I kind of like its Spaces in the later mac OS versions.
-- 
Quote of the Week: "Lay a stick of bubble gum on an anthill for instant Siamese Ant Twins." --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org /
 / /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /
    ( )

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

#17931

Jerry Peters wrote:

> WinXP had a way of enabling 4 desktops, it wasn't nearly as flexible
> as X. 

But that wasn't built-in, it was an unsupported 'powertoy'

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

#17907

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

>       ####################################################################
>       # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
>       # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
>       ####################################################################
>
> <URL:http://www.softpanorama.org/Commercial_linuxes/Startup_and_shutdown
> /systemd.shtml>
>
> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>
>>  Systemd represents an alarming, but pretty understandable trend in linux
>>  world -- a Windows-inspired trend toward "push button" type of users and
>>  sysadmins. Systemd is becoming the Svchost of Linux -- the component
>>  which most veterans Linux sysadmin do not want to use, but which is
>>  enforced by Red Hat dominant position in Linux world.

... snip BS.

Rich, wish you hadn't posted this tired old tripe.
I'm sorry, but these baseless attacks are getting old.
The original author is an idiot.

My system boots and shuts down faster, everything works as it should and
adding and removing services (daemons) couldn't be simpler.
If that's how to describe a fiasco, I guess we need more fiascos.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#17908

Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
> 
>>       ####################################################################
>>       # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
>>       # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
>>       ####################################################################
>>
>> <URL:http://www.softpanorama.org/Commercial_linuxes/Startup_and_shutdown
>> /systemd.shtml>
>>
>> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>>
>>>  Systemd represents an alarming, but pretty understandable trend in linux
>>>  world -- a Windows-inspired trend toward "push button" type of users and
>>>  sysadmins. Systemd is becoming the Svchost of Linux -- the component
>>>  which most veterans Linux sysadmin do not want to use, but which is
>>>  enforced by Red Hat dominant position in Linux world.
> 
> ... snip BS.
> 
> Rich, wish you hadn't posted this tired old tripe.
> I'm sorry, but these baseless attacks are getting old.
> The original author is an idiot.

Just posting things that might generate some traffic in the group.

This particular topic does seem to generate traffic, which articles 
bubble up to get posted.

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

#17912

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>>       ####################################################################
>>>       # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
>>>       # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
>>>       ####################################################################
>>>
>>> <URL:http://www.softpanorama.org/Commercial_linuxes/Startup_and_shutdown
>>> /systemd.shtml>
>>>
>>> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>>>
>>>>  Systemd represents an alarming, but pretty understandable trend in linux
>>>>  world -- a Windows-inspired trend toward "push button" type of users and
>>>>  sysadmins. Systemd is becoming the Svchost of Linux -- the component
>>>>  which most veterans Linux sysadmin do not want to use, but which is
>>>>  enforced by Red Hat dominant position in Linux world.
>> 
>> ... snip BS.
>> 
>> Rich, wish you hadn't posted this tired old tripe.
>> I'm sorry, but these baseless attacks are getting old.
>> The original author is an idiot.
>
> Just posting things that might generate some traffic in the group.

Well, thanks for doing that.

> This particular topic does seem to generate traffic, which articles 
> bubble up to get posted.

The gripe that won't die.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web