101–110 of 449 posts
Love this! Notice that the text about slackware sounds a bit "pessimistic", as if it was a somewhat legacy distribution. Nothing further from the truth. We run a small farm of virtual machines with different up-to-date distributions, and slackware is typically the one that follows upstream packages more closely. For example it had gcc 9.1, bash 5, etc. a few days after they were released.
I get that not everybody likes systemd, but a lot of the criticisms seem misguided and looking at sysvinit with role-colored glasses. For example, people are complaining about logind being included, but forget that consolekit was unmaintained before that. Yes, there's parts to systemd that not everyone will use, like container support, but in that case you can pretty safely ignore that use case. For me, systemd has p…
Most of the problem I have it is with the imperialistic culture that came with it and with the serious security bugs that they keep sweeping under the rug. It is easier to configure and is convenient to have one holistic system in a lot of ways, but... They pushed for Gnome to have a hard dependency on it so that everyone would be _forced_ to use it instead of just letting it be accepted by merits. They have a track…
Alpine is great. I have nothing against systemd but Alpine stands on it's own for containers and VMs. I haven't given it a try on baremetal but I imagine it does just as well there. Not really desktop focused but if you want to run it with a GUI on a laptop it's technically possible.
https://threatpost.com/alpine-linux-docker-images-unlocked/1...
I get no end of bemusement from open source advocates that think it makes any kind of rational sense to campaign against an open source project. THIS IS ALL OPEN SOURCE. Freedom and choice is the whole point, isn't it? If you prefer an alternative or forebear to systemd, that is great. Use it. Advocate for the system you prefer. Convince people that the choice you have made is better. Meanwhile the vast majority of d…
Ask RMS what he thinks about SystemD and I bet you he'll shrug and say it's fine because it's Free, and that's all he really cares about. Needless to say, most people have a greater diversity of concerns.
I don't like it when my process init and logging system also tries to manage my volume mounts. If I unmount a device, I don't want systemd going behind my back and remounting it for me. It's non standard behavior changes like this that drive systemd hate.
I find it quite convenient, although I do admit the integration with /etc/fstab is a little weird. I've used it to auto-mount application data directories, for example, before an application comes online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They probably do though, openrc defaults to sysvinit as its PID1. I guess it's part of the confusion too, most of the systemd work was replacing the "rc bits" (process startup and management) not replacing PID1 itself.
I mean, before systemd there existed other initds. Upstart was Ubuntu’s for a time.
I do find it funny that people crap all over systemd, but don't seem to have a huge problem with launchd, despite the fact that systemd was almost a direct port of it. Personally, while I do think that systemd's scope might have been a bit too ambitious, I do find it easier than something like Upstart
* http://jdebp.uk./FGA/launchd-on-bsd.html
systemd was not a port of anything. And its immediate inspiration was Upstart, the system that Fedora was using at the time, and whose drawbacks provoked Lennart Poettering et al. to start working on systemd.
(Interestingly, Upstart itself was inspired by the drawbacks of porting launchd.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They probably do though, openrc defaults to sysvinit as its PID1. I guess it's part of the confusion too, most of the systemd work was replacing the "rc bits" (process startup and management) not replacing PID1 itself.
I mean, before systemd there existed other initds. Upstart was Ubuntu’s for a time.