> Anyway, with reasonable luck, it'll have about as long an ascendency as > HALd and devfsd, as it's certainly about as popular.
Which probably proves the point that it is all quite half-backed. There are a few groups more competing with ideas which worked for them, and one wins. And after a while the house of cards falls apart, and then we start again. Instead of interested and experienced people sit together, figure out what is needed, have a look around how others make it work, come up with a good design and then start implementing. systemd is the clear result of a people and ideas excluding work style instead of inclusive cooperation.. It's "work for me and I do not care about your concerns". Gnome, btw, was not a Linux-only desktop.. I had it working on Solaris desktops more than 10 years ago. FreeBSD was going from a one file /etc/rc to /etc/rc.d and rcorder - because the developers saw the limitations, saw SysV init and took the best from it without being stuck with static /etc/rc?.d/S?? numbering. It also went from static /dev to devfs - but only once, and it looks sensible, and there is /etc/devfs.rules (and /etc/defaults/devs.rules to look for. That's it - and it seems to work (as long as you are not dealing with Gnome) Regards Peter On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Russell Coker ([email protected]): > > [a great deal of energetically missing the point, snipped] > > > The Linux kernel is much larger than systemd and has many more > > interfaces to sources of hostile data. > > The security problem primarily raised by systemd has very little to do > with the init or its ancillary and unneccessary daemons (hostnamed, > timedated, localed, logind, etc.) and utilities and a great deal more to > deal with its ridiculously bloated _external_ dependencies, e.g., routing > all process privilege decisions through PolKit, one of the several badly > engineered, ever-changing[1] bits of Freedesktop.org codebases to which > systemd ties your system operation -- pointlessly and unecessarily, as > the creator of the uselessd fork (abstracted, cleaned up, and properly > modularised from systemd 208) pointed out by example. > > The feature creep and intrusive functionality of systemd itself is > annoying and a sufficient reason to look elsewhere, but is not security > related as such. > > Anyway, with reasonable luck, it'll have about as long an ascendency as > HALd and devfsd, as it's certainly about as popular. > > [1] http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html > > -- > Cheers, "I don't need to test my programs. > Rick Moen I have an error-correcting modem." > [email protected] -- Om I. Baud > McQ! (4x80) > https://thc.org/root/phun/unmaintain.html > > _______________________________________________ > luv-main mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main >
_______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
