Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Philip Hands wrote: > The program that ran most of OpenMoko was written on the assumption that > it would be very soon replaced by separate components that would all > pass messages around via d-bus ah! 12+ years i'm glad someone remembers. i

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' ... > the heavy usage of d-bus for the openmoko OS basically was part of > what killed the project. it would not surprise me at all to find that > d-bus is similarly slowing systemd

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > anyway i'll dig the parabola microsd card out again, switch to > parallel openrc and boot it up. it might be a bit much for the A20 to > handle, but we'll soon see. ok we're looking at a 21 second boot time

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: >> > Openrc is included in Debian. > It was one of the candidates considered when deciding what init system > to adopt, altought it had much less support than systemd or upstart (and > I suspect it's even

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 06:32:00PM -0400, zap wrote: > > > Indeed, volunteer time is seriously limited, and there are things that > > are just beyond what can be expected from them. > > > > E.g. if a mayor DE would start requiring systemd to work, Debian would > > not be in the position to fork

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On 07/03/2017 01:12 PM, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > I'm not going to join this pro/anti systemd discussion as it is > pointless at this point, but, For the most part I agree with you, but I must admit I trust someone with as much experience like Luke far more than systemd. But you are free to avoid

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > Gee, it's as if you're talking about bitcoin-core bitcoin-core is not a critical and essential dependency which has been forced onto 98% of GNU/Linux users without their informed consent. l.

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

Jonathan Frederickson writes: >> this one example underscores that "freedom" - having access to the >> source - is no longer the only factor, meaning that we are heavily and >> critically deependent on decisions made by distro maintainers. > > Again, this has always

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

when i was looking at taking over maintenance of depinit one of the first tasks was to add full automated compatibility for initscripts. signiicant advantages of depinit were lost in the process but there was no loss when compared to sysvinit itself. individual initscripts could then be replaced

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Jonathan Frederickson wrote: > People have always done this, it's just that the systemd folks are > writing their own versions of lots of different services. And that's > okay! You're free to use them, or not, as you choose. ...

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Erik Auerswald wrote: > Systemd is supposed to replace the complete init system, not just the > process with PID 1. In addition, it adds lots of other functionality (DNS > resolver, DCHP client, network configuration, desktop session

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > even with that in mind i see no down-side to the additional workload > that you refer to when you consider the upside that diversity brings. > no monoculture, no centralised control, and a need for people

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Philip Hands wrote: > Are you aware of confirmation bias? you're talking to a reverse-engineer, so you know that i am. the problem is that there are so many different "signs" from so many different directions that it becomes completely

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes: > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Philip Hands wrote: > >> Might I ask in response: What the hell are you doing not fact checking >> this before repeating it? > > because in the scheme of programs-that-constitute-systemd it

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > for anyone who still believes that systemd is okay to use and deploy, > and that there exist "great advantages that outweigh the risks", are > you *finally* getting the message now? Because the only distro

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Philip Hands wrote: > Might I ask in response: What the hell are you doing not fact checking > this before repeating it? because in the scheme of programs-that-constitute-systemd it really doesn't matter, phil. the slashdot report also includes

Re: [Arm-netbook] severe systemd bugs (two of them)

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes: > https://it.slashdot.org/story/17/07/03/0343258/severe-systemd-bug-allowed-remote-code-execution-for-two-years > > two years. that's how long one of these bugs has been in systemd. > *via a remote network*. what the hell is an init system