Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stali: A new static Linux distribution

sta.li

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 233 posts

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#111

Post by vog »

mrweasel wrote: post #74
paulddraper wrote: post #28

I really like the idea of static linking. Then I think about how I'd patch the next inevitable openssl bug. Then I don't like it as much.

I like static linking, for some thing. Web applications is something I would really like to be just a statically linked binary, simply because it would enable you to chroot the application easily.

Indeed, static linking is very handy for deploying web services. Moreover, the trend with docker and similar technologies is that you deploy a whole new VM image.

That could be considered "static linking", too, because even if it uses shared libraries within the VM image, the image is always replaced as a whole - in those systems you do not replace just a single library within the running image.

If you go even further, you finally reach concepts like MirageOS, where not only the libraries are statically linked into the application, but the whole kernel as well. That way, you have exactly the code you need within your VM, nothing more.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#112

Post by rkangel »

qznc wrote: post #53
copperx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Static linking is a virtue now? I don't understand the advantages.

Google Go and Rust promote it. However, deploying web services is different than Linux distro.

I don't know about Go, but Rust doesn't promote it. Rust compiles a whole binary at once (for full program optimisation), but that binary can be a dynamic library or executable. How you then build the operating system on top of that is up to you.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#113

Post by ben0x539 »

paulddraper wrote: post #27
int_19h wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, picking an OS and a distro is not like voting in US presidential elections. In particular, there are more than two viable options.

And...you can actually choose. Not only does your vote count, when it comes down to it, yours is the only vote that counts.

Eh, arguably from ecosystem effects, other people's votes count a lot too. I don't think I'd want to be the sole user of best init system in the world!

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#114

Post by creshal »

onli wrote: post #97
JdeBP wrote: post #5

( Also discussed previously at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8819085 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7261559 ) Interesting points: * http://sta.li/filesystem -- Everything not obviously covered by a fairly simplified hierarchy is put into /sucks , without fixing the problem of /etc still being a grab-bag miscellany. * http://sta.li/filesystem -- /dev being for devices is a "Linux assumption". * http:/…

> http://dwm.suckless.org/ -- "Because dwm is customized through editing its source code, it’s pointless to make binary packages of it. This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No novices asking stupid questions." The worst thing about that attitude is that the suckless programs I tried are full of bugs and usability problems. I actually liked the idea of building simplified core programs, without the bloat and bc…

Also, st with a multiplexer (any multiplexer) has much more code complexity than any decent modern terminal. And less features.

Way to go, suckless.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#115

Post by creshal »

ghshephard wrote: post #87
startling wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Installation uses HTTP to fetch a boot volume image. This is a problem with all of the suckless software and it, well, sucks.

What's wrong with HTTP? I think the OpenBSD team made it clear that HTTPS does nothing for security (At least the integrity portion) of downloading stuff (which is why signify is a thing). By explicitly using a non-secure channel for transport you make it explicit that integrity must come from some other channel.

Except… There is no other channel. Suckless doesn't sign their releases, nor the image download. Nor is anything in git signed.

Integrity, schmintegrity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#116

Post by vogon_laureate »

Sanddancer wrote: post #70
bitwize wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hating systemd is like hating Hillary Clinton at this point. It's well past time to suck it up and make peace with your next init system/President because the only viable alternative(s) are far worse.

Is switching to a BSD the move to Canada option? I know several people who have migrated to various BSDs because of the ugliness of systemd.

Come on in, the water's fine here! Honestly, I use FreeBSD/OpenBSD for everything I need and anytime I have to deal with some linux monstrosity it's like taking a day trip from Toronto to Detroit.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#117

Post by anon4711 »

kleiba wrote: post #65
giovannibajo1 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd run "pkg-manager upgrade", just like you do with dynamic linking.

You mean "git update": * Upgrade/install using git, no package manager needed How exactly this is going to work, I don't know.

You probably mean `git fetch` or `git pull`. There is no `git update` in the default feature set.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#118

Post by giovannibajo1 »

jtietema wrote: post #37
giovannibajo1 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd run "pkg-manager upgrade", just like you do with dynamic linking.

Yep but now instead of fetching 1 updated library, you depend on everybody and their cat to rebuild their binaries and publish updated versions.

Not really, I depend on my distro to push updated packages that I will update. And I also hope that my distro pushes me binary diffs so that it's going to be very fast.

The point is: in the context of a Linux distro, it's not true that you need dynamic linking to be able to do security patches effectively. What users do is to run the package manager to update the system; the package manager can provide updates to static binaries as well (and do it efficiently). It's just a matter of tooling; current package managers are designed around the concept of dynamic libraries, but they could be updated.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#119

Post by anon4711 »

striking wrote: post #6
simophin wrote: post #3

I still don't understand why systemd sucks

Here are a pair of links that you may have missed under the "Don’t use systemd (read more about why it sucks)" line item. http://suckless.org/sucks/systemd http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ The first link reads like a sort of 99 Theses, while the second is a dissertation on why people will never get along on the subject of systemd.

I take the attribution in the first link (references to "Führerbunker" and "Führer") to mean that the author is comparing Lennart Poettering to Hitler. That's not funny, it's just very, very inappropriate.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#120

Post by Annatar »

pjmlp wrote: post #59
morganvachon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a loaded question, and I'm only qualified to answer from my perspective and experience. My biggest gripe with it has always been that it is alpha-quality software, even today, that has a central role in an otherwise mature OS ecosystem. It has been widely adopted (some would say forced or tricked into adoption by a few distros) and therefore all the major Linux distributions are now running at an alpha level w…

The irony of the eroding the UNIX philosophy from Linux is that most real UNIX systems, meaning AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, NeXTSTep (cough macOS), Tru64,... do have something similar to systemd. Sometimes shouting "UNIX philosophy" in GNU/Linux forums reminds me of emigrants that keep traditions of their home countries alive that are long out of fashion back home.

The sarcastic irony is, Solaris engineers implemented a fully functional systemd(8) long before systemd(8) by designing and implementing SMF, which went on to break world records with startup and shutdown speed, on what is now an ancient AMD Opteron system (I think it was either v20z or a v40z). I wanted to include the reference to the slashdot's then-article, but try as I might, I can't find it any more.
Post reply on HN