boycott systemd

News, happenings
Message
Author
User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#41 Post by mavrothal »

jamesbond wrote: I suppose Canonical doesn't get a decent enough return from its effort while RedHat does
You see Canonical does not have the US army as its big(est) client...

Thank God there is puppy with all its cumbersome and outdated init and scripts :wink:
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#42 Post by greengeek »

jamesbond wrote:You know another company that writes their own init system (I think their init system is called "goldfish" init system)?.. I leave it as an exercise to find out which company I'm referring to
I tried googling this but just got stuck in an infinite loop :-]

User avatar
technosaurus
Posts: 4853
Joined: Mon 19 May 2008, 01:24
Location: Blue Springs, MO
Contact:

#43 Post by technosaurus »

greengeek wrote:
jamesbond wrote:You know another company that writes their own init system (I think their init system is called "goldfish" init system)?.. I leave it as an exercise to find out which company I'm referring to
I tried googling this but just got stuck in an infinite loop :-]
http://www.vogella.com/tutorials/Androi ... ticle.html

I just don't like android's close binding to java. If I were going to pick the language i least like to program in, Java would be it. The only good thing to come from Java is smarter IDEs... because they have to be, or you couldn't get anything done.
Check out my [url=https://github.com/technosaurus]github repositories[/url]. I may eventually get around to updating my [url=http://bashismal.blogspot.com]blogspot[/url].

bark_bark_bark
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2012, 12:17
Location: Wisconsin USA

#44 Post by bark_bark_bark »

Security is alien to Java developers.
....

gcmartin

#45 Post by gcmartin »

I'm so old that I remember plugging wires in a board to get computer to do tasks. Machine language, then to Assembler, then to Fortran, Cobol, RPG, .... to today's languages of which python, Java, HTML, etc exist. In my life, I have heard so many voices about this language or that. A language is a compiler, for the most part and the compiler is written in a former language of some sort. Languages themselves provide an attempt to allow an easy understanding to produce a runnable code.

We, as Linux people,should use caution in "damning" any Language. But, I come to understand that people look for communication tools that they can easily manipulate to express a concept thru and in some language. Thus, a program/utility/compiler/service/subsystem is exactly that...an expression for functionality. Is it "language flawed"...YES! They all are. But, remember and understand its mission. JAVA has a very good mission. So does C. So does Javascript, so does PDP. so does Perl. so does...

Bias aside, one earlier member points out, the industry as a whole is NOT as backward as some would like to think it is because of any singular item. All components, together, constitutes a production. And its never exactly perfect.

At least in this thread, I want to share some additional information for community consideration:
December 2, 2013

If you use an Android phone or tablet, there are a lot of benefits that come from Android’s open nature--customization and choice are the most obvious. But an often overlooked benefit of openness is security: by developing in the open, anyone can check Android’s code to verify that it’s trustworthy or discover areas where it can be improved. Furthermore, the security community can even write code to make Android stronger and protect it against unrealized attacks.

Google has always worked closely with the security industry to make the products you use safer and more secure, and we wanted to highlight a few recent examples of that cooperation on Android:
  • Android, now part of the Google Patch Reward Program: That’s right, Google actually pays developers when they contribute security-related patches to popular open source projects, and Android is now a part of this program. As a user, this means that you have the broader security community looking out for you and preventing possible threats, before they are acted upon.
  • Security improvements in Android 4.4, from the community: In Android 4.4, we reinforced the Android sandbox (which prevents applications from extending outside of their own area and damaging other parts of a device) by putting SELinux into enforcing mode, providing one of the strongest security systems available. The core of SELinux, as well as many of the Android specific extensions have been contributed by third-parties through open source, an example of real security improvements from the community you can use today.
  • Pwn2Own Mobile, with Android: Android was a contributor to the bounty in this year’s PacSec Security conference, where teams of security researchers tried to exploit popular mobile devices. And while no exploit was found in Android on the Nexus devices provided, we were ready and waiting to create a patch in the event of an exploit!
The Android team works very closely with the security research community at large to foster public discussions and implement improvements such as the ones above. This openness has helped make the Android phone or tablet you carry with you everyday much more secure.
This reference is NOT an endorsement of anything. It is presented as a view of people providing clarity in efforts taken.

Our task can be to contribute, in word or deed, as best we can to advance efforts herein, where we address our overall requirements for a productive environment recognizing that it, too, is never going to be a perfect solution for some/any.

Cheers!

bark_bark_bark
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2012, 12:17
Location: Wisconsin USA

#46 Post by bark_bark_bark »

Too bad Oracle isn't making any effort to fix Java. Well honestly, I would just like to see Java die altogether.
....

User avatar
darkcity
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sun 23 May 2010, 19:16
Location: near here
Contact:

#47 Post by darkcity »


User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#48 Post by 01micko »

The signs are ominous since Linus still wants the desktop.

This is Lennart's plan. It's a long read but worth it no matter which side of the fence you are on. darkcity, that meme might need several additions!

On the other hand BSD is fighting back with systembsd which has been thrown around in slackware circles.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#49 Post by Q5sys »

technosaurus wrote:
bark_bark_bark wrote:systemd will probably end BSD's existence.
if anything system will reinvigorate the BSDs. I for 1 have plans to puppify a BSD.
I have quite a few friends who use BSD, and they've been constantly trying to pull me over. just for a thought excersize i looked into what would be needed to make a BSD variant of puppy. The biggest issue i found was the lack of AUFS. That for me is the showstopper as im nowhere smart enough to port AUFS to BSD or to figure out how to make Puppy work with the older UnionFS.

amigo
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2007, 06:52

#50 Post by amigo »

Using unionfs instead of aufs would be nearly the same -the only thing you'd lose would be the ability to dynamically change the layers. Go for it!

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#51 Post by Q5sys »

amigo wrote:Using unionfs instead of aufs would be nearly the same -the only thing you'd lose would be the ability to dynamically change the layers. Go for it!
Oh... I thought there would be far more to deal with. I'll add it to the lenghty list of things I want to work on. :P

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#52 Post by James C »


User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#53 Post by James C »


User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

Poetterisation of GNU/Linux

#54 Post by James C »

Poetterisation of GNU/Linux

http://slated.org/the_poetterisation_of_gnu_linux
I've found a disturbing trend in GNU/Linux, where largely unaccountable cliques of developers unilaterally decide to make fundamental changes to the way it works, based on highly subjective and arrogant assumptions, then forge ahead with little regard to those who actually use the software, much less the well-established principles upon which that OS was originally built. The long litany of examples includes Ubuntu Unity, Gnome Shell, KDE 4, the /usr partition, SELinux, PolicyKit, Systemd, udev and PulseAudio, to name a few.

I hereby dub this phenomenon the "Poetterisation of GNU/Linux".

The broken features, creeping bloat, and in particular the unhealthy tendency toward more monolithic, less modular code in certain Free Software projects, is a very serious problem, and I have a very serous opposition to it. I abandoned Windows to get away from that sort of nonsense, I didn't expect to have to deal with it in GNU/Linux.

Clearly this situation is untenable.
Reading the Ubuntu forums is an exercise in courting abject despair, as one witnesses an ignorant hoard demand GNU/Linux be mutated into the bastard son of Windows and Mac OS X. And Shuttleworth, it seems, is only too happy to oblige, eagerly assisted by his counterparts on other distros and upstream projects, such as Lennart Poettering and Richard Hughes, the former of whom has somehow convinced every distro to mutate the Linux startup process into a hideous monolithic blob, and the latter of whom successfully managed to undermine 40 years of UNIX security in a single stroke, by obliterating the principle that unprivileged users should not be allowed to install software system-wide.

GNU/Linux does not need such people, indeed it needs to get rid of them as a matter of extreme urgency. This is especially true when those people are former (or even current) Windows programmers, because they not only bring with them their indoctrinated expectations, misguided ideologies and flawed methods, but worse still they actually implement them, thus destroying GNU/Linux from within.

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#55 Post by mavrothal »

OK... lets pretend we are impartial :roll:
(Actually some of the "answers" are pretty revealing)
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#56 Post by 01micko »

Ha, it is Poettering's blog, and written well before Homer Slated's rebuttal.

Interesting the name "Pid Eins".

Note that Linus chewed out Sievers well after that. (kdbus, systemd related).

Pulse audio is a mess, so why would systemd be any different?

Just my opinion, it is a blatant grab for fame and fortune and Linus lets it go to a degree (re my "Linus still wants the desktop" link).

Greed is contagious unfortunately.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#57 Post by jamesbond »

mavrothal wrote:OK... lets pretend we are impartial :roll: (Actually some of the "answers" are pretty revealing)
Yes, the answer is more revealing that the so-called "myths" themselves.

So here is my comment on that FAQ.

When I said "bunk" I mean the "debunking answer" is baloney and the so-called "myths" are not myths, they are real concerns, unless noted otherwise. For those I can't give any fair comment because I haven't looked into the details, I leave it as "no comment".

1. Bunk. Linux kernel also consists of vmlinuz + hundreds of kernel modules. Yet everyone calls Linux as "monolithic" kernel. Ever wonder why? Same as systemd.

2. Bunk. Systemd is being sold and promoted as the *fast* init system. Saying that systemd is not about speed is two-faced. As an side: what exactly has systemd achived in that 900ms? You can get a shell in less than 900ms by booting with init=/bin/ash (busybox shell) ...

3. I give you this one for the myth, fast bootup is useful for all. But the "debunking" text has the gut to say that sytemd is for useful containers, while (until as late as Feb 2014) it has this bug: https://www.libreoffice.org/bugzilla/sh ... i?id=74589. Note that the "socket-activation" stuff is bunk and rife with issues, see http://ewontfix.com/15/.

4. Bunk. When people say "shell scripts" and init, they are saying about controlling system initialisation with shell scripts, not about "executing" shell scripts.

5. No comment. New things *does* always come with a learning curve.

6. Bunk. See no #1 above. And "modularity" at compile-time is not modularity at all, it is not the the kind of "modularity" that matters.

7. I give you this one. Systemd is definitely geared for servers. Desktop has no need for such elaborate system management services. And can you imagine systemd in embedded system? Yeah.

8. Bunk. It's obvious enough.

9. I give you this one. This is not freedesktop.org project, it is indeed P&K project (paid for by RH), but masqueraded and forced into freedesktop.org. Just like MS bought their way to ISO for OOXML standard.

10. Bunk. Systemd violates every tenet of Unix philosophy. Especially when near the end of the "debunking text" it written: "Ultimately the question whether something is UNIX or not matters very little" :)

11. Bunk. It is complex not because it has to, but because it keeps swallowing that should have been separate services.

12. Bunk. See #11.

13. Bunk. Systemd is written and designed to work only on *Linux* from day one. Saying otherwise is re-writing history.

14. Not relevant. Debian has now adopted systemd as their "alternative" init service.

15. Bunk. *Everything* can be emulated. See for example the effort on "systembsd" or systemd-shim from debian. Why not P&K do it? "Becaused I don't get paid by RH to work on porting", obviously.

16. I give you this one for the myth (see #13), but the "debunking" answer is junk. Systemd isn't portable because it is *designed from day-one* to be so, because all that matters to its paymaster is Linux. As an aside: many of the Linux-specific features are *already* exposed to the users. What systemd exposed to the "users" are definitely not user-friendly - what's so user-friendly about init system?

17. I give you this one. The log file, however, (very important when you have a crash and want to be able to view its content offline), is binary.

18. Bunk. It is obvious. More and more services have been subsumed under systemd, the last few ones I'm aware is dhcpcd, and linux VT are coming soon ... The reason given? "Because it's better for systemd to perform that function." Yes.

19. Bunk. I don't want to elaborate, there are many stories around this. They copied a page from MS EEE concept.

20. No comment.

21. Bunk. "run vast majority of init scripts work unmodified"? What are you smoking?

22. No comment, although I suspect it is bunk. Scripting with "dbus-send or gdbus" is definitely not for the weak-hearted.

23. No comment.

24. Bunk. Many "bug reports" are closed with a simple comment of "works here" and "work as designed".

25. I give you this one. The more correct statement is "systemd isn't easily debuggable" or more accurately "Once I can't boot to shell then I'm doomed through and through".

26. Bunk. P&K are known to change interfaces without any consideration for backward compatibility.

27. Bunk. It is obvious enough I won't even draw the details.

28. No comment.

29. No comment although I suspect this is bunk, too.

30. Bunk. Especially the "debunking" text. Can you control systemd by writing directly to its socket?
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#58 Post by James C »

Posted in off-topic, Lennart Poettering's Linus Torvalds rant
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 862#802862

Interesting read.

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

systemd-consoled

#59 Post by jamesbond »

And next time, if you don't have systemd you don't have console altogether (if they can convince Linus to drop the in-kernel console code, that is - which I'm pretty sure they'll attempt that)): http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n ... px=MTgwNzQ.

Xorg blows up in your face? Vsync too high not supported by your monitor? Thought you can drop to "console" and fix it? Oh, you can't find the console too ?! Bwahahahahaha, DEAL WITH IT, you systemd-hater! :twisted:

The era of Linux where fixing a broken system requires "Recovery CD" has begun :twisted: We are one step closer to Windows, guys, so don't panic. Soon all those Windows refugees will feel like home when they use Linux :twisted:
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#60 Post by greengeek »

But what is the effect on us? Does this simply mean that we have to capitulate if we want to use NEW hardware (and therefore new kernels) - but we can still do what we want with the old hardware (and old kernels)?

What if we are happy to stick with old kernels - can we avoid systemd and instead graft in new modules to cope with new hardware?

Post Reply