/tech/ - Technology★

The arguments are mostly up to date, and arguing about it makes sense if you haven't given up on Linux yet

>>951909 (OP)

There's a LOT of reasons why people don't like it, and I think the people who don't like it all likely have their own reasons for not liking it.

Here's a posting about someone discovering a massive memory leak that used up 4GB of ram. While I have yet to see something this massive, I have definitely noticed Systemd using more memory than the alternatives, and some leakage here and there as well.

https://serverfault.com/questions/755818/systemd-using-4gb-ram-after-18-days-of-uptime

Some see it as an unnecessary security risk due to its massive attack surface. It recently hit 1 million lines of code.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=systemd-2017-Git-Activity

Some don't like it because they dislike its habit of scope creep. The project ends up assimilating things that historically should not have anything to do with init. See the OP's gif.

https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd

There's also some other design decisions that people have an issue with, such as using Google DNS by default (because of course systemd can handle DNS), using binary logs, etc.

Lastly there's the conspiracy theory side of it, which alleges that systemd is an NSA attempt to compromise GNU/Linux, and due to Systemd as a project moving way too fast, it can't be properly audited.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170724100245/https://muchweb.me/systemd-nsa-attempt/

For more links and arguments, see:

http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd

>>951909 (OP)

I have about as much interest in systemd as I do in (((U)))EFI

>>951943

You've got the wrong point of view. Systemd isn't a plain init system, its purpose is a platform on top of Linux to provide a set of services for applications.

>>951946

That's a PEBCAK error. You can achieve the same effect without systemd or with a Windows OS. The answer is don't rm -rf /

>>951909 (OP)

Systemd sucks because it's bullshit code, like the article on the bullshit web in >>950499.

>In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshaled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

>These are what I propose to call ‘bullshit jobs’.

What really sucks is that instead of increasing productivity by having useful software on the computer like operating systems used to do, this bullshit like C, EFI, UNIX, X, and systemd actually make development take longer because of all the effort needed to work around it. UNIX/GNU "tools" like autoconf, make, and Configure scripts are just workarounds for bad OS design and incompatibility. Awk and the "coreutils" are completely useless bullshit code that nobody would ever want to use if UNIX came with a better language for handling strings than C and C++. Even Perl 4 and earlier completely obsoleted awk and the rest of that bullshit.

>>951971

All software bugs are PEBCAK. It's not faulty or defective hardware, it's a person in a chair typing on a keyboard responsible for every broken "tool" in UNIX. The fact that it's not the fault of everyone using the software doesn't mean it's not PEBCAK.

    This poor user tried to use Unix's poor excuse for
DEFSYSTEM.  He is immediately sucked into the Unix "group of
uncooperative tools" philosophy, with a dash of the usual
unix braindead mailer lossage for old times' sake.

    Of course, used to the usual unix weenie response of
"no, the tool's not broken, it was user error" the poor user
sadly (and incorrectly) concluded that it was human error,
not unix braindamage, which led to his travails.

   I cannot think of a comment to add that could possibly
   top what follows.

I can.  Isn't it typical that unix weenies would blame
hardware for this problem?  Can you imagine a hardware fault
that would explain this snafu?  Not a chance.  This is the
Great Satan Sendmail feeding its dark energy on the mail
files of innocents.

>>951909 (OP)

Arguing against systemd was always pointless. If you're not writing code, your opinion is invalid.

>>951996

Hello, lispfag!

At least we can agree that Systemd sucks

>>951909 (OP)

Have another link on systemd failings:

https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/

systemd is the svchost of Linux

thats all you need to know to formulate an opinion

>>951970

>its purpose is a platform on top of Linux to provide a set of services for applications

Its purpose wasn't suppose to be only an init system?

I don't know much about Linux but I think if SystemD were as bad as people claim it is, Linux Torvalds would've told his developers to remove it from the operating system by now.

>>952100

>not sure if trolling or actually retarded

Since this is /tech/ odds are good you're retarded so: System:DDD isn't a kernel project.

An API is a social contract from the developer who makes the API to the user who uses it for his software. SystemD violates a lot of assumptions about how the computer works and hides a lot of information about what the computer is doing from the end user. SystemD is the solution to the problem that Linux was getting away from RedHat by making Linux as hard to understand as Windows.

>>952100

systemD isn't part of the Linux kernel (though they have tried already to pull their stuff into it) so Linus doesn't have this authority to decide if the distributions will use it or not.

>>952103

It's just the umbrella that slowly cover the kernel.

Next step is saying "You know, since systemd does everything that Linux kernel do, let's just do away with it"

Done, Linux Kernel is no longer useful.

>>952118

Yes, I'm afraid that, given how things are going, they slowly tries to replace the kernel itself.

>>952118

>>952103

--- a/fs/read_write.c~a
+++ a/fs/read_write.c
@@ -513,6 +513,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(read, unsigned int, fd,
      struct fd f = fdget_pos(fd);
      ssize_t ret = -EBADF;
+     BUG_ON(!strcmp(current->comm, "systemd"));

WHERE'S THE MAILING LIST EXCHANGE

Where gay boy says he intends to eliminate programs competing with SYSTEMD by "making it to difficult" and "too time consuming" to interface with SYSTEMD.

>>952130

Can you explain what's going on on this piece of code?

>>952144

A kernel patch to fix a SYSTEMD bug.

>>952132

http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1506.2/03764.html

Here's the rebuttal.

“It is exactly this attitude and this approach of systemd upstream that I feel uneasy about. Instead of humbly waiting and working towards having kdbus accepted to the kernel, systemd developers seem to use any means to

create indirect pressure to have it included eventually.

I hope that it will still be technical excellence as entry barrier for

anything that goes into the kernel.”

>>952147

yeah but that's not enough to affirm that systemd is part of the kernel. It is just a mittigation, like a benevolence from the developer saying "if user is using shitty init system, let's help him by not letting this bug occur"

>>952152

That's not the one I'm talking about.

King gay boy himself said in no uncertain terms that he intends to make it extraordinarily difficult to replace components like journald.

He implicitly said that it was his goal to use SYSTEMD to EEE the ecosystem.

>>952160

Big if true

>>952164

It was posted here months ago, and that's the only reason I know about it.

Linus can't be stopped, they've tried to send women to claim he raped them.

Linux users are able to control their own computers and the surveillance state can't tell what they're doing on their own computers.

So the surveillance state needs SystemD to run on most Linus systems.

>>952132

>>952160

>>952164

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2010-September/000391.html

>>952184

It's a proposed change from the kernel mailing list, dumbass. This would have the effect of panicking the machine if systemd is loaded.

>>952184

>he doesn't know what diff(1) output is

>>952144

BUG_ON prints a stack trace and kills the process.

>>952220

THANK YOU

This is classic EEE

>>951971

PEBCAK my ass. If someone decides to wipe their entire system, it is well understood that they do not want to brick their motherboard alongside it. systemd is the only cancer retarded enough to make this happen. Even in MS Windows, it would take serious fucking effort to achieve something that dumb. So systemd wins a special prize for being even dumber than Windows.

>>952100

At least you admit you don't know much about Linux, because Torvalds only control the Linux kernel. And while systemd would love to become integrated into the kernel and leave everyone absolutely no choice (and indeed has made a number of attempts at invading the kernel), they can't, so right now they're going for the next best thing and become a monolithic software package that is a hard dependency for the rest of the Linux ecosystem as well as attempt to pressure the kernel to let systemd in already.

The goal of systemd seems to be seizing complete control of Linux ecosystem for the sake of Poettering's benevolent dictatorship where he can dictate what's best for you even if it ruins shit left and right, but at least in Poettering's mind Poettering is never wrong and he will give you the cure for your problems even if it breaks shit and you never wanted or needed that "cure" of his. That sounds excessively dramatic but behaviorally speaking systemd is really attempting to force itself into becoming a hard dependency of the Linux OS.

Why do you think Poettering took over udev then broke it for non-systemd users after having explicitly promised not to do exactly that? He wasn't very fucking subtle when he declared he was making it systemd-only and said "Gentoo users, this is your wakeup call." He was saying "GET ON THE FUCKING PROGRAM AND RUN SYSTEMD ALREADY BECAUSE I AM GOING TO BREAK YOUR SYSTEM OTHERWISE." Gentoo told him to get fucked and forked udev into eudev instead, which is free of Poettering's control.

>>952220

Hoh, Lennart inserts the word "gently" to make his ambitions sound less hideously fucked up, but he really spells out his intentions here and makes it clear that he intends to ultimately leave everyone no choice but to run systemd. And given how he handled udev and attempted to worm his way into the kernel, it is clear that his methods aren't "gentle" at all.

>>951909 (OP)

Still kinda on the fence about systemd but I started getting into Linux pretty deeply around the time it took off so i'm kind of used to it. I get that it's not the unix way and takes on a lot more than it really should, if anything we should embrace but reign in systemd a bit, a system micro-d if you will.

>>951996

>UNIX/GNU "tools" like autoconf, make, and Configure scripts are just workarounds for bad OS design and incompatibility

>Awk and the "coreutils" are completely useless bullshit code that nobody would ever want to use if UNIX came with a better language for handling strings than C and C++

Mind elaborating on these or sharing any articles? I'm interested in the criticism

>>952651

>Mind elaborating on these or sharing any articles?

No.

>>952651

Sounds like _The UNIX-HATERS Handbook_, but it's not quite in there. Still, feel free to give it a look since you're interested in these types of complaints.

http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf

>>952657

Been way too long since I last tried to underline: The UNIX-HATERS Handbook. There we go.

>>952658

>>952657

Thanks, I've been looking into the strengths of UNIX lately, but I haven't thought about eying the complaints until now.

>>952661

It predates Linux and most of its complaints were supposedly addressed decades ago, but I haven't read it myself to confirm this.

>>952681

A majority of the complaints found in these blockquotes seem to have to do with specific quirks that existed on the old UNIX systems used at the time of writing, and more than likely do not apply to modern implementations.

However, some of these quotes don't make sense even within the context of the book's publication date of 1994.

>The lesson I just learned is: When developing with Make on 2 different machines, make sure their clocks do not differ by more than one minute.

The Network Time Protocol, otherwise known as NTP, has existed in some form since at least 1985: 9 years before the book. In fact, NTPv3 was out 2 years before publication, so it had already had multiple revisions.

>The big ones are grep(1) and sort(1). Their "silent truncation" have introduced the most heinous of subtle bugs in shell script database programs.

SQL has existed since 1974: 20 years before the book, and the first commercially available RDBMS, Oracle, was released in 1979. Judging from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems there have been 25+, maybe even 30+ relational database programs that existed prior to the publishing of the Unix Haters Handbook.

>Raise your hand if you remember when file systems had version numbers.

you mean like ext2 (1 year before publishing), ext3, and ext4?

To be a bit more serious though, yes it is true that Unix and Unix-like operating systems don't have separate version numbers for the filesystems, preferring to tie them to kernel versions. Why is this a problem again? Because it's not how Multics or whatever used to do it? This isn't even a monolithic vs. microkernel argument, as even the microkernel OSes don't seem to bother putting version numbers for filesystems. And why should they?

>>952682

>Because it's not how Multics or whatever used to do it?

IIRC a lot of those UNIX haters are fans of VMS and Lisp machines.

>>952661

If you want to know about complaints and bad parts better off start from an UNBIASED source

>>952862

ah yes unbiased meaning anyone that agrees with me

>>952862

If you don't suggest such a source your post is pointless whining.

>>952646

I was kind of in a similar boat until recently. I started using linux a couple years before systemd, but being new I didn't interact directly with a lot of the things systemd handles often, I actually learned my way around the system without needing to google every problem, i had gotten used to using systemd. Recently I've switched to sysvinit, then later plopped openrc on top to get automatic cgroup managment for services. There is really not much that systemd offers that other init systems don't. Even just regular old sysvinit covers most of important bases. The biggest thing systemd does is stick its cock into everything and make sure that the user has to interact with all the major system components through systemd's tools and only systemd's tools if they don't want bugy behavior or for what ever they did to be reverted. Systemd has been credited with so many features which were never really part of systemd, just because people are used to interacting with those features via systemd, or those features were only added after systemd was dominant.

>>952682

>>Raise your hand if you remember when file systems had version numbers.

>you mean like ext2 (1 year before publishing), ext3, and ext4?

No, like the version numbers of VMS files and the generations and versions of IBM data sets.

http://h41379.www4.hpe.com/doc/731final/6489/6489pro_006.html

>You can have several versions of the same file. Unless you specify a version number, the system uses the highest existing version number of that file. If you specify the version number 0, the system uses the highest existing version. When you modify a file with a command, application, or text editor (such as EVE) that creates a new version of the file, the file name remains the same but the version number is incremented by one.

>You can refer to versions of a file in a relative manner by specifying a zero or a negative version number. Specifying zero locates the latest (highest numbered) version of the file. Specifying -1 locates the next-most-recent version, -2 the version before that, and so on. To locate the earliest (lowest numbered) version of a file, specify -0 as the version number. Note that you cannot create files with a version number higher than 32767. If you attempt to create a new file with a version number higher than 32767, you will receive an error message.

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.idad400/ch14.htm

>Generation data sets have sequentially ordered absolute and relative names that represent their age. The catalog management routines use the absolute generation name. Older data sets have smaller absolute numbers. The relative name is a signed integer used to refer to the latest (0), the next to the latest (-1), and so forth, generation. For example, a data set name LAB.PAYROLL(0) refers to the most recent data set of the group; LAB.PAYROLL(-1) refers to the second most recent data set; and so forth. The relative number can also be used to catalog a new generation (+1).

Kinda wish OpenRC and runit were more popular...

>>952682

Like >>953026 says, they're talking about filesystems storing old versions of files under different version numbers. It's not like this would scale poorly and eat up all your disk space or anything.

>>953082

>openrc

My mon is using linux/openrc/devuan thanks to me.

>kinda wish

Make it happen. Tell normans who are using ubuntu to switch to void/devuan/gentoo and why. I know it's hard. I know only archafgs who wouldn't stop using arch for ideological/freedom reasons. Didn't persuade any of them. but I keep trying. The main problem is that they were all using Windows before. They went to schools sponsored by Microshit. It's hard to tell them that modular is better than monolithic, as much as I like monolithic music.

>>953026

>>953085

Ah I see. That's not what I get from "version numbers", but now it makes more sense. And yes, I agree that such a thing would eat up way too much disk space. On normal computers, if you're running out of space, you delete files you don't need. On these systems with "versions", you'd have to take an extra step or 2 to delete the old versions of all those files as well and make sure those are gone. Now that's not to say that I don't like the idea of versioning altogether, but it needs to be a very manual and deliberate process, like intentionally setting up a version control system such as git in a directory, or manually creating a ZFS, LVM, or Btrfs snapshot.

>>951943

Nice pasta.

>>953106

My mom is barely 50. Don't see a reason why I shouldn't start preaching GNU gospel to family members.

>>953107

thanks, uwu

>>952020

lmao thought the same, all that sperging just because he can't compile Lisp to binary on real systems.

>>953109

reread what you said in the post I was replying to

>>953112

I meant Mon Mothma.

>>953082

Isn't sysv good enough?

>>953019

Yeah it tries to handle too much and seems to be kinda messy when you really dig into it. It's part of every major distro and as someone who works with linux for a living I really have no choice but to embrace it since it's used in most enterprise situations and i'm not going to go through the trouble of using a systemd free distro at home because if I configure something at work or want to learn at home, I'd want it all to function the same way.

People's concerns with it aren't entirely baseless, an init system this big and controlling definitely does have a lot power and should it be easily compromised in one way or another there's a huge risk to all systemd users and their machines. I'd like to see it cut up into a modular type of design where users have more control over what it does and what they want it to control.

One thing that people need to be aware of with the 'UNIX hater' stuff is this was during the UNIX wars and a lot of it was amateur corporate shilling aimed at lolcow force multipliers. DEC was particularly fond of shilling, but in their attempt to seed irrational love for their products they were also bending over backwards for folks. I requested manuals for the DEC Alpha when it released and was expecting to get a price sheet but instead they sent fully bound book references for the instruction set and palcode, for free.

>>953338

Same here, but with runit.

Artix is the ultimate version of the arch meme.

>>953386

People who quote and link to the "UNIX haters handbook" are butthurt lispfags.

>>953338

isn't artix NSA™?

The issue with anti-systemd folks is that all the other init systems are worse

>>953579

At this point the freedom concerns are more worrying than the software quality ones, and not because of bug fixes to systemd.

>>953579

For whom? systemd does offer more functionality that might be useful for sysadmins, but for the average office/home user systemd does not offer any practical advantage, while however adding unnecessary complexity.

OpenRC and runit cover what 90% of Linux users will ever need.

>>953518

Your momma's NSA.

>>953610

ayy lmao

I'm don't affirm this though I already saw a lot of guys on /tech/ say that it is NSA

>>952866

>someone who loudly proclaims to hate XYZ is an unbiased source on XYZ

>>953605

See, it's the complete opposite for me. I've never had a system where the addition of systemd solved a problem I really have. Most of its features seem to be sops for home users (i.e. people who don't run Linux)

>>953579

SysV + OpenRC does the job just fine dude. I'd take it over systemd any day.

>>953728

It solves a massive nightmare the distros had by getting rid of a lot of 30 year old garbage, works well, and has an active community maintaining it. The trade-off is it's a monolithic blob that is bloated and hard to debug, and the leader of the project is known for attempts to force bad design decisions on everyone. While Debian includes it, they do patch out some of the bigger mistakes. Sadly, they do not disable (un)predictable interface names by default.

>>953728

Corporate politics. Red Hat wants control. They made systemd and used their influence to promote systemd to the exclusion of all other systems. GNOME jumped on the bandwagon, then everyone who used GNOME had to make a choice and many ended up jumping on the bandwagon too. Then as the bigger distros did that, smaller distros that were more like branches of the big distros followed suit. Systemd has attempted to worm its way into becoming a required dependency of a lot of the linux ecosystem to reduce the degree of freedom people have in avoiding systemd. It's also been applying a lot of bullshit pressure on distros, software packages, etc. (even the kernel, though to no success there) to do things the systemd way. For convenience's sake, a lot of folks have chosen to bend over and get it over with. Nevertheless it is fully possible to run a systemd-free Linux distro, and it will usually run better than the systemd stuff for the precise reason that it doesn't have systemd's extensive bugs, security issues, and instability.

There's a ton that can be said about the dirty ways systemd has been trying to force itself into the linux ecosystem.

>>953742

It's lovely how you omitted all the dirty stunts systemd has performed to try to force people to adopt systemd. The Embrace, Extend, Extinguish pattern applied to udev as a way of strong-arming Gentoo and the rest of the Linux community into adopting systemd was really quite nasty (and Gentoo forked udev into eudev so they could continue having a systemd-free udev). The way Poettering and pals attempt to submit patches to software packages that would integrate systemd as a necessary dependency for no other reason than to ensure people will have to install systemd to run this software now was also not a subtle attempt to try to force people to install systemd.

The OP's link lists a lot of dirty stuff the systemd project has been up to.

>>953745

>forcing adoption

You have to do this to some degree otherwise people who hate change will try to block progress, like how the CAD people killed the proposed modernization of OpenGL and it was something like 10 years before it was attempted again.

The 'hate change' people are lazy, and you'll see that as the distros that refused systemd fail and have to come crawling back because they were dickriding maintenance being done by people now on the systemd project.

>>953518

I thought Debian and OpenSUSE were NSA, not Arch. Artix is Manjaro-OpenRC merged with another non-systemdicks project IIRC.

>>953745

>It's lovely how you omitted all the dirty stunts systemd has performed to try to force people to adopt systemd.

Yeah, like all the paid shills going

<MUH BOOT TIMES SYSTEMD BOOT TIMES

init systems are a social construct

>>953765

>like how the CAD people killed the proposed modernization of OpenGL and it was something like 10 years before it was attempted again.

Tell me more about this.

>>953765

Leave it to systemd fanboys to spout FUD & bullshit about how any non-systemd distro must be a failed distro. Gentoo, Slackware, and Devuan are all still doing great, kid. Try not to be a lying whore; it reflects badly on you.

>>953772

Yeah, heard that one a bunch too. But honestly if all you want are fast boot times, you really don't need systemd.

>>953617

How is a small fork of Arch that doesn't even have enough manpower to port/patch all the packages from [extra] and [community] in any way related to the feds?

>a lot of guys on /tech/ say that

ayy lmao indeed

>>953765

You're right, but you're a lover of the SYSTEM DICK.

SYSTEMDICKS is the opposite of progress.

bsd init, runit, and many others are actual progress.

SYSTEM DICKS is the communist idea of "progress".

>>953938

without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_install_systemd-independent_udisks2_and_policykit_before_removing_systemd_from_a_Debian_jessie/sid_installation

>>953938

Devuan makes you butthurt, I know that much.

>>953938

Debian doesn't, but a shit ton of it's packages do for no reason other than the maintainers decided they wanted to compile with systemd options and not sysv/openrc/runit/etc. options. Which means that a large swath of packages will reinstall systemd components as dependencies because fuck you. That is the point of devuan, to clone debian's repos and patch systemd out of packages any time it's not actually nessary.

Feature creep is implicity never out of date and the primary reason you should not like systemd.

>>954058

You can stop attempting to spread FUD about non-systemd distros now. Devuan is a pretty newbie-friendly distro. The shift from Ubuntu (which is a Debian derivative) to Devuan (which is systemd-free Debian) isn't as scary or difficult as you're trying to make it out to be. It's pretty damn easy. The whole "you must use a systemd distro or you will have unspecified difficulties and problems" thing you're pushing is a load of seriously dishonest garbage and borderline slander.

The thing I don't get about you systemd shills is how shamelessly you resort to dishonest tactics like this just to make your pet software look good by comparison. I'm having a hard time thinking to myself that a normal person would make arguments in bad faith like this, which makes me wonder about you.

>>954093

A normie on some systemd distro is better than a normie on Win/Mac. Who cares?

>>954102

You should, if you aren't waiting for the end of capitalism with a glass of bought scotch in your left hand.

>>954106

Why?

>>954102

Mac is a bit of an open question depending on how well you customize it. It's still Unix under the hood, and the apple developers are still bigger believers in security, stability, and accountability than the systemd devs are, which is not high praise for apple but systemd setting the bar really low in terms of professionalism and all of the above.

Using Linux systemd-free isn't as difficult as you make it sound either. Install systemd-free distro, done.

>>951945

ok? google is reliable and will almost never be down, if there's no nameserver the results could be fatal. and remember this is only if somehow /etc/resolv.conf becomes emptied or deleted (in which it will be re-created, something not found in other init systems) and will save you days of recovery. also this doesn't connect to any of google's trackers or third parties, nor do I think anybody would care. quit your bullshit

>>954109

Just ignore him. He's a weirdo, probably one of those nu/pol/ faggots.

systemd was the result of lack of features and security on SysV, lack of ease of use and development on runit and I don't believe s6 was even around when systemd was created. For every 3 bugs with SysV there's 1 bug for systemd, for every 2 exploits with SysV there's one for systemd, systemd gets all the hate because it doesn't suck the dick of Ken Thompson.

>>954113

>also this doesn't connect to any of google's trackers or third parties

>implying you doesn't conect to google

(((you))) quit your bullshit

>>954109

I won't think for you. Just to remind you, normies don't ruin anything, devs do. There's literally no problem in majority of people running openrc/sysv, or better, runit.

>>954113

>this doesn't connect to any of google's trackers

Why do you think they run a public DNS?

>>954116

That's a lot of accusations and not a shred of evidence to back any of it up. Post evidence or gtfo.

>>954115

>more people using openrc/runit instead of systemd is somehow wrong

>>954118

>implying you doesn't connect to google

This reflects your intelligence level. Google itself isn't tracking you. The tracking is only with google-analytics and some other google services

>>954123

There's less people (a lot less) working on SysV than systemd, so less bugs found that are still there lurking, and when bugs do get found it takes longer to fix them. It's simple logic really. systemd is more secure because more people care about it and are willing to put in the effort to make it better unlike literally every other init systsem (gee, it's almost as if there's something to this systemd!)

>>954128

So, just to recap, you have no evidence. Just your "logic."

Speaking of which, you realize that the majority of systemd's complaints about stability, security, and various other insane bugs stem from the fact that it is an overwrought convoluted ginormous software suite of ordinarily discrete system functions cobbled together? And you're claiming that the giant pile of code is inherently more secure because of how complicated it is that you have so many people working on it? I also like how you compared the number of people working on SysV which is purely an init system to the number of people working on systemd which is waaaaaaaay the fuck more than an init system. Not to mention that last I checked 90% of all the systemd work is done by a core of just 10 people, which is arguably too few for how many projects-in-one systemd is, esp. considering the never-ending scope creep and "keep looking forwards and don't look back" attitude systemd has.

But there's another counterpoint against your delusional claims of a bug-free systemd life, called evidence:

http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd#Absurd_bugs_and_responses

While your revisionist history is as amusing as it is incorrect, systemd is rather infamous for the number of bugs and design problems (like the motherboard bricking issue) they won't fix. It's part of the reason why devs are hated for acting like prima donnas who think they can never do wrong and never accept that they goofed. Because that attitude sinks into the code and causes some stunningly bad problems they will refuse to acknowledge.

>>954128

>This reflects your intelligence level. Google itself isn't tracking you.

You're joking right? You think google doesn't do search analytics or carefully track usage information across all its services in general? Are you on drugs? Google's entire fucking thing is data analysis. They fucking love tracking data and analyzing the shit out of it. Try reading a ToS sometime. There's always a clause about how they track your shit for performance/quality control/analytics/whatever reasons. And even if you don't find a ToS or relevant clause, they're most probably still doing it. It's just standard operating procedure to them.

>>954029

Not good, also NSA™

>>954709

>what is antiX

Can't you just replace systemd immediately after install? That is the entire fucking point of FOSS OS. You are allowed to make it good.

Insecure by default is bad for newkids and normalfags though so I can see why this is a problem.

>>954709

>nsa

<(((you)))

>>954782

When you have shit defaults for everything and are not even using gentoo, then you are fucked, newkid.

>>954808

Aye, systemd distro repos have a ridiculous amount of systemd dependencies in all their shit. IIRC Arch most infamously has systemd as a dependency for their file manager. And systemd aimed for this to happen on purpose, to make it extremely difficult to avoid running systemd. See: >>952220

Crap like this is why there needed to be a Devuan project for a systemd-free Debian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AeWu1fZ7bY

Hey kids, thought you could escape systemDicks by jumping ship to FreeBSD? "Not so fast!" says notorious CoC-sucker Benno Rice.

To paraphrase Conquest's second law: "Any distribution not explicitly UNIX sooner or later becomes systemDicks"

>be me

>10+ years using gnu/linux

>never cared about systemd

>see this thread and thin 'why not'

>apt remove systemd

>half of my system would go together

I am starting to be a little scared.

>>954904

>SYSTEMDICKS for FreeBSD

why.jpeg

They have BSD init which is actually useful.

>>955153

>>954904

And his final section:

Automation via API

He talks about how great it would be for a server to react to something failing, and reconfiguring itself intelligently.

You don't need SYSTEMDICKS to do any of that.

You don't need SYSTEMDICKS for any of SYSTEMDICKS supposed benefits, including self restarting services, failover, etc.

These can all be done with one line shell scripts.

Even SYSTEMDICKS supposed amazing container management was outdone by ezjail in 2005.

>>954904

>>955153

>>955157

What's the problem, will you be forced to use systemd bsd if it happened to exist? Right now, nobody is forced to use systemd with Linux if they don't want it.

>>955162

>What's the problem, will you be forced to use systemd bsd if it happened to exist?

Yes, because systemd infiltrates other projects and becomes a hard dependency for unrelated tools.

>>955163

I don't think that's true for the case of Linux-systemd. There are ways to use Linux today without any systemd installed.

>>954904

Sheesh. Systemd fags are really pulling out all the stops to try to infect everything with their garbage. I guess Linux wouldn't be enough they want the greater *NIX world under their thumb too. I wonder how fucking stupid you'd have to be to think that you actually need systemd for those features he touts. The most amazing part was when he insisted systemd actually follows the UNIX philosophy. There's being a lying weasel and then there's being outright full of shit. He also referenced a blog article on contempt culture, which is one of those polite ways of saying "haters gonna hate and if people are hating it's just for the sake of being 'cool' with the hater crowd." The thing is, oftentimes people do have good reasons and analysis for why they hate certain things. It's the idiots trying hard to fit in who think that acting contemptuous and playing follow the leader while you don't actually know is what it's all about.

He also titled his talk "The Tragedy of Systemd" and then proceeded to make a full-throated systemd endorsement out of it. Feh. Short of it is, it's a toxic pile of garbage.

>>955153

They also have OpenRC.

>>954126

>calling you a weirdo best ignored is somehow the same as supporting systemd

And this is why you're an idiot. There's a wonderful thing called "logic" and you're not using it. Please study inductive and deductive reasoning some more before you insert yourself into an argument because you desperately need some help on how to not jump to wild conclusions.

>>954909

And that's why you're better off using non-systemd distros than trying to remove systemd from a systemd distro. Try Devuan.

>>954808

I've de-systemd'd Debian on an older Thinkpad I have which I like. I installed the OS years and years ago and simply did the dist-upgrade each time without a hitch, but eventually I ended up with systemd installed. I went to the without systemd site and removed it according to their instructions and it mostly worked. For some reason I can't shut down the machine or control power management from xfce any more, but I have those functions working with more traditional tools so it's no big deal.

When I got a new computer I installed Devuan and everything works great now.

Serious question: what's wrong with Runit? Why do so few distros use it?

>>955168

Like how people had to fork udev into eudev because systemd seized it?

>>955163

>>955168

>>>/gaschamber/

>>955371

Yes, that's the way it should be. That is the value of freedom.

>>955457

That freedom exists in spite of systemd's repeated attempts to force everyone to install their software. They are deliberately trying to reduce options and increase the labor of doing things the non-systemd way until it becomes too cumbersome to avoid systemd and you give up. Poettering said this himself, directly: >>952220

That's also why we have systemd fans talk about how you can just remove systemd from a systemd distro without mentioning how badly shit gets fucked up by doing it and how your package manager goes to shit. Yeah, you technically have that option, but it's bloody impractical to keep running the distro systemd-free, which was systemd's intention. There's no point in running Debian systemd-free. Apt-get's value plummets through the floor if so many fucking packages would reinstall systemd and you don't want that. That's why you need Devuan. When systemd infects shit, it tries very hard to become very non-optional.

>>955537

>Apt-get's value plummets through the floor if so many fucking packages would reinstall systemd and you don't want that.

I didn't think of this before, but that statement is 100% true.

If you want to continue to run Debian without SYSTEMD, you have to rebuild so many packages that apt becomes useless.

From that point on you've essentially got a shitty version of Gentoo or Slackware.

If you're going to go to the trouble of running a system with a mixture of pre-compiled and user-compiled programs, you might as well just use BSD.

>>955457

>systemd taking over critical linux projects and strongarming others into installing systemd if they want a functional Linux system unless they fork the project is the way things should be

You best be joking, son. This shit was a naked powergrab. The fact that it failed doesn't make that sort of stunt okay. Systemd is also trying hard to worm its way into the Linux kernel, although Linus isn't having it, which no doubt causes the systemd folks a solid amount of asspain, since integrating into the Linux kernel would be the holy grail of forcing the Linux world to run systemd, and yet it remains out of their reach, with very good reason.

>>955537

>Yeah, you technically have that option, but it's bloody impractical to keep running the distro systemd-free, which was systemd's intention. There's no point in running Debian systemd-free. Apt-get's value plummets through the floor if so many fucking packages would reinstall systemd and you don't want that. That's why you need Devuan. When systemd infects shit, it tries very hard to become very non-optional.

This is only true when users fail to take responsibility over what they use. Projects like Devuan is the proper answer. The world existed before systemd and it is your own responsibility to maintain your world without systemd now that systemd is here. That is the proper answer.

>>955558

>A transition to closed source would almost certainly get it kicked out of mainstream distros

If you expand the code base to a degree to which no single person can fully understand the code base in it's entirety, you will have achieved something comparable to closed-source.

And look at what Boittering and his ilk are doing to SYSTEMDICKS.

I can't wait till a ton of 0-days get released. Enough to the point where Linus labels SYSTEMD as malicious code.

>>955563

>If you expand the code base to a degree to which no single person can fully understand the code base in it's entirety, you will have achieved something comparable to closed-source.

See: US Tax Code

>>955558

>A transition to closed source would almost certainly get it kicked out of mainstream distros.

You assume mainstream distros have the ability to do that easily: at best they would have to stick with old versions of systemd for months while they work on substitutes, at worse they would go along with it (especially if vulnerabilities for the old versions are conveniently released at the same time).

Also open source does not automatically mean anything, if the code is too long or too complicated or just not audited by anyone it's just like closed source.

>Would users stay if systemd turned into a data-collecting platform?

Users would stay if nobody knew, for one.

Since certain open source shitcoin wallets managed to include keyloggers and get away with quite some money, I wouldn't be so sure any systemd fuckery would be detected quickly.

Second, systemd could run disinfo campaign mozilla style and call all criticism FUD, and those tactics worked well in practice.

Third and most worrying, systemd could just play it off as a feature of some kind, and users might believe it.

>>955551

>This is only true when users fail to take responsibility over what they use. Projects like Devuan is the proper answer. The world existed before systemd and it is your own responsibility to maintain your world without systemd now that systemd is here.

This kind of shit is not helping free software one bit.

Pretending that convenience is a non-issue and that radical, undertested customizations are viable for anyone but enthusiasts is silly.

>>955551

Look pal, do you even understand what the point of running a Linux distribution is? The point is that you dont have to take full responsibility for building the entire system. That someone else did much of the work for you and you can benefit off of the convenience it creates. The open source world thrives on this kind of helpfulness. And a lot of users reasonably are caught in a bad position if their distribution suddenly marches in a direction they don't want and switches from convenient to horribly inconvenient for those unwilling to make the systemd transition.

What you are talking about reverses that point and tells people to do shit the hard way from scratch if they don't want to do it the systemd way, and that's purely a result of the systemd project's "my way or the highway" methodology and hamfisted attempts at forcing dominance on the platform.

>>955558

>What is their motive for domination?

Lennart Poettering is an incompetent fool with a vision, and his goal is basically to unite Linux under his benevolent dictatorship where he can best impose his idea of a standardized Linux on the entire Linux world. The ethics of his actions towards that end are dubious at best, and his idea of a standardized Linux is similarly dubious at best given the repeated track-record of absurd bugs, stability problems, and security issues in systemd, replete with devs insisting it's somehow not a problem and you should deal with it (WONTFIX). Systemd is by and large a downgrade over a properly setup system. The main selling point of systemd is the init but there are plenty of other inits that do the job just fine. For Red Hat in general, it also gives them greater control over Linux at large, which is something they appreciate and can stand to cash in on.

Poettering seems like one of (((them))) and his software sucks. Anyway who wants a million LOC init system anyway?

Crazy shit going on here. Thankfully we have options and OpenBSD is gaining lots of steam if you look at their mailing list traffic.

>>955621

Never used anything from the BSD the world. Does it worth the effort? Will they succumb to the systemD?

>>956266

Just avoid FreeBSD and you'll be fine. FreeBSD is the only one pozzed by a CoC at the moment. OpenBSD has been pretty good for as long as I've used it. Main concern with it is driver support when compared to Linux distros. It's good for servers, routers, and anyone that doesn't need support for the latest Jewvidya graphic cards.

>>956266

openbsd is run by a benevolent dictator who stands against everything systemd stands for

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt

>Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix.

>It's terrible, everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.' on the quality of the code of the Linux kernel

>Low code quality keeps haunting our entire industry. That, and sloppy programmers who don't understand the frameworks they work within. They're like plumbers high on glue.

>The world doesn't live off jam and fancy perfumes - it lives off bread and meat and potatoes. Nothing changes. All the big fancy stuff is sloppy stuff that crashes. I don't need dancing baloney - I need stuff that works. That's not as pretty, and just as hard.

>Our solutions provide something that is 100% right, all the time. That is the idea. The cobbled together gunk never does [...] It's unfortunate the application-level people are all caught up in cobble, cobble, cobble and just never learn how to evolve.

>>956298

>I need stuff that works.

Me too. You know what doesn't work? Hardware acceleration for video on OpenBSD. Kind of restricts what I'm able to do with it.

It'd make a great server, as long as you don't install anything outside of the base system. Of course, I hope you have your own hardware collocated in a datacenter somewhere, and that it's compatible with OpenBSD, because finding OpenBSD based hosting (VPS/shared/dedicated/whatever) is a bitch, and it's expensive when you do find it. Don't think you'll be able to go with the lowest-tier plan, either, because OpenBSD is slower than a retarded turtle on Xanax who's also dead.

Another fun fact: OpenBSD is currently using gcc 4.9.4, which is part of the 4.x series that goes aaaaaaaaalllllll the way back to 2005. AFAIK, this is still what they build OpenBSD with, though if they've finally switched to clang, I'd be interested to know.

>>956314

GCC switched to an incompatible GPL version which is why they stopped tracking GCC.

Clang is default for x64.

>Finding a VPS is a bitch

Azure, Vultr, arpanetworks, literally anything with an iso upload.

>slow

I have been doing just fine off Vultr's $5/month tier, I think the OpenBSD team has admitted general purpose operations can be up to 30% slower depending on your workload.

OpenBSD is good at what it does and does what the devs want, you can join in for the ride or submit patches, take it or leave it.

From the sounds of it OpenBSD doesn't do what you want it to do and that's fine, don't use it.

>>956298

Theo is a lolcow. I don't know why you guys are attracted to lolcows like him and McAfee, but they don't actually know what they're doing, they're just loud and confident.

>>956329

What are you talking about? McAfee has programming skills and used it to write something that people wanted. Same with Theo. What is it that they do but they don't actually know what they do?

>>956334

McAfee wasn't even part of the company past 1994. Almost the entire history of all of those products he had nothing to do with other than ensuring they carried his name. He's a Peter Molyneux, not a Peter Norton.

Theo talks lots of shit about Linux and code quality but if you look through their code it's a disaster. Want to know why people complain about ntfs corruption on OpenBSD? Look at the code:

	/* XXXLOCKING lock hash list? */
	ipp = &ntfs_nthashtbl[NTNOHASH(dev, inum)];
	LIST_FOREACH(ip, ipp, i_hash) {
		if (inum == ip->i_number && dev == ip->i_dev)
			break;
	}
	/* XXXLOCKING unlock hash list? */

	/* XXXLOCKING lock hash list? */
	ipp = &ntfs_nthashtbl[NTNOHASH(ip->i_dev, ip->i_number)];
	LIST_INSERT_HEAD(ipp, ip, i_hash);
	ip->i_flag |= IN_HASHED;
	/* XXXLOCKING unlock hash list? */
	}

	/* XXXLOCKING lock hash list? */
	if (ip->i_flag & IN_HASHED) {
		ip->i_flag &= ~IN_HASHED;
		LIST_REMOVE(ip, i_hash);
	}
	/* XXXLOCKING unlock hash list? */

It's completely broken and unfinished, yet they ship this as "part of the default install". You can find lots of shit like this easily, just read their mailinglist for complaints about crashes and corruption then look up the code.

Also, their code is also often an unreadable mess, I assume because they use BSD-only text editors that can't autocomplete unlike those evil GPLed editors. Can you tell me what this does out of context?

	/* optimize this while loop */
	while (count > 0 && clp->c_cc > 0) {
		cc = clp->c_cl - clp->c_cf;
		if (clp->c_cf >= clp->c_cl)
			cc = clp->c_ce - clp->c_cf;
		if (cc > count)
			cc = count;
		count -= cc;
		clp->c_cc -= cc;
		clp->c_cf += cc;
		if (clp->c_cf == clp->c_ce)
			clp->c_cf = clp->c_cs;
	}

>>956266

>Never used anything from the BSD the world. Does it worth the effort?

sndio

dhcpd

unbound

libressl

OpenNTPD

All great projects spawned from OpenBSD.

>>956314

>Hardware acceleration for video on OpenBSD.

fud harder faggot, just get a supported video card

>>956329

back to /b/

SystemD is for niggers

>>956341

You forgot doas.

>>956341

>OpenNTPD

Worthless SNTP trash. Why bother with NTP and then settle for inaccurate time? It's basically just rdate. It's probably the worst remake they've done.

>>956266

OpenBSD and NetBSD are the last remaining true Unices standing. Everything else is huge, bloated, and pozzed.

>>956357

Has anyone found/proved it has backdoors?

>956337

ftfy

/* optimize this while loop */
	while (suck > 0 && cocklp->cock_cocks > 0) {
		cocksc = cocklp->cock_cockl - cocklp->cock_cockf;
		if (cocklp->cock_cockf >= cocklp->cock_cockl)
			cocks = cocklp->cock_cocke - cocklp->cock_cockf;
		if (cocks > suck)
			cocks = suck;
		suck -= cocks;
		cocklp->cock_cocks -= cocks;
		cocklp->cock_cockf += cocks;
		if (cocklp->cock_cockf == cocklp->cock_cocke)
			cocklp->cock_cockf = cocklp->cock_cocks;
	}

>>956504

BS. UNIX was a mistake. Microsoft API is by far better than POSIX standard crap.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/csliu/2009/03/20/windows-unix-and-ansi-c-api-comparison/

WTF?

I don't see any point on still suporting POSIX standard in modern systems anymore.

>>956379

>Why bother with NTP and then settle for inaccurate time?

Because maybe you don't need .000000001 resolution and don't want to use any of the shitty NTP servers with security problems.

There are times where I want to use NTP on a isolated lan and don't actually care about .01 drift.

>>956790

>Malware Found On The Arch User Repository (AUR)

>>956816

>this level os trolling

HAHAHAHA

yeah that's why every computer aimed for calculus/servers/clusters run on windows, right???

>>956818

>Malware Found On The Arch User Repository (AUR)

Is AUR systemd itself?

>>951909 (OP)

pointless because there so many other horrific monstrosities destroying computing technology.

>>957185

like what?

>>957342

Windows.

>>956790

https://www.securityweek.com/linux-systemd-gives-root-privileges-invalid-usernames

A bug that let people get root by making invalid usernames. Poettering's response was

>lol you shouldn't be able to make invalid names!

>WONT FIX

You want this clown's code running in such a privileged state on your computer, be my guest.

>>957818

CoCs and other forms of SJW entryism.

>>956298

>>It's terrible, everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.' on the quality of the code of the Linux kernel

That's inherent to UNIX culture, which Linux and GNU inherited. If you replace Linux with UNIX, it's still true.

>It's terrible, everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the UNIX people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.' on the quality of the code of the UNIX kernel

>>Low code quality keeps haunting our entire industry. That, and sloppy programmers who don't understand the frameworks they work within. They're like plumbers high on glue.

C and UNIX were made by sloppy programmers who write low quality code. That's why they suck. Better programmers are made less productive by having to use shitty "tools" like C.

>>Our solutions provide something that is 100% right, all the time. That is the idea. The cobbled together gunk never does [...] It's unfortunate the application-level people are all caught up in cobble, cobble, cobble and just never learn how to evolve.

I can't find a better description of UNIX/Linux than "cobbled together gunk." If you want "100% right, all the time" look at mainframe OSes and Lisp machines.

>>956337

>It's completely broken and unfinished, yet they ship this as "part of the default install". You can find lots of shit like this easily, just read their mailinglist for complaints about crashes and corruption then look up the code.

That's what most of UNIX-Haters was about, except in those days AT&T charged money for that shit and blamed the users and the hardware when it didn't work.

The replier then went on to enumerate several other bugs
that everyone seemed to know about and that had been
plaguing people for years, and yet nobody had fixed them.
Nearly every company that came out with a machine running
unix, ported the code, bugs and all, and presumably did not
fix the bugs because of the fear of being struck by a
lightning bolt from the unix gods.  Or possibly if they
fixed the bugs it would not be "compatible".  This kind of
thing has been happening for years, and it is instead
amazing to see that there manages to be any progress at all.
Assuming the reader believes SVR4 _is_ progress.

>>957927

Is it microsoft or apple who's paying you?

>>957927

>UNIX-Haters

Most of that was DEC shilling VMS through "grass roots" FUD. A lot of early shitposting on tech groups were actually companies shilling in the UNIX wars. It's probably been lost to time, but that shit was heated and ended in the market destroying itself.

>>958030

I'm keeping the shills away. The only "payment" I receive is getting people to consider that "not only is better possible, but that better could have once existed in the world before driven out by worse." Ignoring 60 years of solutions because they won't work for C or UNIX sucks.

>>958034

>Most of that was DEC shilling VMS through "grass roots" FUD.

The UNIX-Haters were mostly from academic cultures who used better operating systems for years and had decades of work thrown away and replaced by AT&T bullshit because empty suits said they should teach what's currently popular and stop trying to make things better.

https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~rsc/plan9.html

>This is not Plan 9 hacking per se, but it would be interesting to fix dot-dot in Unix. There might even be enough issues involved to make it a good senior or master's thesis. I don't use Unixes enough to do it myself, but if someone were interested I'd be glad to talk through problems and lend help.

This is the kind of bullshit I mean. Since when was fixing a corporation's broken product "a good senior or master's thesis"? There are definitely enough issues involved, but it sucks.

>A lot of early shitposting on tech groups were actually companies shilling in the UNIX wars. It's probably been lost to time, but that shit was heated and ended in the market destroying itself.

The "UNIX wars" was UNIX weenie infighting and UNIX-Haters preferred other operating systems like Lisp machines, Multics, VMS, TOPS-20, and ITS, and hated BSD, System V, Plan 9, and GNU equally.

    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.

>>958322

so basically he thought there were too many options and he didn't like that it was proprietary, at the time

damn, that's some heavy critique

>>958328

He didn't like that UNIX was (to borrow a phrase from Theo de Raadt) "cobbled together gunk" with no design. Contrast that with Xerox PARC's Cedar, Interlisp, and Smalltalk systems, where the entire system is made by a small team, all the programs are designed to work together, and code is shared and reused as much as possible.

http://worrydream.com/refs/Teitelman%20-%20The%20Cedar%20Programming%20Environment,%20A%20Midterm%20Report%20and%20Examination.pdf

The main goal of Cedar is to increase programmer productivity, specifically the productivity of the 
programmers in CSL, by reducing the cost of solving a problem by software and by improving the quality 
of the solutions. The improvement will come from three main sources: a  programming language that 
takes more responsibility for certain programming tasks, programming tools that make program 
development and debugging faster, and a  package library that allows programmers to build upon one 
another's work. [21] We intend for Cedar to be the basis for most of our programming during the next 
several years. Cedar will also provide the platform for these experimental applications themselves, i.e., 
the applications that we develop will not only be constructed using Cedar, they will run on top of Cedar. 
Cedar will also support non-programmers, and programmers when they are not programming, by 
providing various office-related facilities such as an electronic mail system, a  sophisticated editor and 
document preparation system, and a  high-quality typesetter. 

C and UNIX lower productivity and quality and require everyone to reinvent the wheel. That's why C-based OSes have this 60 million line problem even though they are worse than what Lisp machines, Cedar, and Smalltalk did with much less code on much less powerful hardware. Computers today are thousands of times faster and have thousands of times as much RAM and disk space, but the software technology is still not as good as what those people did in the 70s and 80s.

Danny Bobrow, Ron Kaplan, Larry Masinter (all at PARC),
Richard Burton, Peter Deutsch and Warren Teitelman (all
ex-PARC) are to be awarded that ACM's Computer and
Information Processing Software System Award. Why? For the
development of Interlisp, and its facilities such as
integrated compiler and interpreter, source level debugging,
structure editing, graphical user interface integration,
automatic change management and analysis and profiling
tools. The generic description of the award describes how
the recipients will have had a lasting influence on the
development of software systems.

I wish.  Now I write programs in C and C++ (ok, sometimes
Lisp when I'm lucky) using emacs on a window system set up
to look like ten hardcopy terminals at once.  Since the
address space is rudely split, non-intrustive profiling
tools are just impossible, but fortunately we don't have the
integration in the environment to make them work anyway.  I
do storage management by hand.  I am aware of the difference
betwen -O2 and -O4 because Sun (and no-one else) can write a
compiler which optimises properly.  I put printfs in my code
in order to trace it.  The closest I can come to an
all-purpose User Interface Management Systems is emacs.

What is the lasting influence of Interlisp?  It is that,
almost twenty years since it was developed...  and even
though the current implementation is still a byte-code
emulator for the Dorado's instruction set...  still, after
all this, I bloody wish I was still using it.

>>957885

That's a typical response of lennart "i'm better than you" pottering. I'm not even surprised

Although I agree it is not a very serious problem, it should be fixed in order to maintain a decent, well organized and clean project not to mention "muh unix philosophy". Shame on systemd mess.

>>958343

<he hasn't heard of worse is better yet

UNIX and C programs are notorious for not checking for failure and don't care about being unstable. It's also part of the UNIX philosophy to write sloppy come first and then eventually rewrite it. Unfortunately the sloppy version is "good enough" to the point of it not being rewritten.

>>951970

>Systemd isn't a plain init system, its purpose is a platform on top of Linux to provide a set of services for applications.

In PID 1?

>>951971

>That's a PEBCAK error. You can achieve the same effect without systemd or with a Windows OS. The answer is don't rm -rf /

You fucking negroid. If you do that while efivarfs is mounted, you're going to completely destroy the computer. The UEFI firmware will be fucked aka the computer won't POST aka congratulations, instead of a gaming PC you now have a gaming paperweight.

>>953085

>what is incremental versions

>what is filesize limit

Wow, it's fucking nothing.

>>960902

It becomes a serious problem in environments where this sort of thing is automated. Leave it to Poettering though to say that it'll be the automation's fault for not rejecting valid usernames that would get root access under systemd's ridiculous bug as opposed to owning up and fixing this retarded security hole themselves.

>>960965

No. PID 1 is an init system and only an init system. The rest of systemd have different IDs.

>>960969

That's only correct for shitty motherboards. Properly designed motherboards can deal with the failure case of missing efivars.

>>965472

>It becomes a serious problem in environments where this sort of thing is automated.

No it doesn't. If your "automation" is mangling system files then all bets are off on how many parts of the system you manage to fuck up or crash.

Here's what I don't understand.

Why can't they just package the init part of systemd and everything separately?

For example, even though a DE is one project, it consists of a number of separate packages, most of which can be used standalone.

You're not forced to install the whole DE, you can just install the parts you want, like the WM, the bar or the file manager, etc.

If you want the whole DE, you install the meta package that pulls all the packages that comprise it.

Why can't systemd be like this?

Why shouldn't you be able to install systemd-init, udevd, logind, networkd, journald, crond (or timerd, whatever), timedated or gummiboot (now known as systemd-boot) separately?

Never mind that they're all part of the systemd project.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever for those things to be packaged together, nor is there any reason for any of them to depend on each other for that matter.

Just like there's no reason for a DE's WM, file manager and bar for example to be interdependent (or worse, packaged together).

They said they wanted to "fix" or replace all those "crusty old bad" system utilities or something along those lines?

Well okay, fine, they did that. They took over some half dead (?) projects and "fixed" them or wrote their own "better" alternatives.

Maybe some people would appreciate that (if there was anything that required fixing or reinnovating in the first place).

Why merge everything and bundle it all into a single package though?

Let's compare Xfce and systemd.

In here https://github.com/xfce-mirror we got:

* https://github.com/xfce-mirror/xfwm4

* https://github.com/xfce-mirror/thunar

* https://github.com/xfce-mirror/xfce4-panel

* https://github.com/xfce-mirror/xfce4-terminal

* ...

Mostly standalone programs, maintained separately (naturally) under the umbrella of the Xfce project.

systemd, just like Xfce consists of a lot of standalone programs (or should be standalone programs), but they're all crammed into this one git repository: https://github.com/systemd/systemd

Why?

>>965928

Because that's not the goal of the developers. Lennart explicitly said that he designed things the way he did and behaves the way he does because he wants the Linux environment to have less choice.

This is the main reason people should hate him.

>>965928

Some people have already decided to try just that:

https://github.com/elogind/elogind

https://github.com/gentoo/eudev

https://github.com/artix-linux/opensysusers

https://github.com/OpenRC/opentmpfiles

>>965928

See: >>952220

>>954113

>if there's no nameserver the results could be fatal

Hmm

>configure new machine

>"Hey I don't want it to be able to resolve domains for whatever reason! I'm probably testing or debugging something"

>whoops, your DNS still resolves and you've just accidentally sent all your requests to Google

If you didn't mean for resolv.conf to become empty, then you're a bad admin, because files don't just disappear. Systemd is completely breaking common sense behaviour and obliterating the principle of least surprise just to cater to unlikely scenarios by incompetent idiots.

why is systemd reinventing the wheel?

dhclient and dhcpcd work just fine, what's the point of networkd?

>buy a ryzen 5 1600x

>truly an awesome cpu

>can't even use W7

>Devuan uses linux kernel 4.9

What do I do?

>>966370

You ever hear of a little company called Microsoft?

>>966373

Install Gentoo, and make sure to unmask the most recent (4.18.6) kernel-sources.

>>966377

>Install Gentoo

While I did play with many distros along the years, I'm no programmer. You sure Gentoo would be fit for me? I'm aware of it and it's probably the biggest distro without systemd out there, but I'm still afraid.

>>966370

RedHat wants to sell desktops but everyone laughs at Linux on the desktop. So they've been throwing money at perceived desktop weaknesses like difficulties interacting with system services from a GUI. They'll introduce a registry next.

>>966380

Gentoo isn't a fit for programmers, either. It's for LARPers to feel like they're a developer because they watched software compile. Don't use it.

>>966370

>Why are they even giving it away for free is the first question.

redhat's income comes from service contracts.

Do you think a rent seeking company would do something that doesn't lead to more renters?

Why do you think log files were forced from text to binary?

Why do you think you have to use SYSTEMD internal programs to diagnose problems with SYSTEMD?

Why does redhat allow boittering to continually expand the code base instead of forcing the project to stop and document everything?

All of these things force companies and private entities to turn to REDHAT™® OFFICIAL SUPPORT CENTERS© for assistance in tackling simple problems made obtuse.

Not to mention that of their major contracts might be telling them to obfuscate "features" by purposely omitting documentation of key components or API calls. boittering has admitted that they don't properly document the core software

>>966370

>But why, in the name of god, are they going out of their way to force it down everyone's throats?

They are not forcing it on anyone tho.

Is not their fault every distro and they dogs adopted it.

Also, being proprietary would put a stain on it and prevent people from using it in any shape or form.

>>966373

Wait for Devuan 3.0 or just, like, compile your own kernel.

hi

>>966429

They are literally forcing it.

At first it was impossible to avoid it.

Now, thanks to the Gentoo people, it's just difficult and Red Hat is actively making it increasingly difficult by making GNOME and lower level stuff related to GNOME and the freedesktop stuff they have influence over that's used in other DE's depend on it.

Do you know what Arch's official explanation for adopting systemd was?

Something along the lines of it's easier to just bite the bullet than make the effort to avoid it.

They would even go around asking independent software developers to write systemd specific code into their program (e.g. how a systemd dev shamelessly asked the tmux dev to write tmux specific code)

They merge one of the system utilities you're using into systemd, you cannot avoid it until someone forks the utility.

That's how they're forcing it.

>>966429

>Also, being proprietary would put a stain on it and prevent people from using it in any shape or form

Also, did you even read my post?

>>966559

>Sure those got forked by the Gentoo team thank god.

Check the commits, they were forked but they've done very little with them. It's basically a butthurt fork by devs not capable of working at that level.

>>966540

>that FAQ

cringe

>>966619

but it has a cool blue and black theme!!!!

>>966540

>using some small-time shitty new meme distro maintained by literal whos

>>966373

This >>966377

>>966380

>I'm no programmer

You don't need to be a programmer to use Gentoo just as you don't need to be a programmer to use any other distro.

Gentoo is like any other distro, it just offers you more customization, freedom, power, and control.

The gentoo installation handbook literally holds your hand through the whole process and explains everything in noob terms.

All the documentation is god tier. If you don't have issues with reading comprehension, you won't have issues with Gentoo.

It's as "difficult" to install as Arch, it's almost literally the same actually, you just have to wait for your shit to compile in this case.

You don't even have to configure the kernel yourself, there's a tool that does that for you automatically called genkernel.

People think that gentoo is "hard" for what it does. But that's the thing right there. The "hard" part is not on you.

It's not like you're the one doing the compiling, resolving dependencies with ./configure parameters in mind, making sure everything's consistent and whatnot.

Portage handles that and everything "hard" for you. That's why Portage is so powerful. That's the point of Gentoo.

To provide you with all the advantages of compiling packages from source while making it easy and convenient on your side.

You don't even have to tinker with anything if you don't want to. Use the optimal make.conf settings as instructed in the handbook.

Pick the desktop profile during installation which will set your USE flags to what most desktop users would expect. (or pick the KDE profile if you're using KDE)

Use it like any other normal distro.

If you run into any issues, just hop on #gentoo on Freenode and ask away.

The community is friendly and helpful and they'll be happy to help.

>>966383

fuck off

Gentoo is the only option.

>>966473 Devuan inherits the shittyness of Debian.

Void is void of packages and devs.

Gentoo is well established, mature, stable (you can mix stable with bleeding edge and it just works, unlike Devuan), rolling release, has a large community around it, top tier documentation and support, god tier package manager, overlays, etc.

>>966600

>they were forked but they've done very little with them

Maybe that's because they were working just fine and there's no need to do much work on them besides simply maintain them?

>>954113

>if there's no nameserver the results could be fatal.

the absolute state of unix. I haven't had an /etc/resolv.conf for a decade

>also this doesn't connect to any of google's trackers

but it routes all your name lookups through google, including intranet and typos

>>966370

they don't do it for profit, they do it for satan

>>952100

This. I trust linux torvalds with my life.

>>966632

>Gentoo is like any other distro

Any other source-based distro. Big distinction!

I'd rather not melt my laptop CPU by needlessly compiling everything.

>If you don't have issues with reading comprehension, you won't have issues with Gentoo.

Only if your time is worthless.

Just go with Debian. It's stable and isn't a pain in the ass.

I read a book by Linus Torvalds, and he said something to the effect of "you're supposed to notice an operating system as little as possible" because you don't use an OS for the sake of using an OS. You use it for the programs you can use within it. If you spend so much time compiling and configuring shit, you're not going to be very productive.

I just need bash, Visual Studio Code, IntelliJ IDEA, etc. and don't need to bother with the unnecessary waste of time that is installing gentoo.

I'm sure it's great if you're new to Linux. Then it seems cool and exciting. But after you know what you're doing, it just seems like a pointless waste of time to do all that.

The argument people make about source-based distros being more secure is silly, since I doubt you audited all the source code of what you compiled. And Gentoo had a security issue with their GitHub repository not too long ago, so don't pretend that it's super secure. For real security, people should go with Qubes OS. And for practicality, Debian or Ubuntu are just fine. Gentoo makes sense as a learning experience, but it's horribly impractical for a daily driver OS.

>>966632

Literal reddit spacing shitting on Void. Zyklon B for you and your family.

>>966842

Additionally: it doesn't make sense as a VPS or web host distro either, since many simply won't offer it, and even those that will let you use it, often monitor CPU usage, so why would you want your VPS host to contact you about high CPU usage which could get you banned from the host? There's no point. Nobody in the real world uses Gentoo. It's a meme distro.

>>966370

really makes you think

>>951996

I'm starting to agree more and more with lispfag.

There's a lot of bullshit that comes with modern computering that UNIX spurred on.

>>951996

>bad OS design and incompatibility

Those are two completely unrelated problems

>>966842

>Any other source-based distro. Big distinction!

Yes and no. Installing and updating packages is like on any other distro, it just takes longer.

>melt my laptop CPU

<what is cross compiling

<what is frequency scaling

>Only if your time is worthless

Shouldn't take you more than 30min for the whole installation while skimming through the handbook (w/o the compile time during which you do something else).

And even if it does, it's worth it.

>Just go with Debian

<thread

<your head

>It's stable

If by "stable" you mean stale and severely outdated, sure.

>isn't a pain in the ass

lmao

<dependency hells

<installing deb file turns into an exercise in futility

<le dont make the """frankendebian"""!! it might break !

<can't remove orphaned metapackage deps

<shitty binary package format instead of simple build scripts

Gentoo is both stable and up to date.

It allows you to install bleeding edge packages on a stable system without breaking (unlike Debian).

You can have multiple versions of the same package installed at the same time.

Dependency resolution done properly.

Ebuilds are simple and easy to write, edit and maintain.

Never breaks.

Just works.

>You use it for the programs you can use within it

That's why I use Gentoo and not Debian.

>If you spend so much time compiling and configuring shit

Literally what are you talking about?

Did you read the post you replied to?

I spend 0 time compiling shit, because I do other things while shit's compiling.

You only need to update like once per 2 weeks and it takes ~30min avg on my shitty dual core i5 from 2011.

You can set Portage niceness to max and just do your regular business on the machine while the update or whatever is taking place.

>But after you know what you're doing, it just seems like a pointless waste of time to do all that.

Do all what?

>The argument people make about source-based distros being more secure is silly, since I doubt you audited all the source code of what you compiled

If this is what you're talking about >>966299, read it again, but that paranoid shitpost is not the actual argument for Gentoo being more secure.

Less compile-time features and hardening flags makes them more secure (see Gentoo hardened).

>And Gentoo had a security issue with their GitHub repository not too long ago, so don't pretend that it's super secure

That was a mirror that no one used and has nothing to do with the security of my OS.

>Qubes OS

<systemd

<security

lol

Fuck off with this cancer.

For real security, people should go with OpenBSD.

>for practicality, Debian or Ubuntu are just fine. Gentoo makes sense as a learning experience, but it's horribly impractical for a daily driver OS

You got that backwards.

>>966846

The Funtoo project offets Funtoo VPS's.

There surely are Gentoo VPS's as well.

>not having a home server

smhtbh desu ne

>>966880

fuck off

>>966844

It's a fine distro, it's just not mature enough yet.

>>967266

>For real security, people should go with OpenBSD.

Their security is highly masturbatory. They decry virtualization as buggy/exploitable, but it is *demonstrably* secure; if Qubes didn't have systemd (or require a modern Intel CPU) I'd use it. Using OpenBSD also means forgoing proper hardware acceleration, a modern filesystem, and good documentation. (No, manpages are not documentation, no matter how much you masturbate over how laconic and elegant they are.) I don't even completely hate the OS, I use it on my old laptops and my router. But, for modern desktop use? No way.

>>967273

Nigga, unless your Qubes shit can run on 68030 or older hardware, it's complete shit by because it requires broken and exploitable hardware that has not only tons of bugs but also firmware in every nook and crany ready for cianiggers to exploit the fuck out of you without the OS noticing a damn thing.

>>967468

Why are you even replying to that obvious CIA nigger shill? This board doesn't have mods, it has glowdark handlers.

tbh devuan is easier to use than debian

>>967562

>(((they))) are shilling against Devuan now

Heh, need to ram System D up all the butts?

>>967541

It is not that easy but it is easy

t. devuan user as a first-time user of debian-based distro

>>967562

If you don't understand the value of removing systemd dependencies from the package system, you're retarded. That said I am frankly getting a shill vibe here. Systemd fans seem to feel really offended and threatened by the devuan project potentially undoing all their work to leave the debian ecosystem without a choice but to use systemd. And this post of yours seems to be looking for reasons to try to make devuan look bad.

Anyway this post sums up the issue and why devuan is needed: >>955537

>>967726

>If you don't understand the value of removing systemd dependencies from the package system, you're retarded.

I doubt any of you even realize what dependencies there are. Debian doesn't require systemd as init, but some programs use libsystemd0 as a dependency to talk to it if it's there. That doesn't require you run systemd as your init, it's just a helper library. But some distros got triggered and have gone full autist and attempted to demonstrate their dedication to init freedom by taking your freedom away to install it.

Devuan's like that, it's been completely purged, even fully optional systemd support has been removed. I took the time to go through the commit history of every Devuan package in >>967707 if you want to learn something about what the distro actually changes and not argue like a faggot about things you don't understand.

>getting a shill vibe

>muh glow dorks

>>967562

Given the shit on SystemD, devuan still seems like a good deal.

I'm getting the vibe the devs slowly realized they were over their heads and went for the most crucial and easy things first.

>>967733

>"stonewalling SystemD is bad"

No it isn't, it's the only sane measure.

It should be treated like how the god emperor wants to treat illegal aliens.

>>967733

void *libsystemd = dlopen("libsystemd.so", RTLD_LAZY|RTLD_LOCAL);

I would prefer if software did this instead of making it a hard dependency.

>>967796

It's really bad practice to have hidden dependencies. What can be done is have plugins that have a hard dependency on libsystemd0 and are packaged separately (e.g, fooprogram, fooprogram-systemd) but that's a lot of autism to remove a 280KiB dependency. And the distros that are anti-systemd don't have the programming expertise to make changes like that.

>>966370

You're making it sound like the idea is to sabotage their competitors by making them rely on software that it isn't in Red Hat's best interest not to make bad.

>>967803

What is the bad practice and why is it different from a "plugin"? It is an optional library you plug in, if the user has it. In Debian it could then be a Suggested package. You are overengineering.

>>967812

>What is the bad practice

You have dependencies hidden from the people and tools tasked with ensuring dependencies are properly handled. One example: if you have no dependency at all then you've got a private copy of the headers that no one knows about which will certainly piss off the security team. You'll also be including all of your code designed to interact with a library that might not be there. And God help you if you're trying to dlopen a C++ library. A plugin is a much better approach and keeps all the complexity in the OS and packages.

>>967823

>You'll also be including all of your code designed to interact with a library that might not be there.

If there is already a plugin architecture in the software then that's awesome.

>A plugin is a much better approach and keeps all the complexity in the OS and packages.

A plugin architecture is a generalised form of dlopen().

>You have dependencies hidden from the people and tools tasked with ensuring dependencies are properly handled. One example: if you have no dependency at all then you've got a private copy of the headers that no one knows about which will certainly piss off the security team.

Somehow it sounds like you want to avoid bloat, but I can't help suspect what you would do could lead to more.

>>967840

>If there is already a plugin architecture in the software then that's awesome.

It doesn't matter. The maintainer can add one.

>A plugin architecture is a generalised form of dlopen().

No, dlopening libraries that are self-contained in your project and have an interface designed for dlopen is a very different thing than dlopening system libraries your program isn't even supposed to have direct knowledge of.

>Somehow it sounds like you want to avoid bloat, but I can't help suspect what you would do could lead to more.

I don't want to do it at all, I just add hard dependencies on libsystemd0. There's no reason not to other than autismal rage against everything systemd. Those dependencies exist to enable init freedom, not remove it.

>>967787

>sabotage

What the hell is that frog even rambling about?

>>967860

I can't understand the words you say. WTF IS THIS!?

>>968036

Programming. If you want to talk about the latest iPhone, there's 4/g/.

>>968037

Nah, it's not programming, I know that. Or maybe you can translate it into something that makes sense? This anon is not a programmer, he is an opinionated lurker logo artist.

Look at the glow dark niggers dance in this thread. This should be pinned.

>>966370

>red hat makes it open source

>everybody in the world code it for them

>potery just make some decisions and some code on it

>profit because 98% of the rest of the world won't even try to compile systemd for itself imagine trying to sell it

>>951909 (OP)

>Or arguing against systemd in aug/2018 is pointless?

Yes shillOP, arguing for systemd is pointless with Devuan around.

>>968561

devuan is just one distro and is not the perfect one, you are the shill here shilling for your distro

>>968561

>Devuan

>>967707

>>966382

Wait, does Linux not have a registry at all? What's the "perceived" advantage of having one?

>>971058

The closest that Linux has to a registry is the build configuration you define before building Linux.

>>971063

>>971058

>>966382

I thought Gnome has a registry already.

>>971087

That's hardly a Linux specific tool. Gnome isn't bound to Linux specifically but to the POSIX platform.

>>951940

>if you haven't given up on Linux yet

This post didn't age well did it.

Linux is pozzed.

T-6 months until SYSTEMD becomes a part of the kernel.

>>971237

No, first we must include an email client and web browser into the init system. Only then will we have a Truly Integrated(tm) and Optimized(r) system. Then we need to add systemd into the kernel.

>>971248

>Then we need to add systemd into the kernel.

I think you meant: adding the kernel to systemd.

>>971219

Name something that isn't pozzed.

>>971237

kdbus/bus1 in the kernel in 3... 2...

>>971058

Well it depends on what you call a registry.

The windows registry is a clusterfuck of nondescript names with a myriad of unexplained uses and no clear purpose, and does god knows what.

You can find some configuration options in it, so I guess it's the windows equivalent of /etc/ and ~/.config/ ?

>>971771

Gnome is still a GNU project. Gnome doesn't have a hard dependency on system.

>>971219

>>971305

IT world is pozzed

>>966370

>But why, in the name of god, are they going out of their way to force it down everyone's throats?

>Because the mere fact that they're doing so implies that somehow, by their reasoning, it will pay off more than keeping systemd to themselves? How?

Obviously, the amount they're paid for showing systemd down everyone's throats is considerably larger than what they would've earned by keeping it to themselves.

>>965928

>Why can't systemd be like this?

It's deliberately designed not to be like that.

>>952173

>Linus can't be stopped

are you sure, faggot?

>>952173

Would you like to edit that statement, in light of current developments?

>>952173

Any proofs systemD is surveillance? It is open source right?

How does it happen that all major distro developers prefer systemd while all the real experts whine about its flaws on the internet?

>>971771

>browser on pid 1

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyy

>>952173

Linus is not against the surveillance state lmao

Linux contains blobs. Linus didn't make the switch to gplv3.

>>981964

see

>>953728

>>953742

>>953745

How easy is it to accidentally brick your motherboard with systemd?

>>971771

>systemd integrating firefox into pid 1

Is this true?

>>951943

at some point prior to ver 239 i did see half a gig used for something but could not see what it was

imagine free -m says 600 used for tty login, something like that

>>952383

wish i could install gentoo on my c2d potato

>>953082

>runit

it would be if there was any information on how to make it work

afaik there's only some scripts from ignite[void] and obarun[arch]

>>953728

lazyness

saves them from their scripts

>>952294

What's EEE?

>>953765

Bullshit. If the merit for the change is great enough, even the most stubborn of autists will jump onboard. The free market prevails, you subversive commie shill.