Systemd is for ________

Systemd is for ________

Last episode:

Other urls found in this thread:

ewontfix.com/14/
blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/
0pointer.de/lennart/
youtube.com/watch?v=i4CACB7paLc
github.com/systemd/systemd/issues?q=is:issue is:closed
plus.google.com/ LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly
plus.google.com/ LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/J2TZrTvu7vd
freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Fags

fagoots

Baby Linux user here, what is systemd? I use manjaro btw.

improving linux and destroying the obsolete unix worse is better dogma to replace it with something practical and modern

cucks, shills, normies, and the CIA.

>improving
You mis-spelled "making brittle, insecure, undocumented, and error prone."

...patricians.

Us /tech/ will retreat to the Dæmon Peaks and Phoenix Ridge to regroup, and when the masses realize what has happened to their prized GNU we will strike with our superior UNIX and UNIX philosophy to slay the communist.

...

CIA NIGGERS

It's a thing that initializes things but also does things that other things once did so it's the new
>botnet

...

oh FUCK, but I was using Linux to escape the botnet!

systemd was created by an SWJ faggot who works for RedHat, a company that is basically a CIA front. It was forced on all distributions almost overnight.

The arguments against systemd and why it's bad have been posted over and over, yet systemd shills continuously pop up saying no one has provided any arguments against systemd and that Lennart Poettering's cock is small so it doesn't stretch your asshole or hurt too bad while he's fucking you over with a CIA trojan that runs at PID 1.

The systemd developers are making it harder and harder to not run on systemd. Even if Debian supports not using systemd, the rest of the Linux ecosystem is moving to systemd so it will become increasingly infeasible as time runs on.

By merging in other crucial projects and taking over certain functionality, they are making it more difficult for other init systems to exist. For example, udev is part of systemd now. People are worried that in a little while, udev won’t work without systemd. Kinda hard to sell other init systems that don’t have dynamic device detection.

The concern isn’t that systemd itself isn’t following the UNIX philosophy. What’s troubling is that the systemd team is dragging in other projects or functionality, and aggressively integrating them. When those projects or functions become only available through systemd, it doesn’t matter if you can install other init systems, because they will be trash without those features.

An example, suppose a project ships with systemd timer files to handle some periodic activity. You now need systemd or some shim, or to port those periodic events to cron. Insert any other systemd unit file in this example, and it’s a problem.

Systemd is now your OS. Linux is like an appendix, it's almost vestigial at this point.

There are 3 main groups of systemd haters, and they all have valid critcisms:

People who don't like the fact that systemd has massive scope creep. Specifically that it tries to reimplement many existing services instead of improving / integrating existing ones. For example user switching, network management, logging, etc.

People who don't like the idea of everything relying on systemd interfaces to work at all. For example gnome started to rely on logind and other services even though it technically didn't need to.

People who don't like the management of the project. Lennart can be a dick to people with different opinions. He also created many interesting projects which were both a bit complex and pushed before they were ready. (like pulseaudio, packagekit) Since they were forced on people via popular distros, pulseaudio became "the thing that's always broken" for a year or so. And since Lennart was the author, he became a person who breaks the system.

>in b4 a CIA shill replies with "no one will post a single valid criticism of systemd"

>redditfrog

Thanks for saving from wasting time reading anything you posted.

oh my FUCKING god, you've gotta be fucking kidding me. Should I just switch back to windows, or go to mac? Jesus christ this is bull shit.

The only people the systemd developers had to convince to get it widely adopted were the distro maintainers and the developers of a few key software projects. The distro maintainers made systemd at least an optional (if not outright default) init system, since it (1) promised to eliminate a series of init-related problems, and (2) other critical pieces of low-level userspace functionality like udev were getting merged into systemd's codebase anyway. In theory, systemd would reduce their maintenance burden, giving them an incentive to encourage their users to adopt it.

Making it an optional or default init system wasn't enough to spur its rapid adoption, however. What helped solidify systemd's hold was a few key developers making their software depend on it to work. For example, you can't run GNOME without systemd these days, and KDE is not far behind. Other previously-unrelated daemons like upower now require systemd to work correctly. So, users who want a working desktop pretty much have to use systemd now, even if they don't have an opinion on it, or even if they want a desktop more than they want to steer clear of it.

This has created a lot of frustration within the user community. There are plenty of users who do not want systemd, but now have to either (1) go without a working desktop to do so, or (2) fork the relevant parts of the ecosystem that depend on systemd and make them so that they don't. This is exacerbated by author of systemd openly advocating that GNOME depend on it (helping to create this dilemma), having a reputation for breaking the Linux sound system (making people wonder if the same will happen to init), having a reputation for not taking criticism well, and increasingly having a reputation of being deceitful about his intentions for systemd's role in the ecosystem.

contd.

Systemd's design has also created a lot of frustration with power users and developers. While it is all well and good that every developer should maintain his/her code in the way he/she sees fit, there are two important design decisions in systemd that have questionable technical merit but have non-trivial social and political consequences for the ecosystem. First, the author of systemd has repeatedly stated that systemd will not be portable, and will reject patches from those who would make it work. This effectively locks people into Linux if they need to use software that depends on systemd, even if the software doesn't otherwise require Linux-specific features. Second, the author of systemd has publicly stated that the interfaces between the systemd components will remain unstable and undocumented for the foreseeable future. This makes the creation of alternatives to systemd components difficult, since developers have to first study the large systemd codebase to even figure out how to begin, and will need to ensure their alternatives are compatible with every version of systemd if they are to gain adoption.

^W currently running.

State: running
Jobs: 0 queued
Failed: 0 units
Since: Sun 2017-01-08 01:14:21 EST; 2 months 0 days ago

At this point you have a couple options. If you don't want the botnet, move to a non-systemd Linux distribution, use a BSD, or switch to an even more exotic OS like Haiky or 9front.

If you don't care about the botnet but hate ads in your OS, switch to the Mac. If you don't mind maddening pop-up ads all over your shit at all times, just run Windows.

contd.

Combined, these two design decisions ensure that it will be very costly and time-consuming for developers to implement alternatives, short of rewriting the whole systemd from scratch. Any work they do to address their problems with systemd can be easily undermined by the systemd author (who doesn't particularly care for alternatives). What is particularly demoralizing about this situation is that there isn't a clear technical reason why systemd had to be designed this way--it could have been written in a portable fashion (or, people would step up and make it portable if the author would accept their work), and its components could have been designed to have stable internal interfaces, so replacing parts of systemd piecemeal would be feasible. The only perceived gains from these design decisions is that the systemd author can artificially make it too costly to compete against it, leading to frustration and controversy.

It's pretty good honestly, sysvinit's handling of hotplugging devices is wonky as fuck

I don't really care if Poettering is a SJW, but it seems like people take issue with his politics more than any actual technical issues with systemd

Prove you aren't a CIA shill.

I'm arguing against systemd, you didn't even read my post. If I was a CIA shill I'd be arguing FOR systemd.

Very real disadvantages of systemd:

1. systemd is tied to a specific kernel and a specific libc and specific device manager and specific journaling daemon, basically, having systemd means you're locked in to a whole lot of other things.
2. systemd is renowned for locking up during startup and boot when you have network filesystems.
3. systemd hardcodes quite a lot of the booting and shutdown process in C which other systems place in easily editable scripts.
4. systemd in practice requires quite a lot of things: ACLs, PAM, dbus, polkit, these are not hard requirements but without this the above advantages are lost so all distributions enable them at compile time.
5. logind starting to do retarded shit like user sessions and having retarded power management, in theory you can disable logind, but no distribution again does this.
6. systemd is very monolithic and comes in one configuration compared to being able to piece your system together yourself.

>in b4 i don't care, lennart's dick just tastes soooo good. plz lennart, cum on my face

Nobody would give a shit about systemd if Poettering wasn't an outspoken leftist, it would just be another Kernel-related project.

Sup Forums needs to fuck off with their reverse SJWism

7. systemd appropriates the cgroup tree and takes control of it and completely messes with any other user of the cgroup tree and really wants them all to go through systemd, systemd was wirtten basically on the assumption that nothing but systemd would be using cgroups and they even tried to lobby to make cgroups a private prioperty of systemd in the kernel but that went no-where.

8. systemd's usage of cgroups for process tracking is a fundamentally broken concept, cgroups were never meant for this and it's a good way to fuck resource usage up.

9. systemd has a hard dependency on glibc for really no good reason.

10. systemd relies on DBus for IPC, as the name 'Desktop bus' implies DBus was never written with this in mind and it shows. DBus was written to facilitate IPC within a single desktop session, not as a transport during early boot. This is why systemd wanted to push kdbus heavily beause kdbus solved some of the problems inherent to DBus being used as IPC during early boot.

11. systemd's security and general code quality practices are less than stellar, a lot of security bugs pop up in systemd due to its insistence of putting quite a bit of code in pid1 and quickly adding new features and quickly changing things.

>in be4 "not one single valid criticism" please let me jack you off lennart

That is exactly something a CIA shill would say to deflect.

Do you have any actual evidence you're not a CIA shill?

13. systemd creates dependencies and is a dependency of things for political reasons in order to encourage people to pick these things. This is not conjecture, Lennart has admitted multiple times that he creates dependencies to 'gently push' everyone to the same configuration

14. systemd is monolithic for its own sake. It's basically product tying to encourage people to pick an all-or-none deal to again gently push towards this consistency.

15. Lennart Poettering, the face of systemd and its lead dev is the biggest primadonna FOSS has ever known who continues to shift blame and demand that entire world adapt to his designs.

>in b4 "lennart's is dick is sooo comfy in my ass"

Who pays you to shill this hard?

Systemd-tards and CIAniggers haven't posted one single argument in favor of systemd or why I should use it.

Here's some more reasons not to use it:

1. it's unauditable, at hundreds of thousands of lines of code
2. it's a large attack surface.
3. system logging is fundamentally flawed, almost broken
4. it has become an underlying dependency for top-level software layers; to forgo shitd is to forgo that software that depends on it
5. it places way too many potential failure cases into what is probably the most critical program in the system
6. what problem is it solving again?
7. bluring userspace with kernel land. MS tried this between 99-03 with kernel32.exe and IIS, and look how that turned out for them
8. because top software layers depend on it, and because it won't work anywhere else but Linux, it effectively shifts entire projects (and desktops) to linux-only, co-opting development for a specific environment
9. why was this needed when there were existing solutions?

Use Manjaro with OpenRC, or use Void Linux.
Systemd is shit, but it's not a shit as Mac or Windows.

>it's unauditable, at hundreds of thousands of lines of code
You're retarded, you're implying that the Linux kernel is unauditable by your same measure.

Gas yourself

This entire thread is an attempt by the feds to make you scared of Linux so you will use a compromised operating system. It's almost entirely just a couple paid anti-systemd shills who completely ignore any rebuttal to their 2 bad arguments.

I'd say your the shill here

Who pays you to shill for a backdoor?

Do you have a single valid reason why anyone should run system-backdoord?

Sorry but you are trying very hard and going to a lot of effort to shill why people shouldn't use a piece of software you don't like

Makes me a little suspicious of why you are so invested in this. If you're not a shill, why don't you prove it?

Not true, I'm not trying to scare anyone away from Linux. You most definitely should continue using Linux, just a distro that doesn't have systemd (backdoor) as the init.

Devuan, for example, is basically Debian without systemd. You can also use Arch or Manjaro with OpenRC.

logind also SIGKILLs your processes by default when you log out..

>systemd is a backdoor
Do you have even a shred of evidence for your claim?

Well for one that was one of 3 of my posts.
I wouldn't have to hate systemd if didn't literally infect every thing it touches.
It actively tries to suppress competition. That's not a good thing in an open source project.
Plus the developers are incompetent narcissists.
More importantly though, why should I use it?
What's the benefit over Runit or OpenRC?
(hint: there isn't one)

>logind also SIGKILLs your processes by default when you log out..
as it should. It's the desktop environments responsibility to make sure things are gracefully closed before making the call to systemd to logout. If there are still processes hanging at that point, then kill them. That is absolutely the correct thing to do.

>why should I use it
Then don't, but the way you are very vocally spamming this thread over and over again makes me think you are pushing an agenda or you have a vested interest in people only using FOSS software that _you_ promote and evangelize.

It's very suspicious and you still haven't proved that you're not a paid shill.

sexual

And know I know you are retarded.
You NEVER EVER EVER SIGKILL anything. Period.
That absolutely should not be default behaviour.
Send a SIGTERM at the most. Most software responds to SIGTERM and gracefully shuts down. Any software that doesn't is broken.
If you fucking SIGKILL every leftover process you are going to have a lot of memory issues down the road.
>making the call to systemd to logout
This is why systemd is retarded.
You do not need a library call to logout.

- systemctl is much more uniformly informative than the equivalent shell scripts tend to be
- It's incredibly convenient to create services files for simple daemons.
- It's flexible enough to handle weird programs that handle their own daemonization somehow. Usually it's just a couple more lines of a service file.
- Users get their own systemd --user instance, so you can run per-user daemons without having to su into root.
- Comes with log maintenance and rotation by default, and journalctl is incredibly flexible at showing you relevant data
- Sets up cgroups for you automatically
- Seems to transparently handle old-style shell script service files

That's what I can think of off the top of my head.

The thing that pisses me off the most about this post is how plausible it is. There is so much conflict of interest between Linux and big dicked companies like M$ and the NSA/CIA that it would be reasonable to assume these organizations would subvert linux. The idea being that it's better to cut it by the root now than wait til it becomes bigger later and reducing the power that these agencies have over operating systems & individual user's hardware.

Fuck this world, I can't find peace in the physical or the cyber world anymore. Where is there left for me to escape?

>1. it's unauditable, at hundreds of thousands of lines of code
That doesn't come close to making it unauditable. This point is completely invalid.

>large attack surface
Explain exactly the different ways you would attack it.

>system logging is fundamentally flawed, almost broken
Explain what the flaws are

>it has become an underlying dependency for top-level software layers; to forgo shitd is to forgo that software that depends on it
Give me a specific example of how this affects me negatively

>it places way too many potential failure cases into what is probably the most critical program in the system
Systemd is not a single program

>what problem is it solving again?
>why was this needed when there were existing solutions?
I can't speak for the development team, but I like systemd because the previous state of Linux was that I had to learn a dozen different tools because the different Linux distros couldn't agree on a standard. Depending on which Linux distro I was working with, I had to remember how to use it's respective selection for init services as well as other components which systemd now handles. As a person who interacts with a variety of different linux distros regularly, it has made my life easier.

>bluring userspace with kernel land
Please elaborate. I'm genuinely curious about this.

>because top software layers depend on it
Please elaborate. I'm genuinely curious about this.

>because it won't work anywhere else but Linux
Literally do not care.

>it effectively shifts entire projects (and desktops) to linux-only
Literally do not care.

>vocally spamming
Try again fucko.
See the pic. Unfortunately that's the best you are going to get from me. There isn't much else I could do to prove I am not a (((shill))).
>pushing an agenda
Otherwise known as stating my opinion.
>__you__ promote
What was I promoting?
I don't care what init people uses.
I wouldn't care if people used systemd if it didn't threaten my ability to use other init systems.

For the anons that possess reading comprehension and aren't afraid to do a little reading:

ewontfix.com/14/

blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/

tl;dr

Please summarize the main points

Which one do I read first?

There was never peace in the cyber world, you're just paying better attention.

You've spammed the exact same copypasta in this thread for like the 4th time in 2 days.

I'm starting to think you have a 0day for OpenRC or something and that's why you're shilling so hard.

Nice try though.

>I'm starting to think you have a 0day for OpenRC or something and that's why you're shilling so hard.
I was just thinking the same thing

Heartbleed was the most innocent looking code possible. It is really easy to miss something in C.
That's why making projects that are hundreds of lines of code for no reason is pragmatically speaking, asking for it.
>different ways to attack it
Remember the DOS attack using the world writable systemd message socket? That's just one example.
Or the fact that every single file created by systemd is world writable by default?
The developers are shooting themselves in the foot for no reason.
Any large program that does a lot of different things has a big attack surface.
>how is it fundamentally flawed
Look around this thread.
>systemd is not a single program xDD
No but they are so closely related that a failure in one translates to failure is others.
>many standards
Yeah that is a problem, but systemd is NOT the solution. It's a problem with open source more than anything.
>please elaborate
Well I am not sure about the kernel one, but many user mode programs that have no reason to be dependent on systemd are hooking into it.
See GNOME.
>literally do not care
Well that's just, like, your opinion man.

Is systemd svchost: linux edition

What copypasta?
Nice try, but I don't use OpenRC :^)

>Nice try, but I don't use OpenRC :^)
Of course not. You probably use systemd and just want us to use openrc so you can exploit our systems.

You spammed the copypasta referred to in in a previous thread.

Seriously, why are you shilling so hard?

I use Runit. I can screenshot if you want.
Those were not me.
I know I won't convince you, but maybe someone who isn't retarded will see the truth.

>Those were not me.
Prove it, shill.

Screenshot in is the best you can get.
What other ways would prove it to you?

Proves nothing because everyone on Sup Forums knows what inspect element is

Gonna have to up your shill game if you want to convince people, gotta earn those shekels.

fpbpdp

I am aware it's not bullet proof.
What would do it though?
I have asked this at least 3 times now.

Meant for

No proof in the world would ever be good enough for shills. Just quit responding to the obvious systemd CIAniggers.

>asking for help with hiding your shilling better
Why would anyone help you establish credibility? That's on you

I don't know what I expected. Proof is subjective, so I asked. That is exactly what a shill would say though, it seems is right

To all those with sense, don't use systemd, for the multitude of reasons discussed in this thread. Literally anything is better.

*he is Lennart Poettering: 0pointer.de/lennart/

youtube.com/watch?v=i4CACB7paLc (((Embed)))
The systemd Journal has been introduced with F18. In this talk I want to discuss the why?, the what? and the how?

github.com/systemd/systemd/issues?q=is:issue is:closed
>Issues?

plus.google.com/ LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly
'" I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. '" --- LENNART POETTERING

plus.google.com/ LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/J2TZrTvu7vd
'" The Linux community is dominated by western, white, straight, males in their 30s and 40s these days. '"

>Oy
>y

>Vey
>e
>y

>hehe yes goy be sure to run some of my unaudited init daemons instead, don't trust systemd, it's trying to trick you!

normalfags

>CIA Niggers
>Shills
>Lennart Poettering

Beta Cucks can use whatever flavour OS they want.
Homosexual Pedophiles can choose whatever init system they want.

sYSTEM d has been deeply inserted into so many distros in sao little time that only Beta Homosexual Pedophile Cucks are happy to run that shit.

Are (((You))), may I ask, an
>Homosexual
>Beta
>Pedophile
>Cuck

??
?

Smart, productive, hard-working people.

>Beta Homosexual Pedophile Cucks
literally nothing wrong with any of those things. Stay mad you cis-gendered white male.

Sauce on trap ?
I agree with you that there is subversion going on, and a lot of it. Look at the state of this board with the AMD/Intel circlejerk and how SJW's are infecting FOSS, etc. There's definite psyops happenings all around us aimed to put us apart and fall into the ruts theyve dug out for us.

SystemD is just part of that IMO. That twink who founded it is probably just a faggot trying to push his warez, but the reason it gained so much steam and clout is due to the hidden influences of the State(s). It really was like waking up to a new init system overnight. I remember the Arch forums were pissed that we were losing our simple init config.

>constant psyops
Glad I am not the only one that notices this.

millenial-d spotted

illumos is your only hope senpai

NSA

Makes me feel like Terry having to wade through all this noise.

Daily reminder that there is literally not a single valid criticism of systemd in this thread.

Where's the standard by which it's written against?

Where's the design structure? Where's the API documentation?

Can you do anything other than be a total CIA nigger?

>it has hundrds of thousands of lines of code therefore an audit isn't possible
It's a retarded argument dude, you implied that it's unauditable because of the size of the codebase which would imply that the Linux kernel is unauditable too

a-are you for real?

every time this shit.

are you real?

Did you even look? It seriously took me less than a minute to find this: freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/
It contains tons of links, including user documentation, developer documentation, debugging guides, the white paper for the project, and more.

Because you keep parroting the same retarded arguments

it's inauditable because it is intertwied as fuck
also binary blobs

>it's inauditable because it is intertwied as fuck
Provide an example to demonstrate how it is intertwined. It seems pretty modular by design to me.

>binary blobs
I'm interested. Tell me more.

systemd shills btfo

Large codebases aren't audited by single people or Joe Blow. It's not possible for either you or me to audit the entire codebase of the Linux kernel or systemd. We can use the Heartbleed vulnerability in OpenSSL for example. The vulnerability existed for ten years and thousands of people reviewed the code, yet no one found the vulnerability.

The reason people trust the codebase of the Linux kernel is because it's been independently audited by security teams at multiple security companies. These audits are expensive and take a long time to complete. It took almost a year for QuarksLab to audit the much much smaller VeraCrypt codebase.

No independent security teams have audited systemd. Also, implying that a single person can audit a code base with hundreds of thousands of lines of code is a fallacy, and you need to quit repeating it, it's not reality. Just because something is open source doesn't mean it's audit-able. Especially if the devs refuse to document the components as Poettering refuses to do for systemd.

Yeah, at least others are waking up to it.
Eventually God will killall -9 CIA niggers
>at least 20 posts pointing out flaws, or valid criticisms
>not a single valid criticism
Are you real?

freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/
Stop spreading the meme that they don't document their project. It's not true. There is a fuck ton of documentation if you pull your head out of the sand

...

A bunch of disparate pages which half are out of date.

Wonderful. I wouldn't expect any less.