According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the
simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you
still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer": > > "All truth passes through three stages. > First, it is ridiculed. > Second, it is violently opposed. > Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the false ones are eventually derided and toppled.> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I > never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my > own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the > simplicity systemd's service files without fuss. > > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? >Accepting it as a fait accompli. It makes life much harder for no obvious gain, but short of creating one's own distro we seem to be stuck with it. To answer your question, a combination of proposition 1 and the first part of proposition 3. For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix problems quickly. Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20170409/0fe02ceb/attachment-0001.sig>
I'm ok with it as a init system, not much enthused by its ancillary components. -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message -----> From: "Anthony K" <akcentos at anroet.com> > To: "CentOS mailing list" <centos at centos.org> > Sent: Sunday, 9 April, 2017 05:39:59 > Subject: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer": > > "All truth passes through three stages. > First, it is ridiculed. > Second, it is violently opposed. > Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." > > I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I > never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my > own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the > simplicity systemd's service files without fuss. > > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 4/8/2017 9:39 PM, Anthony K wrote:> > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?I wish the documentation was a bit better. systemd and networkmanager definitely change the rules... I had a minimal C7 VM where I had a heck of a time getting it to use the right DNS servers, only way I got it set up was to use nmtui, my attempts at using nmcli were an exercise in frustration. maybe this is more of a networkmanager problem more than systemd, but they are both tied together in my mind. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 2:20 AM, John R Pierce <pierce at hogranch.com> wrote:> On 4/8/2017 9:39 PM, Anthony K wrote: > >> >> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you >> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? >> > > I wish the documentation was a bit better. systemd and networkmanager > definitely change the rules... I had a minimal C7 VM where I had a heck of > a time getting it to use the right DNS servers, only way I got it set up > was to use nmtui, my attempts at using nmcli were an exercise in > frustration. maybe this is more of a networkmanager problem more than > systemd, but they are both tied together in my mind. >?Yes, lack of documentation is a big bug-a-boo in my mind also. However, I do think working with systemd is a bit like working with udev? ? hooks. My first experience with systemd was probably back in late 2011. In any case, the RH documentation on it may be beneficial at this point: ? https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/System_Administrators_Guide/chap-Managing_Services_with_systemd.html or maybe take a look at the Fedora projects info: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/> > -- > john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Every time you hear a bell ring, it means that some angel's just got his wings." -- Clarence, "It's a Wonderful Life"
On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote: >> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer": >> >> "All truth passes through three stages. >> First, it is ridiculed. >> Second, it is violently opposed. >> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." > All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the > false ones are eventually derided and toppled. > > >> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I >> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my >> own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the >> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss. >> >> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you >> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? >> > Accepting it as a fait accompli. It makes life much harder for no > obvious gain, but short of creating one's own distro we seem to be stuck > with it. To answer your question, a combination of proposition 1 and > the first part of proposition 3. > > For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading > init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix > problems quickly. Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is > interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the > murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina. >I agree. I never had a problem with init scripts. Anyone who understood bash/sh could fairly easily come to grips with init scripts. I have no idea where to look for whatever starts up services with systemd. What language is systemd written in...? no idea. Yes, I tried reading docs, but they're so vague and inscrutable that I gave up. E.g., what is a "unit"? Could they have picked a word more vague? What does "unit" tell us which "thing" doesn't? Basically, a service is either running or stopped... so what is "static"? "Static" means the opposite of "moving" or "dynamic". How does "static" describe a service? In short, although computer geeks generally aren't known for being good at documentation, in the commercial world at any rate. But this is GNU/Linux. We rely on online documentation and the open source community to figure out problems and make improvements. Lacking sensible documentation, it's hard to figure out problems. If problems can't be figured out, we're faced with problematic systems. And who's going to tolerate that for long? How is that an improvement over Redmondware?
On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote: >> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer": >> >> "All truth passes through three stages. >> First, it is ridiculed. >> Second, it is violently opposed. >> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." > All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the > false ones are eventually derided and toppled. > > >> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I >> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my >> own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the >> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss. >> >> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you >> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? >> > Accepting it as a fait accompli. It makes life much harder for no > obvious gain, but short of creating one's own distro we seem to be stuck > with it. To answer your question, a combination of proposition 1 and > the first part of proposition 3. > > For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading > init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix > problems quickly. Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is > interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the > murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina. > >+1> > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 490 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20170410/fec2d797/attachment-0001.sig>
On Mon, April 10, 2017 7:29 am, Steve Clark wrote:> On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote: >> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote: >>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer": >>> >>> "All truth passes through three stages. >>> First, it is ridiculed. >>> Second, it is violently opposed. >>> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." >> All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the >> false ones are eventually derided and toppled. >> >> >>> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I >>> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my >>> own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the >>> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss. >>> >>> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you >>> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to >>> it? >>> >> Accepting it as a fait accompli. It makes life much harder for no >> obvious gain, but short of creating one's own distro we seem to be stuck >> with it. To answer your question, a combination of proposition 1 and >> the first part of proposition 3. >> >> For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading >> init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix >> problems quickly. Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is >> interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the >> murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina. >>The same here. Could repeat that word for word. I fled what I could to FreeBSD, but in that process systemd was just the last drop that confirmed that my earlier decision to abandon Linux to the extent I can was right. Whatever has to stay Linux sucks ... more time for any problem than it used to. Valeri>> > +1 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > -- > Stephen Clark > *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* > Director of Technology > Phone: 813-579-3200 > Fax: 813-882-0209 > Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com > http://www.netwolves.com > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 04/08/2017 09:39 PM, Anthony K wrote:> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer": > > "All truth passes through three stages. > First, it is ridiculed. > Second, it is violently opposed. > Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." > > I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I > never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my > own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the > simplicity systemd's service files without fuss. > > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? >I am using systemd, don't really have a problem with it. It was different at first but so far I manage to have adjusted. It's different. For better or worse I can't say, but I can do what I need to do with it.
> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you still > ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling the pain of others, but having professionally managed machines running SystemD for a while now honestly I don't mind it. While the language used (units, targets) is confusing and documentation could be better, there are some things I like about it more than SysVInit. -- Pete Orrall pete at cs1x.com www.peteorrall.com "If there isn't a way, I'll make one."
Once upon a time, Pete Orrall <pete at cs1x.com> said:> > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you still > > ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? > > I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling > the pain of others, but having professionally managed machines running > SystemD for a while now honestly I don't mind it. While the language > used (units, targets) is confusing and documentation could be better, > there are some things I like about it more than SysVInit.Yeah, the old init script setup was sorely lacking in some areas (especially dependencies). While there were well-written init scripts that were easy to understand, had plenty of configuration options, etc., there were many that were largely unreadable. I like to distinguish systemd-the-pid-1 from systemd-the-project; I generally like systemd-the-pid-1 (it isn't perfect by any means, but I think it is an improvement). On the other hand, I dislike the scope creep and "replace all the wheels" approach of systemd-the-project. -- Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net>
On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 09:30:20AM +0100, J Martin Rushton wrote:> For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading > init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix > problems quickly.As someone who has both debugged and written many init scripts, I'm a big fan of the way systemd does things. Every distro provided their own shell functions, so you ended up with a debian init script, a redhat init script, and usually some weird "kinda works everywhere" init script that used neither and reinvented the wheel. Quite often, what was going wrong was *NOT* apparent by glancing at the init script. How do you enforce limits on the service? Run ulimits in the script? The service starts fine if you run '/etc/rc.d/init.d/myservice start', but then if you run 'service myservice start', it fails. On top of that, there's no journal so you can't even *SEE* why it is failing during boot unless it is kind enough to write an error to the console. Hope you have a crash cart! Also, how configurable is the init script? You had to hope that upstream was smart enough to use environment variables that were sourced from /etc/sysconfig/servicename. Sometimes I had to do evil things like put executable code into /etc/sysconfig/servicename which fixed problems with the init script. Also, that reminds me, there's no simple way to override some or all of a packaged init script, except to provide your own alternative init script that had a different name. And don't get me started on the terrible startup sequence rules. I've seen several people who have edited the init script itself and then had it replaced by a yum update, breaking their service. The RPMs don't mark the init script as a config file.> Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is > interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the > murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina.I don't know... I find the unit syntax pretty simple to read. It says what processes are going to be run, what user it'll run under, you can see what order it wants to be run, etc. There are dozens of man pages for systemd, each with examples. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of anger about some of the stuff that systemd does. But lets not reminisce about SysVinit as if it was anything but a horrible mess. systemd's best feature is that it finally makes managing services better. -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>
Pete Orrall wrote:>> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you >> still >> ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? > > I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling > the pain of others, but having professionally managed machines running > SystemD for a while now honestly I don't mind it. While the language > used (units, targets) is confusing and documentation could be better, > there are some things I like about it more than SysVInit. >Don't look at me - I still *loathe* systemd. Change for no other reason than to put it on your resume, and write papers about. Examples: is it service, or target, and where of many places do I have to look to find a given service name? Why change names, such as rpc-idmapd to nfs-idmapd? And I've just been fighting today, because I have to munge the MAC address for a workstation, because they have old software that is very usefull, and there's no budget to pay the company that bought the software $15k (no kidding) so that they can shift the license to the new workstation, and that's tied to eth0 and the MAC. And *why* random NIC names? Quick, you've got servers from 5 manufacturers, of different ages... what's the NIC going to be called? Do names like enp5s0 offer any convenience to *anyone* not a hardware engineer? And the binary message log.... At home, I'm staying on CentOS 6 until it EoLs. mark
> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I > never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my > own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the > simplicity systemd's service files without fuss. > > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? >It is what it is. I can see that systemd may not look as straightforward as init scripts, but it has been clear for a while that SysVinit is generally not really fit-for-purpose. Things like the mystic incantations embedded in comments at the top to try and make chkconfig work properly, or the lack of a consistent approach to configuring parameters (are they embedded in the script? In /etc/sysconfig? The package's own config files?). The fact that there was at one point multiple solutions to the problem (with systemd eventually becoming the accepted one) and that no dev is really going to voluntarily go through the pain and abuse of implementing something new like this shows that it really was thought to be necessary. I think what is/was the issue is the abrasive way that some of it was done. It seems to have put people's backs up no end and makes them predisposed to find fault with it. It's just different, that's all. It does the job it was designed to do. It even copes with legacy init scripts, so you can still use them if you want. And I remember when these new fangled init scripts first appeared - boy did everyone find them confusing and hated them. P.
On 4/10/2017 3:20 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:> And I remember when these new fangled init scripts first appeared - boy > did everyone find them confusing and hated them.indeed. BSD just used /etc/rc.conf and /etc/rc.d/{servicename}.... then AT&T SystemV came along with the whole levels and init.d and everything. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
On 04/10/2017 03:20 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:>> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I >> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my >> own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the >> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss. >> >> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you >> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? >> > It is what it is. > > I can see that systemd may not look as straightforward as init scripts, > but it has been clear for a while that SysVinit is generally not really > fit-for-purpose. Things like the mystic incantations embedded in > comments at the top to try and make chkconfig work properly, or the > lack of a consistent approach to configuring parameters (are they > embedded in the script? In /etc/sysconfig? The package's own config > files?). > > The fact that there was at one point multiple solutions to the problem > (with systemd eventually becoming the accepted one) and that no dev is > really going to voluntarily go through the pain and abuse of > implementing something new like this shows that it really was thought > to be necessary. > > I think what is/was the issue is the abrasive way that some of it was > done. It seems to have put people's backs up no end and makes them > predisposed to find fault with it. > > It's just different, that's all. It does the job it was designed to do. > It even copes with legacy init scripts, so you can still use them if > you want. > > And I remember when these new fangled init scripts first appeared - boy > did everyone find them confusing and hated them. > > P. >My first *IX system had only /etc/inittab and I had to manually add and configure inetd. Next generation used the bsd init system... Monolithic. No process start/stop, but I understood it. Then SystemV came along; Individual processes could be started, stopped, and queried. The came the function file and THAT was a complete mess... Every distro developer had his own idea of what functions were needed. In all three of those cases, there was a single, simple start up entity. That was the literal binary program init. It read /etc/inittab and used that to handle process management and those management processes were completely transparent. Standardized, well known locations were used. It was considered to be a not just good practice, but excellent practice to do so. It wasn't commonly done, but it was relatively simple to swap between them too. The current crop of system initialization systems, do everything possible to obscure the details of operation... Boot status on the console? Nope, obscured. Processes logged to standard places? Nope, someone might hijack the logs (we had a technique for that... remote logging, but that isn't important enough to make work... Too much trouble). The bottom line seems to be, "I've looked at this, and I know better than 20, 30 years of experience, so throw it all out and do it my way"... And if things get broken in the process... Oh well, that's progress. I've had my init system lose communication with the desktop gui and decide to reboot my system. Yes, systemd did that. dbus got an upgrade and was restarting so systemd rebooted my system. While not directly a systemd problem, I've haddistro builds of apache that didn't work because of some patch "needed" so systemd could manage apache (We need systemd hooked so deeply into every process now?!). Yes, each of these was corrected... But they didn't need to happen and NEVER happened with earlier init systems. The concepts in upstart, launchd, and systemd are mildly interesting to me and probably more so to others. The implementations of the ideas have been poorly thought out and tested. They cause so much trouble for me as to make them worthless to me. When complaints are registered, the response has often been "if we don't force it, it will never be tested". Completely unacceptable. This is MY issue with the new shiny toy. Heedless and needless system breakage by an escaped lab rat.
On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?I think the points been made, can we all move along and let this thread be. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
> > I think the points been made, can we all move along and let this thread be. ><lastWord>SystemD RULES!</lastWord> :D
<humor for the day>Why don't we discuss something ***less*** controversial, like politics or religion?</humor for the day> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karanbir Singh" <mail-lists at karan.org> To: "centos" <centos at centos.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:19:43 AM Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?I think the points been made, can we all move along and let this thread be. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 04/09/2017 12:39 AM, Anthony K wrote:> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?So, the hornets are swarming..... But to answer your question: None of the above. If I want to run CentOS 7, I need to learn systemd. It doesn't matter what my opinion is of the systemd developers, or of systemd itself; CentOS is an RHEL rebuild, and RHEL 7 ships systemd. If I do not want to deal with systemd, then I need to use something other than CentOS 7. My 'feelings' on the subject are irrelevant.
Anthony K
2017-Apr-15 06:19 UTC
[CentOS] OT: systemd Poll - So Long, and Thanks for All the fish.
On 09/04/17 14:39, Anthony K wrote:> > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?Thanks for all those that responded. systemd still appears to be a sore topic. systemd is still coping a whole lot of ridicule but not so violent opposition. Can't say I understand why, but you can't please all of the people all of the time! Quick comments to some issues identified in the conversation: ============================================================ There are several responses siting poor documentation but I can't fault the documentation; there's plenty of it and the man pages are quite well structured - man -k --names-only systemd Also, there's a lot of people moving to FreeBSD - but it appears that the grass isn't greener there either as they are now trialling OpenRC. One issue I resolved quickly after installing CentOS 7 was to revert to ethx for interface names and to install iptables and remove firewalld. The other occassional issue I have is where restarting services takes a seriously long time and I've discovered that restarting `systemd-logind.service, dbus.service, and polkit.service resolves this, albeit for a short period before it crops up again *[0]*. In closing: ########### There are conspiracy theories out there that the NSA is involved with bringing systemd to Linux so they can have easy access to *"unknown"* bugs - aka backdoors - to all Linux installations using systemd *[1]*. I guess anything goes now that Edward Snowden has educated us all - for better or worse. Thanks again to all respondents - I quite enjoyed the read - I did read all responses. Regards, ak. *[0]* - https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2925 *[1]* - https://www.google.com.au/search?complete=0&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=nsa+and+systemd
Pete Biggs
2017-Apr-15 08:46 UTC
[CentOS] OT: systemd Poll - So Long, and Thanks for All the fish.
Not wishing to extend this thread further, but ...> There are conspiracy theories out there that the NSA is involved with > bringing systemd to Linux so they can have easy access to *"unknown"* > bugs - aka backdoors - to all Linux installations using systemd *[1]*.They're conspiracy theories, and that's it. The bottom line is that in general people don't like not understanding things and when they come across something they don't understand they create a mythology around those things to rationalise their non-understanding. Factor in to that the general mindset of Linux hackers/admins that they must know and understand every part of their system and you create the perfect environment for such theories to grow and blossom. Systemd is complex; it's implementation was badly handled on a social level. Nevertheless it is open source. It is highly unlikely that the NSA, or any other agency, would risk putting in backdoors to code that could be audited by Joe "random hacker" Blogs, let alone that might be discovered by hostile agencies. There is no doubt that most security agencies have a long list of zero- day exploits in their toolbox - I would hazard to suggest that they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't! But I seriously doubt they would commission exploitable code in something that is openly auditable. P.
Warren Young
2017-Apr-17 21:13 UTC
[CentOS] OT: systemd Poll - So Long, and Thanks for All the fish.
On Apr 15, 2017, at 12:19 AM, Anthony K <akcentos at anroet.com> wrote:> > Also, there's a lot of people moving to FreeBSD - but it appears that the grass isn't greener there either as they are now trialling OpenRC.You appear to have misunderstood my post. First, TrueOS is not FreeBSD. TrueOS is to FreeBSD as Ubuntu is to Debian, kinda-sorta. Some of the things the TrueOS people do make their way back into FreeBSD, but TrueOS largely exists for those who want an easier desktop experience than stock FreeBSD or want a semi-supported bleeding-edge distribution of FreeBSD. Now that TrueOS is based on the CURRENT (i.e. bleeding-edge) branch of FreeBSD development, TrueOS also serves a pioneer role for FreeBSD: those being the guys with all the arrows in their backs. Because of that, TrueOS?s adoption of OpenRC doesn?t mean FreeBSD will follow suit. Maybe they will, maybe they won?t. Second, it?s not a ?trial?. It was announced, and then suddenly between two versions BSD rc was switched to OpenRC. No ?are you sure,? no ?here are the consequences,? no ?sorry, what you?re doing here is incompatible.? Just boom, best-effort automatic conversion; if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces. (Kinda makes you smile when you remember all the threads from those who found out that RHEL family OSes can?t self-upgrade between major versions. Suddenly it?s looking like a feature. Imagine if the EL6 to EL7 transition happened the same way.) FreeBSD proper splits the difference between these two upgrade methods. You have to explicitly opt into minor version upgrades, and automatic major version upgrades are possible but always offered with plenty of warnings and migration advice. If you want a FreeBSD-specific lesson from this, it would be ?don't run 12.0-CURRENT on critical servers.? Also, I?ll remind the list that one of the *prior* times the systemd topic came up, I was the one reminding people that most of our jobs summarize as ?Cope with change.?