Re: systemd is here to stay, get over it now
OdyX wrote:
>all means, go for it. That said, as far as I remember, the latest GR
>proposal [4] on this subject failed to gather the mandatory K seconds
>though. For me, this indicates that not even K=5 DDs were interested in
I was not even aware of that proposal. This may also indicate lack
of, marketing or whatever.
Russ Allbery wrote:
>systemd is open source. Every line of code is available to you to read.
>If you think the NSA has hidden some strange back-door in systemd, please
You know, backdoors are not only code vulnerabilities.
systemd is a backdoor in that, like the availability of Steam
games for DDs, it has a chance to hinder the progress of all
projects done in the spare time of the people affected.
systemd is a backdoor in that, by means of vendor lock-in, it
will make future subversing a system easier, because there will
be no alternative implementation of
* init
* syslog
* ntpd
* dhcp, IIUC
* udev
* dbus
* and whatever else systemd is going to ship or push into the kernel
any more, to which people could switch in case of a fatal emergency
with the systemd-provided code.
For example, systemd has support for its own (S)NTP client, but also
supports xntpd (rudely leaving OpenNTPD out already). The commit message
explains that the xntpd support will eventually go away.
This is the best example of, hm, there's no English idiomatic expression
I'm told in IRC... an "entry drug" (provided for free, and making you
dependent on getting even more of that fix). Similar to MSDNAA except
worse yet.
Yes, I just compared systemd to a drug. This feels strangely right
in so many ways.
This means that systemd not will but already has severely compromised
the OSS ecosystem. Heterogenous systems are the enemy of agencies,
after all, you know?
bye,
//mirabilos
Reply to: