[–]▶ No.871260>>871300 >>871411 >>871413 >>871439 >>871449 >>871486 >>871772 >>871782 >>871833 >>872042 >>872460 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]
I'd like to address some things about init systems for Unix-like operating systems, starting with
<SysV
Oldest init system still around, was released in the 80's and many distributions still use it because "if it ain' broke, don't fix it", well, SysV is very broken. SysV lacks many features that other init systems provide and is very slow. For its time it was the best but it has failed to keep up with modern standards of other init systems and is old, crusty, vernurable and slow
<systemd
Most controversial of all, the 'dreaded' systemd. Many users dislike systemd due to in not being "just an init system", systemd is more of a system suite and is considered "bloat", which it probably is. However, systemd has many advantages over SysV, many including more polished code, a lot faster and more secure. Developers didn't choose systemd because they're idiots, systemd is leagues above Upstart or SysV in exchange for having minor 'bloat'
<OpenRC
OpenRC is best described as a slower but less bloated systemd. As a gentoo user I have to confess that I've switched to systemd due to the slowness of this init system. Overall it's a solid choice for a minimalistic environment if you can deal with the horrible speed
<Runit
Barebones, not a lot of features but is currently the fastest init system according to my tests. Think of it like SysV reborn. I highly recommend you try Void out
I hope this sheds some light to some of the controversy, it's sad to see so many people not use certain Linux distros simply because of the init system it chooses. The only one I'd stay away from is SysV because it's very exploitable
▶ No.871266
Nobody asked you Mortimer
▶ No.871267>>871778
Where exactly are Linux's init system interface documented? I can't find this information anywhere. I mean, what exactly does Linux expect init to do? If I were to write my own, what would I have to take into consideration?
▶ No.871300>>871341
>>871260 (OP)
>horrible speed
I bet you didn't even use rc_parallel="YES". Never mind that using "muh speed" as primary metric is fucking retarded.
▶ No.871341>>871348
>>871300
Read the entire thing instead of replying hastely. I don't think speed is the most importent element of an init system but OpenRC is horrible in terms of speed compared to every other init system
▶ No.871348>>871375
>>871341
The only metrics you mention are speed and "bloat", and the latter is a buzzword that doesn't men anything concrete, so you can go suck a dick.
▶ No.871375>>871391 >>871407 >>871409
>>871348
>bloat doesn't exist
▶ No.871391
>>871375
If you want bloat look at Windows 7 and onwards
▶ No.871407
>>871375
Kill yourself cuckchanner
▶ No.871409
>>871375
>I use generic buzzwords because I don't know any meaningful categories
▶ No.871411>>871793
>>871260 (OP)
I asked this in another thread, but maybe someone here will be able to provide some more of a perspective.
I know Solaris has SMF which along with launchd inspired systemd. Here's a alternate reality scenario though: What if instead of systemd being developed, we ended up with just a straight-up port of SMF to GNU/Linux? How would things have been different if that happened?
▶ No.871413>>872263
>>871260 (OP)
>systemd
>faster
Not on older hardware. I've had older hardware take upwards of 10-15 minutes to boot witg systemdick. It's also massive and has never been audited, which is rediculous. SysV is way better than systemd for that reason alone.
▶ No.871434
>SysV lacks many features that other init systems provide
Works for me. I don't need your gay anti-features like binary logs.
>muh speed
Maybe it matters to you windows users. I don't reboot ten times a day so if it takes a few more seconds to boot it isn't a problem. It could take minutes and I wouldn't know since it takes me longer to get a coffee than for it to boot.
The fact System==D is shit is not the main problem, the problem is the shit was forced down by RedHat (Microsoft has the equally shit svchost, which follows the same retarded design, and I don't care because they never tried to fuck with my distro). RedHat can go choke on a dick.
▶ No.871437
The GNU Shepherd
The GNU Daemon Shepherd or GNU Shepherd, formerly known as GNU dmd, is a service manager that looks after the herd of system services. It provides a replacement for the service-managing capabilities of SysV-init (or any other init) with a both powerful and beautiful dependency-based system with a convenient interface. It is intended for use on GNU/Hurd, but it is supposed to work on every POSIX-like system where Guile is available. In particular, it is used as PID 1 by the Guix System Distribution (GuixSD).
https://www.gnu.org/software/shepherd/
https://www.gnu.org/software/shepherd/manual/shepherd.pdf
▶ No.871439
>>871260 (OP)
Does anybody use Shepherd init?
▶ No.871449>>871545
>>871260 (OP)
"init systems" are a dumbass unix concept. systemd is just taking the idiocy to the next level
▶ No.871486>>871629
>>871260 (OP)
>secure
>with this LOC
Retard.
>OpenRC
>slow
rc_parallel="YES" and sh -> /bin/dash.
>Think of it like SysV reborn
It specifically says it follow daemontools.
▶ No.871545
>>871449
Thanks for your opinion Mr Computer Expert.
▶ No.871620>>871627 >>871633 >>871804
Anyone who chooses their distro based on the default init is too retarded to hold a valid opinion.
▶ No.871623
>Not using Busybox init like Android
▶ No.871627
>>871620
My thoughts exactly
▶ No.871629
>>871486
I said runit was like SysV reborn, autist
▶ No.871633
▶ No.871772>>871821
>>871260 (OP)
>systemd
while people do indeed say these things about systemd, i dont think thats why they truly dislike it, rather they just fear change and dont want to have to relearn how to do all the shit they could in sysv all over again...
▶ No.871778>>871910
>>871267
great question. The closest I could think is within the mailing list for the kernel, but that would be a lot of archives to run through.
▶ No.871782
>>871260 (OP)
>more polished code
are you a fucking nigger?
▶ No.871793>>871797
>>871411
well, it wouldn't have worked since it doesn't have redhat government money, but if it did, then we would be more free
▶ No.871794
ew
id rather use NT that any of this shit
▶ No.871797>>871798
>>871793
in what way is systemd not free? everything about is kinda well documented, the source code is avable, what more can you ask for? even debian uses it now, doesnt that say enough? its stallman approved!
▶ No.871798>>871800 >>871803 >>871808
▶ No.871800
>>871798
>The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
true freedom = public domain
▶ No.871803
>>871798
All copycenter licenses are just copyleft emulating public domain.
▶ No.871804>>872024
>>871620
Is it also retarded to choose a distro by the default package manager and DE, if it's well integrated?
The big plus of the linux ecosystem is the ability to choose. If don't like a component, I can either replace it - or, if that proves to be too much of a hassle, just use a distribution that did the changes I would otherwise need to do myself. That's why flavours of popular distros exist. They are a good thing.
If you dislike thing, remove thing. End of story.
If you are unable to understand that some of the systemd criticisms are well warranted or that it is entirely rational to use a system that's to your liking, you may actually be just another faggot.
▶ No.871808
>>871798
sorry but stallman has more freedom cred than you, youre going to need a real reason here, not a meme...
▶ No.871821>>871823 >>871968
>>871772
>i dont think thats why they truly dislike it
You have no idea what others think.
Of the 20 different boxes with 5 different distros that I fuck with, every systemd distro that I've had the displeasure of maintaining has had some sort of retarded problem out of box.
openrc? NP
bsd init? NP
sysvinit? NP
I stopped using anything with systemd that is not an appliance when a single shutdown never completed because systemd decided that it was important to wait for a process to end cleanly rather than kill it and halt the system.
The icing is that lennart fags insist on reinventing the wheel in both language and procedure.
Why do I need to register an init script with systemd? As far as I can tell, the development path for systemd is to make things as complex as possible for the sake of complexity.
Compare systemd to vbox.
When something sold to the community as a "next gen init system" is just as complex as a virtual machine host there is something fundamentally wrong.
▶ No.871823>>871831 >>872630
>>871821
>I am too retarded to change default settings
BSD is right for you.
▶ No.871831>>871837
>>871823
>he can't handle valid criticisms so he acts like a nigger
This is your brain on systemDicks.
▶ No.871833>>871839
>>871260 (OP)
Good post, OP.
Exactly how much slower is OpenRC though?
I've run several Arch and Gentoo boxes with it and I've never noticed any poor speed.
▶ No.871837
>>871831
<Oh no! The default font in this editor sucks :( What do I do? Change the editor and blame it on the internet for my incompetence!
>"valid criticism"
<Better go back to my BSD safe space with the other lolberts
▶ No.871838
Unix init systems are all garbage. SystemD simply attempts to clean up this unholy mess.
▶ No.871839>>871840 >>871903
>>871833
There is no speed contest between the two.
That is simply retarded. The difference on some benchmark available are something like 2 sec difference.
So your whole point is invalid. All of your arguments gravitate around speed.
YES, systemd is another attempt by the secret services to fuck linux up. They already fucked the entire crypto libs, by imposing over complicated standards, tried (and I think succeeded) to backdoor the kernel, now they want a big parasite on your whole system.
Who is the biggest contributor to gnu/linux, and who is paying? That's all that matter.
Tor is a CIA built network, bitcoin is a USA service services creatopm, and the whole Linux dev ecosystem is certainly controlled by them.
Now you can continue to cry, say there is no evidence, and wait another 10/20 years before it's released. I was the same before towards surveillance, towards backdoor. Anon here were screaming "Conspiracy theorists!" or "Paranoid", yet everything have been confirmed to be true. Just buy a brain.
Muh no journalist bought by a billionaire have investigated and brought real proof. No shit Mortimer.
▶ No.871840>>871850
>>871839
>can't even type a coherent sentence
>guise it's all da ebil agencies!
No.
▶ No.871850
▶ No.871910>>871912 >>871917
>>871778
Ludicrously, when I search Linux manuals for init system, I get back a systemd manpage. Seriously, why the fuck does the kernel documentation make assumptions about your user space environment? This is about as stupid as looking up the Linux system calls and getting glibc manpages even though there are other libc implementations. At least Linux documents the system call assembly interfaces separately; I can find nothing but unreferenced stackexchange questions on the matter of init systems.
Why the fuck are there systemd manpages on Linux manuals? Or glibc for that matter? This is fucking stupid, and the reason why people joke about systemd becoming the OS and GNU/Linux.
▶ No.871912>>871917
>>871910
Because GNU/SytemD/Linux *is* the standard. Like how "web standards" are just farce and chrome is the standard.
▶ No.871917
>>871910
Here's the stackexchange information for reference:
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/197437/what-exactly-does-init-do
Top answer doesn't reference any documentation but talks of some undefined "APIs":
>The design of nosh includes pushing all of the service management out (including even the getty spawning and zombie reaping) into a separate service manager, and just handling operating-system-specific "API" devices/symlinks/directories and system events.
And doesn't cite any official documentation on the matter. I know about the proc and sys filesystems, that's probably what's being talked about here. Still, there are no details on the matter, apparently. It also says things like:
>The kernel imposes several requirements on it.
>the mandatory things for init, that people usually forget in their off-the-top-of-the-head designs, are things such as handling SIGINT, SIGPWR, SIGWINCH, and so forth sent from the kernel
>There are also once-off initialization and finalization tasks that one cannot escape, or will suffer greatly from not doing, such as mounting "API" filesystems or flushing the filesystem cache
In what documentation does it say the kernel requires these things? How did systemd programmers know they had to do them?
>>871912
No, that's insane. When I look up kernel manual pages I expect them to talk about the kernel from its point of view, not some random user space packages.
▶ No.871932>>871933 >>871972 >>872634 >>872639
>>871903
Flat heart, aliens etc.. are false conspiracy theory built by the secret agencies themselves to discredit any thesis pointing them as responsible.
Flat earth is really recent, and come so much out of nowhere that if you followed its apparition online, it's blatant that it's artificial.
For the alien, old member of the CIA, close to death, told that is was a huge manipulation to hide secret weapon test. The weird OVNI were actually new aircraft design being tested.
I mean, the whole "conspiracy theorist" concept is so obvious. It's a huge CIA operation (there are even declassified poiting this out). In the 90', there were a shit tone of magazine talking about conspiracy. It was actually normal. Nowdays, if you actually say that some people, with a lot of money and with high IQ, actually got together and are using it to achieve their world vision, then you're considered mentally ill.
It's very orwellian. The inner principle of conditionning, is that the conditionned people don't know that they're conditionned.
CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false".
Source: http://archive.is/AKOeS
How much do you consider of what you used to believe, to be taught in school be false?
▶ No.871933>>871976
>>871932
>Flat earth is really recent, and come so much out of nowhere
Wrong. Post disregarded as blatant bullshit.
▶ No.871968
>>871821
>You have no idea what others think.
ironic, because you just described how you didnt want to learn systemd, which is exactly what i said. you can think all those things about systemd, but by your own admission i was accurately describing how you feel. honestly, you make it seem like init scripts arent complex as shit if you never put in the effort to learn them either.
▶ No.871972>>871976
▶ No.871976>>871978
>>871933
I'm talking about the recent popularity it got. Obviously, you could date it since 2 millenniums. But there is SO MUCH against this theory that I'll not even start to talk. I mean, you seriously don't know how planes works, or how gravity and all its implication works to say that flat earth can be a thing.
My own personal understanding is that people before didn't care about the real shape of the earth, but where caring about spiritual geography. But you can't understand such things with a modern mentality. Including modern post Vatican 2 church.
>>871972
No spice. Live in europe (behind vpn). But who cares.
▶ No.871978
>>871976
>My own personal understanding is that people before didn't care about the real shape of the earth, but where caring about spiritual geography.
I'm not saying that the current thesis around flat earth have anything true. I'm saying that it was certainly, in the past, built upon symbolism that we don't understand anymore, certainly with a modern view. Taking the info "raw" and through our modern practical science is actually incredibly retarded.
But whatever.
▶ No.872019>>872043 >>872062 >>872070
These init systems are a workaround for UNIX misfeatures.
Another related NFS lossage has to do with directories
that suddenly appear out of nowhere. You know, you type
"ls" and find there is no such directory as "bin", but
if you do "cd bin" it suddenly appears? Does anyone out
there know how this misfeature works?
Yep. They reinvented job-devices and blew it. The culprit
is the automount facility. This kludge consists of a
per-machine daemon which the kernel talks to via the NFS
protocol in loopback mode. The automount daemon thus
receives I/O requests for files named things like
"/net/twinkie/usr/loser/snork" and decides that this is a
request for the file "/usr/loser/snork" on the machine
"twinkie".
All well and good, except that of course one can only
mount entire filesystems via NFS, and of course it would be
too simple to just mount it where you're going to use it, so
the automount daemon tells you that
"/net/twinkie/usr/loser/snork" is really a symbolic link to
something like "/tmp_mnt/fs-0135226/loser/snork".
All of which would still work, although you might lose
your lunch if you make the mistake of looking at it while
all this is happening, except that sometimes the automount
daemon just tells you that the file doesn't exist because it
would take to long to compute all of the above braindamage
and obviously it is more important to get the wrong answer
fast than to get the right answer slowly.
▶ No.872024
>>871804
>falling for bait
▶ No.872042
>>871260 (OP)
>minor 'bloat'
A million lines of code isn't "minor" bloat faggot.
▶ No.872043>>872051
>>872019
>"LOOK MOMMY I POSTED IT AGAIN"
▶ No.872051>>872062 >>872070
>>872043
not that anon, but the Haters' Handbook isn't wrong necessarily. And it is kind of perplexing autists started putting UNIX on this pedestal when it only became relevant because Bell Labs was a telecoms company and so for early network operators in this context UNIX made sense because they would receive support from the legal monopoly of the telecoms industry at the time
▶ No.872062>>872121 >>872173
>>872051
The problem is that it's horribly outdated and has zero relevance to anything outside of the context of the 70s and 80s.
like for example, the first paragraph of >>872019
>You know, you type "ls" and find there is no such directory as "bin", but if you do "cd bin" it suddenly appears?
No, I don't know, because this is quite literally fake news, at least on any remotely modern implementation.
Also, they act all high and mighty over that AWFUL Unix, but where exactly is their OS? Where is their glorious perfect system that is oh so superior to the evil Unix? Oh that's right, it died, and probably for some pretty good reasons that they would never admit.
▶ No.872070>>872105
>>872019
>>872051
con someone please link to this book?
▶ No.872105
>>872070
>please spoonfeed me
The title of the book is "The UNIX Haters Handbook"
▶ No.872121>>872196
>>872062
The reason why Hater's isn't relevant is because Unix literally doesn't exist. Every Unix-like operating system is defined by the parts of it that aren't Unix; GNU/Linux and GNU, FreeBSD with ZFS, and so on.
▶ No.872173>>872267
>>872062
>The problem is that it's horribly outdated and has zero relevance to anything outside of the context of the 70s and 80s.
>No, I don't know, because this is quite literally fake news, at least on any remotely modern implementation.
UNIX misfeatures from the 70s and 80s were still causing problems when that quote was written in 1991. They're still causing problems in 2018. If you've worked with UNIX for any amount of time, you'll start to understand what I'm talking about. These bugs are never getting fixed.
>Also, they act all high and mighty over that AWFUL Unix, but where exactly is their OS? Where is their glorious perfect system that is oh so superior to the evil Unix? Oh that's right, it died, and probably for some pretty good reasons that they would never admit.
They died for the same reason that people think UNIX was the first OS with a tree-structured file system.
If you want to remember the actual last time you edited
those files, then keep your own damn database of dates
and times, and stop bothering us Unix Wizards.
I thought this is what RCS is for.
I'm TA'ing an OS course this semester. The last lecture was
an intro to Unix since all other operating systems were only
imperfect and premature attempts to create Unix anyway.
Some lecture highlights...
An aside during a discussion of uid's and many a unix
weenie's obsession with them: "A lot of people in the Unix
world are weird."
When asked if Ritchie et al regretted some other
inconsistency in Unix metaphysics, "These guys probably
don't care."
Have another twinkie.
For reasons I'm ashamed to admit, I am taking an "Intro
to Un*x" course. (Partly to give me a reason to get back on
this list...) Last night the instructor stated "Before
Un*x, no file system had a tree structure." I almost
screamed out "Bullshit!" but stopped myself just in time.
I knew beforehand this guy definitely wasn't playing
with a full deck, but can any of the old-timers on this list
please tell me which OS was the first with a tree-structured
file system? My guess is Multics, in the late '60s.
▶ No.872196>>872207 >>872245 >>872262
>flat earthers discussion on a systemd thread
Fucking COINTELPRO get out
>>872121
>GNU/Linux and GNU
Kill yourself. Linux is not defined by GNU. Never was.
▶ No.872207>>872248 >>872395
>>872196
Why would the kernel be defined by the operating system?
▶ No.872245>>872248
>>872196
What an excellent testament to how ignorant of history you are. Do you remember how GNU/Linux became relevant in the wake of USL v. BSDi? I'll give you a hint: Gnu's Not Unix.
▶ No.872248>>872253 >>872286 >>872395 >>872989
>>872207
Only the POSIX retards could possibly consider a bunch of coreutils an operating system.
>>872245
Who gives a single fuck? Linux is big now and it's growing while GNU, FSF and RMS become more and more irrelevant with each passing day. You think we have to limit ourselves to be some GNU shit because of some retarded notion that we owe them "thanks"? Fuck you.
▶ No.872253
>>872248
>GNU, FSF and RMS become more and more irrelevant with each passing day
That's actually just you, Anon. Nobody likes you. But don't worry, you can always neck yourself.
▶ No.872262>>872264 >>872270
>>872196
The point of the GNU/Linux name is that Linux is defined by Linux and GNU is defined by GNU. The point is to make each system distinct.
▶ No.872263
>>871413
This, it's a pig. You can run SysVinit on anything, even a 386, systemd would spend a year trying to ping Google and your kitchen sink before you'd ever get to a login prompt.
▶ No.872264>>872268 >>872270
>>872262
GNU isn't an operating system.
▶ No.872267>>872524
>>872173
>They're still causing problems in 2018. If you've worked with UNIX for any amount of time, you'll start to understand what I'm talking about.
Hmm. I've been using GNU/Linux for years now and never ran into any of this shit. Maybe these issues are more prevalent on BSD or perhaps the proprietary Unix-like OSes? I don't have much experience with those, but I imagine they should be relatively similar.
Also, you still didn't give a legit answer to the second part. Still waiting on that one.
▶ No.872268>>872270 >>872272
>>872264
GNU's an operating system because it was written to be an operating system.
▶ No.872269>>872270 >>872271
GNU is a Unix-like operating system. That means it is a collection of many programs: applications, libraries, developer tools, even games. The development of GNU, started in January 1984, is known as the GNU Project. Many of the programs in GNU are released under the auspices of the GNU Project; those we call GNU packages.
The name “GNU” is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not Unix.” “GNU” is pronounced g'noo, as one syllable, like saying “grew” but replacing the r with n.
The program in a Unix-like system that allocates machine resources and talks to the hardware is called the “kernel”. GNU is typically used with a kernel called Linux. This combination is the GNU/Linux operating system. GNU/Linux is used by millions, though many call it “Linux” by mistake.
GNU's own kernel, The Hurd, was started in 1990 (before Linux was started). Volunteers continue developing the Hurd because it is an interesting technical project.
▶ No.872270>>872273 >>872366
>>872269
>>872268
>>872264
>>872262
Also, friendly reminder that "GNU's not Unix" only exists for legal purposes (to prevent lawsuits over claims of GNU directly using AT&T code)
▶ No.872271>>872338
>>872269
GNU Hurd is not an OS kernel. GNU's OS kernel is called GNU Mach. GNU Hurd is actually a software platform made up of many distinct programs which is intended to replace the traditional Unix kernel.
▶ No.872272>>872274 >>872285 >>872395
>>872268
My shit is gold because I made the shit to be gold.
▶ No.872273>>872276
>>872270
GNU exists for the express purpose of being a fundamental platform of free software. It was started long before there were any accusations of Unix copyright infringement.
▶ No.872274>>872296
>>872272
Golden shit is make of my cause.
▶ No.872276>>872278
>>872273
I meant the acronym..
▶ No.872278>>872379
>>872276
Are you sure the GNU acronym was intended with that purpose? I'm pretty sure that Stallman chose the name because it appealed to his software hacker asthetics, not because he was concerned about Unix copyright.
▶ No.872285>>872296
>>872272
Why do you lie so blatantly to people who did you no other harm but telling the truth?
▶ No.872286
>>872248
Wrong answer but close. The real answer was the GPL. Y'know, that license Linux was licensed under?
▶ No.872296
>>872285
Fuck you.
>>872274
And fuck you too.
▶ No.872338
▶ No.872366
>>872270
>"GNU's not Unix"
A troll recursive acronym, just like LAME ("LAME Ain't (an) MP3 Encoder").
▶ No.872379>>872395
>>872278
lol he copied unix utils. Are any of the GNU coreutils even unique?
▶ No.872395>>872406 >>872414
>>872207
It isn't, which is why the operating system is called GNU/Linux.
>>872248
>Only the POSIX retards could possibly consider a bunch of coreutils an operating system.
Only a full-blown retard would consider a kernel an operating system.
>Who gives a single fuck? Linux is big now and it's growing while GNU, FSF and RMS become more and more irrelevant with each passing day
Microsoft just recently released the Linux Subsystem on Windows, which is nothing but the GNU operating system running on top of the NT kernel.
There are also many, many variations of GNU running on millions of PCs, supercomputers and servers in the real world; so no, GNU is not irrelevant.
>>872272
No, GNU is an operating system because it fits the definition of an operating system.
>>872379
All of them. Stallman didn't want to face any copyright problems like the BSD guys were having at the time, so he forced the developers to make the GNU coreutils without looking at the BSD source code.
Not only that, but GNU extends coreutils and adds a bunch of new features and options. Hence why GNU is Not Unix.
▶ No.872406>>872415 >>872525 >>872582
>>872395
So copied them. But didn't technically break copyright. Yeah wow totally not unix.
▶ No.872414>>872493
>>872395
>Microsoft just recently released the Linux Subsystem on Windows, which is nothing but the GNU operating system running on top of the NT kernel.
No you fucking disgusting retard. It's an implementation of the Linux system cals. That's what enables your "operating system" to even run.
▶ No.872415>>872420
>>872406
I know you're just trolling but there's there's a difference between copyright infringement and implementing the same idea.
▶ No.872420>>872443 >>872525
>>872415
It's the same in every aspect except copyright and you taking one of Stallman's lame jokes as some kind of dogma.
▶ No.872460
>>871260 (OP)
>systemd
>polished code
>secure
>uses google dns without telling you
>if your user has a number as first character, it gets superuser rights
>binary logs that get corrupted all the time
>can be forced to buffer overflow
>infinite privilege escalations and remote execution exploits
>https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=systemd
>every one of these security exploits (and miles more that they refuse to list) are CLOSED_WONTFIX
Lennart please, at least TRY a little. You're just too obvious.
▶ No.872493>>872549
>>872414
Yes, you could technically run other shit. The point still stands: Microsoft decided to use it to run GNU instead of Android, ChromeOS or Busybox. Not even fucking FreeBSD, but GNU.
▶ No.872496>>872526
>>872443
Yep keep talking about copyright. It's self shilling at this point.
▶ No.872524
>>872267
>Also, you still didn't give a legit answer to the second part. Still waiting on that one.
Dear DC-
Your message to unix-haters of Tue, 24 Sep 1991
14:15:45 PDT was forwarded to all members of the
computer research staff at MPCSL. I thought I would
send you some comments. I have been a UNIX-hater for
15 years, which is how long I have been at MPCSL. I
avoided the UNIX revolution until it was recently
foisted on me. At MPCSL, we formerly had three
completely incompatible programming environments:
InterLISP, Smalltalk, and Cedar. This was viewed by
the new powers as very bad and in need of fixing. So
we moved to commercial UNIX-based platforms. So now we
have about 30 incompatible systems (text editors and
formatters, mail systems, versions of the OS, file
formats, programming languages, window systems, window
managers, toolkits, ... ). instead of three, with more
being added every day. Top this with the incredible
morass that is SunOS and it is no wonder that you are
wondering.
Up until recently, we owned everything from the
hardware to the microcode to the applications. We
could fix anything that broke at any level; we could
evolve wonderful new systems. How do we "fix" the X11
releases or the SMTP protocol or SunRPC??
In my opinion, things got the way they are because
market forces completely overwhelmed technological
forces. Because UNIX was free (or nominally licensed)
it came into wide use, first in CS and EE departments
and later in the world. To some, moving from MS-DOS or
worse, it seemed like a win. To those of us who have
been around for a while and are aware of the
alternatives, it seemed like a nightmare. We thought
it would go away when users came to their senses. We
were naive. Sigh. Meanwhile, thanks to BSD, UNIX grew
like Topsy, or more like barnacles encrusting a sunken
ship. Ultimately, UNIX began to be viewed by decision
makers who were not technically competent as a panacea
for competing technologies.
To take your example literally, the reason that Head
Guy, CEO of Anon, doesn't say ``God DAMN it! We are
going to have reliable mail service around here, or
HEADS ARE GOING TO ROLL!'' is that HE HAS RELIABLE
MAIL SERVICE. Anon mail is based on the RELA protocol
suite and it runs on the Anon corporate internet; SMTP
mail is handled at the periphery of the corporate
internet by gateways, tortuously written and maintained
by wizards. Head doesn't know or care that UNIX is
lurking underneath all this. At MPCSL we have had
reliable mail for years, based first on the Grapevine
mail transport and storage system and then, more
recently, on RELAMail.
I have requested to join unix-haters. I look forward
to more exchanges on this mailing list.
KP
Anon MPCSL (still proud)
(This exchange has been retransmitted at the suggestion
of the unix-haters-request central committee.)
▶ No.872525>>872575
>>872420
>>872406
<Fuck GNU bloat! BSD is the only real Unix!
<GNU used POSIX as a model, so they're no different from Unix except in name.
Pick one.
▶ No.872526>>872575
>>872496
Could you please restate your comment in English this time.
▶ No.872549>>872581 >>872593
>>872493
>hurr you're technically right but durr
I know I'm right moron. That's because I have technical arguments while you have sociology.
>hurr but people use GNU
No shit retard. It's still not an operating system, just a bunch of utilities.
▶ No.872575
>>872525
eh I pick the second one.
>>872526
>comment
get out
▶ No.872581>>872593
>>872549
Now you're just trolling. GNU has been an operating system since 1983 because it was always one.
▶ No.872582>>872587
>>872406
The standards emerged from a project that began circa 1985. Richard Stallman suggested the name POSIX to the IEEE instead of former IEEE-IX. The committee found it more easily pronounceable and memorable, and thus adopted it.
▶ No.872587>>872593
>>872582
oh lol I really hope you think POSIX is an OS.
▶ No.872593>>872610
>>872549
>>872581
Part of this confusion has resulted from loose interpretations of what the term 'operating system' really means. For most people the term refers to the kernel, a user interface like a shell and a file manager, some basic utilities like a notepad and a calculator, and some libraries provided for application develoeprs.
To other people (including Brooks, the OG Unix crew, etc.) an operating system is all that plus the applications you need to support your daily work and other computing activities. In this sense your browser, image editor, email client, chat program, office software, GIS software, whatever you need in order to make your computer useful. A whole, operating, system. To this sort of person, the OS described in the first paragraph might qualify as a 'base' or 'bare' or 'minified' OS but as it can't really support your daily work it's not a full OS.
In this sense, Mac OS X is much more of an operating system than Windows, as it includes the office software, basic image and video editing utilities, and so on for free. Unix was designed as a "full" operating system because it includes utilities such as compilers, interpreters, typesetting, and in fact one of the first major users of it was inside the phone company, supporting secretaries, OS researchers, engineers, and even infrastructure like electronic switching systems.
>>872587
POSIX defines not only system calls and other OS plumbing, but also the shell and utilities. It's an operating system according to my first paragraph and common usage, or rather the specification for one. There is no official single standard POSIX OS though many operating systems conform (mostly) to the standard.
▶ No.872610>>872621
>>872593
I distinguish between the operating system and application software. The operating system is the ancillary software designed to support the application software. Under my definition, it's possible to have application software that is also part of the operating system. GNU is an operating system which includes application software that doesn't support other application software, they are additions to the GNU OS.
▶ No.872621>>872628
>>872610
Let's not forget the systemD OS.
▶ No.872628>>872688
>>872621
>when your whole OS is just ancillary parts of an init system
When will systemd implement a shell so you can get shell access while you're restarting your computer and waiting for it to time out on some thing or another or ping google? I'd like to be able to run Nethack to kill some time.
▶ No.872630
>>871823
>I am too retarded to change default settings
The point of distributions (especially Debian based) is to not touch (or the less possible) the per default settings and only configure the software that YOU install.
▶ No.872634
>>871932
>OVNI
>lol spic
French you uncultured swine.
▶ No.872639>>872966
>>871932
Implying this post isn't some CIA/DGSI mind trick again.
Meh imo get your computer off the grid and have just some low powered PC arm junk to browser the web.
>to be taught in school be false?
Depends of the era of which you were raised in old eras there wasn't that much blatant bullshit nowadays it's a festival of disinformation and conditioning one of the best thing you can do to yourself and family is to not watch tv and the news and rely on old books.
▶ No.872688
>>872628
Humm
systemctl enable debug-shell
Shitlord????
▶ No.872965>>872966
Well, that's what I believe, maybe I'll change my mind on some of these issues. The thing is, I think that they're not ready at all to operate yet with all what they have. The total, dystopian surveillance is being set up. It's not really operational yet (but it starts, like the current setup in china of facial recognition given to cops, they take a pic of someone with a camera on their glasses, then an AI tell them who this is on their phone). But I'm pretty sure that the late game will be super trained units that will target lone wolfs that step outside of the common conditionning (maybe signified by a number, a score), automatized by some AI after the analysis of your whole profil (school, driver licence, bus card, internet fingerprint, live mental state analysis etc..).
My point of view is just that this is their network, even their computer.
If you look at internet this way, it's far easier to understand.
That's why most of today's anonymity require a junk laptop with a live distro, connected to a public wifi, while hiding as much as you can from camera. You treat the network as not your own.
As the proverb says, "The only winning move is not to play". The easiest way to counter them, is to simply surrend every piece of tech (it's still possible, but in a possible future where they implant neurolace style chips in newborn...) . But I still think that it's possible to navigate while still being connected, but be prepared to use text browsers, and lose a shit tone of time switching between routes/ip according to what you do. Maybe build a fake Facebook account, since the market seems to force you to have one, to even be able to have an interview. It seems though that a well trained AI would see through a fake profile.
▶ No.872966
▶ No.872989>>873151
>>872248
>GNU, FSF, and RMS become irrelevant.
The FSF recently received a donation of 1 million USD. People do care about free software and the principles of the FSF and GNU.
▶ No.873151>>874580
>>872989
...from a slush fund.
▶ No.874580
>>873151
>implying criminals aren't entitled to running their operations on free/libre operating systems
>implying "ethical shekels" exist
WEW LAD!