11–20 of 63 posts
Sadly trolls already forced the issue locked but i feel like a sensible thing to do would be to keep that behavior but change the default user for parsing errors from root to nobody.
root isn't the default -- the letters are being truncated, and the leading int used as a uid.
I don't understand how this could be considered not a bug. Clearly, the unit was intended to run as 0day, not root. I must be missing something.
A 0day is supposed to get you root access, so behaviour is working as expected.
Sadly trolls already forced the issue locked but i feel like a sensible thing to do would be to keep that behavior but change the default user for parsing errors from root to nobody.
I don't understand how this could be considered not a bug. Clearly, the unit was intended to run as 0day, not root. I must be missing something.
The rationale seems to be: "you're going to run into a lot of other software that'll also fail". He mentions xinetd as an example.
from https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237#issuecomment-... Why he said 0day not valid user? I create '0day' user on my computer without problem (Fedora 26 Beta, Debian 9) useradd 0day $ id 0day uid=1003(0day) gid=1003(0day) groups=1003(0day)
I'm less and less surprised by the hate poettering gets. It's like he's deliberately trying to be as arrogant and ignorant as possible. POSIX says usernames starting with a digit should be fine. But because very few utils have more restrictive rules, systemd arbitrarily follows them too, but reacts in the most idiotic way possible if it considers a username invalid. Like last time, when in his opinion, "rm -rf *" sho…
I'm not sure if POSIX has any relevance here. Afaik systemd isn't claiming any sort of POSIX compliance, nor is it targeting POSIX systems in general, in fact it is explicitly Linux-only.
I'm less and less surprised by the hate poettering gets. It's like he's deliberately trying to be as arrogant and ignorant as possible. POSIX says usernames starting with a digit should be fine. But because very few utils have more restrictive rules, systemd arbitrarily follows them too, but reacts in the most idiotic way possible if it considers a username invalid. Like last time, when in his opinion, "rm -rf *" sho…
On the other hand, you come here to uselessly complain and have the temerity to complain that poettering doesn't write exactly the code you want him to write.
How do you justify your ridiculous attitude?
I don't understand how this could be considered not a bug. Clearly, the unit was intended to run as 0day, not root. I must be missing something.
If you define "usernames starting with numbers" as invalid, and then define the behaviour of unit files with a user directive containing an invalid user to run as root, then the behaviour is as expected, and is not a bug.
The fact the software doesn't do what any sensible user would expect is completely irrelevant to it being a "bug" or not.
[edit: removed dig at poettering]
Sadly trolls already forced the issue locked but i feel like a sensible thing to do would be to keep that behavior but change the default user for parsing errors from root to nobody.
"Trolls" have not forced anythings - just standard systemd developer behavior. They never make mistakes and everything is someone elses fault. Systemd is running something as root because it doesn't like something in configuration file, instead of returning error or running it under the correct user. That's a huge WTF and a possible security issue, but alas. Systemd doesn't make mistakes and everything is someone els…
They've had to delete multiple posts from the thread which are nothing but trolls, hell YOUR post is nothing but a troll.
I'm less and less surprised by the hate poettering gets. It's like he's deliberately trying to be as arrogant and ignorant as possible. POSIX says usernames starting with a digit should be fine. But because very few utils have more restrictive rules, systemd arbitrarily follows them too, but reacts in the most idiotic way possible if it considers a username invalid. Like last time, when in his opinion, "rm -rf *" sho…
Are you reading the same thread as me? He replied explaining precisely why this is an error and received nothing but hate for it, 40 thumbs downs. On the other hand, you come here to uselessly complain and have the temerity to complain that poettering doesn't write exactly the code you want him to write. How do you justify your ridiculous attitude?