Re: End of hypocrisy ?
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> wrote:
> Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that's what I meant, sysvinit is not broken.
>
> I rather agree. But the opponents cite corner cases where the
> previous security model doesn't handle every possible access case.
>
> I always hate it when people say such vague statements such as
> "modern" or "is broken" without actually saying why it is one way or
> the other. After reading months of arguments these next two postings
> were the first real postings I had read with any detail in them.
> Especially the second one.
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/06/msg00455.html
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/06/msg00461.html
>
> These are things that probably 99.44%[1] of the population hasn't ever
> needed before. The 99% where everything works for us are all of us
> crying about the disruption. But for that 0.56% that worried about
> those corner cases they see the old system as really broken. They are
> probably right that it is broken for them. But there are better ways
> to go about improving the system than the unpleasant way that systemd
> has been rolled out to the community.
Didn't all DEs use consolekit and policykit? IIRC wasn't the CTTE bug
filed because of a debian-devel@ thread about Gnome depending on
systemd (because of logind and/or libpam-systemd)?
The problem's that consolekit is abandonware upstream, logind is its
replacement, policykit removed consolekit support, and logind requires
systemd as pid 1 (or systemd-shim).
Reply to: