Systemd ... a can of worms

[sean]

How helpful or interesting would it be to have an "unbinding" poll rating user's need for boot speed?

Something such as:

please rate your boot speed priority from 10 to 1, (1 being "highest or first" priority)


or, 1 to 10, or whatever the best way to do it would be.

Sean

[francois]

Evolution: good or bad?

The decision to adopt systemd was a majority decision on arch linux around 2012. However, it seems that there was some resistance:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/a ... 23386.html

And the debate censored in house did contiue outside the archlinux forum.

[brokenman]

And yet the cries went unheard. Arch is systemd based now. I think phppro is right. We can resist the future, but it will still come. Too bad it is in the form of systemd. I have had time to play with it now and in some ways I like it, in others I don't. It is way more than just an init system which I don't think is a particularly good idea. IMHO an init system should get the system up and running, and do it well. Other init systems are linear and you have great control over this. To make an analogy, imagine processes are people waiting to get into a club. The traditional init system checks each persons ticket and shoes, allows them through and makes sure this is done in an orderly fashion. Systemd seems to collect all the tickets together, throw everybody towards the door and have them ask each other who has priority to go in first. Somehow they all get through the door (and damn fast I might add).

I needed to run a simple script during boot that would unlink a link BEFORE the dhcpcd.service was run. Man what a battle.

Before=network.target dhcpcd.service
After=sysinit.target

After learning all the befores, afters, requires, wants, (there are MANY more) I still couldn't the fucking thing to work as I wanted. Maybe I am too simple for this.
It is without a doubt way more powerful than most init systems, but the learning curve will drive you nuts. On top of that add binary log files (wtf?) and really long names to type to get info. I understand now why the resistance is strong. But in the end, as they say, resistance is futile.

[Bogomips]

It is way more than just an init system which I don't think is a particularly good idea.

All I know is, coming across Arch packages with systemd dependencies. So made stand-alone module for them, and they seem to check out ok.

[francois]

And what about biodiversity or antimonopoly or systemdiversity. It is good to have Linux an open system, when the only options are windows and Mac OS xx, which are closed systems.

[Ed_P]

when the only options are windows and Mac OS xx, which are closed systems.

Android doesn't seem to have had any problem making a name for itself. Look at the booming sales of Android devices.

[Bogomips]

@bogomips - I guess one could always bend the fence to make the cattle pass. I wouldn't try to squeeze an 18-wheeler into an disabled parking lot though.

After 2 days I've finally figured it out, cultural difference and all that. It must be into a 'disabled parking space'. Its's the only thing that makes sense. (Couldn't find the light bulb )

[francois]

@Ed:

May we say that android i more the kind of an hybrid. Came from linux, and is more open to the community software wise and hardware wise. But one thing is sure is that they are there to take your money like the others, but without monopolizing software evolution.

[brokenman]

Who ever thought we would be forced to watch ads while watching crappy youtube videos? Another sign ($) of the times.

[KnallKopf]

The technical evolution is evil real evil (15 years before my opinion was inverse)
And the worst is that they are etreme slow.

I am really scary about power of systemd and i won't have it in my Linux.

but can everybody explain this:
On the FOSDEM 2015 Lennart Poettering announcements that he will the integration of gummiboot, UEFI-Certificate and the complett chain of trust in systemd.
He wants to replace Microsoft-Certifikate by Certificates from Fedora or the user.

1.) How is it possible that user put Certificates to the UEFI (Sorry for my question, i have only a old PC without UEFI) ?
2.) When user can do it, Why can not all other people (Hacker the NSA) do it ?

For me it is no difference between Microsoft or Fedora Certificates, only user certificates are good.
3.) but it is it reallystic that it is possible in Future ?

[brokenman]

He wants to replace Microsoft-Certifikate by Certificates from Fedora or the user.

I don't think that is the intent. Then windows wouldn't boot. The intent is to allow users to enable secure boot on their computers and still have a non-windows OS boot. It's about time someone did this. The rEFInd bootloader also offers this.

Code: Select all

How is it possible that user put Certificates to the UEFI

You can sign all binaries on your system and place it into the UEFI firmware. Then your binary (bootloader, graphics drivers) will be allowed to boot by the system.

When user can do it, Why can not all other people (Hacker the NSA) do it?

They can. That's why secure boot is a good thing. I generate my certificates so that's how I know that nobody replaced any binary with a different version. If the original binary that I signed is not on my system, then it won't boot. This is a good thing.

but it is it reallystic that it is possible in Future?

It is possible now. I had my system working with secure boot. But I got sick of having to sign kernel binaries everytime I upgraded a kernel.

[KnallKopf]

You can sign all binaries on your system and place it into the UEFI firmware.

That reassures me a little.

It is possible now ... But I got sick of having to sign kernel binaries everytime

And i have the fear that systemd can manage it in future.
And i have the fear that it is not possible in future to sign all binaries on your system and place it into the UEFI.
And because systemd comes from RedHeat and is Mainstream it will the only that had a key in UEFI.
But RedHeat will generous and give us signed binarys.
The trend in now is to Opensource but no free software.

I can be wrong with this theory because i have only concerned since i have read this thread.
In any case the old one was not need this attention, it does his job fine.



For me are the advantages: parallel-booting, and simplification (it is induvidal), glass beads and no reason to allow the rape on the Linux principle.

I thing openrc is a alternative but a poor allternative.
1.) A lot of people in the internet grumble about openrc, it seems so that there a lot of bugs in openrc, and it is complex too.
2.) A lot of programms need the underlying systemdlibs. And they can not be remove. (if the programm should run).

But this is only my opinion.



The reasons why i is good to test or use it, is that i can be wrong.
The other reason is, is that the knowledge about systemd can be usefull for the future.
Only when i not rotate, the earth will rotate nevertheless (it will be cool if i can change it).