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

Ubuntu 24.04 (and Debian) removed libsystemd from SSH server dependencies

fosstodon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Ubuntu 24.04 (and Debian) removed libsystemd from SSH server dependencies

#51

Post by Vilian »

hulitu wrote: post #44
noplacelikehome wrote: post #9

libsystem is such a bizarre abstraction covering far too much surface area. The name alone is a code smell. Why is the same library used for both internal service management and for services implementing on-demand launches and notifications?

> Why is the same library used for both internal service management and for services implementing on-demand launches and notifications? Poettering was a Microsoft fan. I guess he designed SystemD like svchost.

and the fact that it worked and still working means that he was right, also systemd was already fixing the huge dependecies for a while, this only accelerated the process

Re: Ubuntu 24.04 (and Debian) removed libsystemd from SSH server dependencies

#52

Post by bravetraveler »

mistrial9 wrote: post #19
k8svet wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MSFT_PRIVATE The only evidence I can find of this... Is another comment from you. (Googled: '"MSFT_PRIVATE" partition'. One result.)

OK - try an LUbuntu Install disk for 22.04; run the installer, after Welcome,Location,Keyboard in the Partition task, create a new Partition Table; make a new disk partition, see the list of available partition types, choose ext4; see FLAGS [apple-tv-recovery,bios-grub,boot,diag,hidden,hpservice,lba,legacy-boot,lvm, msft-data , msft-reserved ,palo,prep,raid,root,swap]

That's from 'parted', the disk utility - not Canonical, Ubuntu, or even Microsoft

Best I can tell support for the 'res' type has existed at least since 2006; search for 'msft': https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi...

Then in 2012 it was... an individual and Red Hat who introduced the 'msftdata' flag: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi...

I don't get the insinuation, it conflates things that span at least a decade. It sucks that Microsoft is where they are in secure boot... but one can manage their own policies/keys.

Support is a good thing, nobody is forced to use secure boot or things signed by Microsoft.

Re: Ubuntu 24.04 (and Debian) removed libsystemd from SSH server dependencies

#53

Post by mistrial9 »

bravetraveler wrote: post #52
mistrial9 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK - try an LUbuntu Install disk for 22.04; run the installer, after Welcome,Location,Keyboard in the Partition task, create a new Partition Table; make a new disk partition, see the list of available partition types, choose ext4; see FLAGS [apple-tv-recovery,bios-grub,boot,diag,hidden,hpservice,lba,legacy-boot,lvm, msft-data , msft-reserved ,palo,prep,raid,root,swap]

That's from 'parted', the disk utility - not Canonical, Ubuntu, or even Microsoft Best I can tell support for the 'res' type has existed at least since 2006; search for 'msft': https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi... Then in 2012 it was... an individual and Red Hat who introduced the 'msftdata' flag: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi... I don't get the insinuation, i…

> Support is a good thing, nobody is forced to use secure boot or things signed by Microsoft.

ok it is true that these partition types are older than I previously assumed.. but the statement about "forced to use secure boot" .. that is not true at all, yes lots of devices are forced to use UEFI secure boot. In fact, a quote from a Debian derivative recently stated "we use a kernel from Canonical to support booting a wider range of devices" .. because they just want to do that? no one is making them do that? really, the market truth of laptops and cloud VMs is requiring UEFI in a calculated way, with the keys being issued and managed centrally from MSFT. info welcome

Re: Ubuntu 24.04 (and Debian) removed libsystemd from SSH server dependencies

#54

Post by bravetraveler »

mistrial9 wrote: post #53
bravetraveler wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's from 'parted', the disk utility - not Canonical, Ubuntu, or even Microsoft Best I can tell support for the 'res' type has existed at least since 2006; search for 'msft': https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi... Then in 2012 it was... an individual and Red Hat who introduced the 'msftdata' flag: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi... I don't get the insinuation, i…

> Support is a good thing, nobody is forced to use secure boot or things signed by Microsoft. ok it is true that these partition types are older than I previously assumed.. but the statement about "forced to use secure boot" .. that is not true at all, yes lots of devices are forced to use UEFI secure boot. In fact, a quote from a Debian derivative recently stated "we use a kernel from Canonical to support booting a…

Is it commonplace for laptops to not allow disabling Secure Boot? I work with desktops and big iron; it's entirely optional here.

Even in clouds - it's optional based on your compliance goals/requirements. 90% of the time it's KVM/QEMU with an API. Secure boot isn't slowly taking that scene over either, it's still optional support.

I really don't get the impression that we're losing control over our boot processes. We use the things signed by MS because it's convenient and the average user can't be bothered to do their own enrollment.

I see how this can be "boiling the frog", in a sense, but it's a bit close to conspiracy for me.

Re: Ubuntu 24.04 (and Debian) removed libsystemd from SSH server dependencies

#55

Post by mistrial9 »

bravetraveler wrote: post #54
mistrial9 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Support is a good thing, nobody is forced to use secure boot or things signed by Microsoft. ok it is true that these partition types are older than I previously assumed.. but the statement about "forced to use secure boot" .. that is not true at all, yes lots of devices are forced to use UEFI secure boot. In fact, a quote from a Debian derivative recently stated "we use a kernel from Canonical to support booting a…

Is it commonplace for laptops to not allow disabling Secure Boot? I work with desktops and big iron; it's entirely optional here. Even in clouds - it's optional based on your compliance goals/requirements. 90% of the time it's KVM/QEMU with an API. Secure boot isn't slowly taking that scene over either, it's still optional support. I really don't get the impression that we're losing control over our boot processes. W…

yes It Is commonplace for laptops to not allow disabling Secure Boot .. one recent low-end laptop did not allow booting from any device except the soldered-in boot disk, which used only UEFI and signing keys.

Re: Ubuntu 24.04 (and Debian) removed libsystemd from SSH server dependencies

#57

Post by baobun »

flohofwoe wrote: post #24
metalspoon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pointed out this weakness the other day on the internet. I got attacked by open source software armies.

Please don't throw despicable systemd zealots and honorable open source zealots into the same bucket ;)

Please don't bring group-identity politics here.

Re: Ubuntu 24.04 (and Debian) removed libsystemd from SSH server dependencies

#58

Post by k8svet »

mistrial9 wrote: post #55
bravetraveler wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it commonplace for laptops to not allow disabling Secure Boot? I work with desktops and big iron; it's entirely optional here. Even in clouds - it's optional based on your compliance goals/requirements. 90% of the time it's KVM/QEMU with an API. Secure boot isn't slowly taking that scene over either, it's still optional support. I really don't get the impression that we're losing control over our boot processes. W…

yes It Is commonplace for laptops to not allow disabling Secure Boot .. one recent low-end laptop did not allow booting from any device except the soldered-in boot disk, which used only UEFI and signing keys.

It's not common, no offense but you clearly have an axe to grind and started out with an incomplete understanding, so [citation needed].

Also, please do name and shame, especially since MICROSOFT MANDATES THAT SECURE BOOT IS DISABLE-ABLE (on x86 devices, anyway, we'll see what happens with Snapdragon X Elite devices).

Re: Ubuntu 24.04 (and Debian) removed libsystemd from SSH server dependencies

#59

Post by mistrial9 »

k8svet wrote: post #58
mistrial9 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes It Is commonplace for laptops to not allow disabling Secure Boot .. one recent low-end laptop did not allow booting from any device except the soldered-in boot disk, which used only UEFI and signing keys.

It's not common, no offense but you clearly have an axe to grind and started out with an incomplete understanding, so [citation needed]. Also, please do name and shame , especially since MICROSOFT MANDATES THAT SECURE BOOT IS DISABLE-ABLE (on x86 devices, anyway, we'll see what happens with Snapdragon X Elite devices).

let's agree that real surveys of real equipment, with names and model numbers, are a "thing" .. yes

Re: Ubuntu 24.04 (and Debian) removed libsystemd from SSH server dependencies

#60

Post by k8svet »

mistrial9 wrote: post #59
k8svet wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not common, no offense but you clearly have an axe to grind and started out with an incomplete understanding, so [citation needed]. Also, please do name and shame , especially since MICROSOFT MANDATES THAT SECURE BOOT IS DISABLE-ABLE (on x86 devices, anyway, we'll see what happens with Snapdragon X Elite devices).

let's agree that real surveys of real equipment, with names and model numbers, are a "thing" .. yes

[flagged]
Post reply on HN