[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:17:16PM +0100, deloptes wrote:
> Michael Biebl wrote:
> 
> > Basically, it was a completely inconsistent mess before systemd.
    [...]

> This is your opinion - if you can not understand the "mess" it is a mess.
> For most of us who dislike systemd your same statement is valid [...]

Now watch all the old skoolers dashing out of their little caves and
waving their fists at something which could be read as a provocation
(I'm myself one of those, just look a bit upthread :)

In the sense of civilized discourse, I now do a bit of introspection
and think one could read Michael's statement differently. For those
using the computers "classically", there was no mess. Issue su at
any console (most of us did the migration to sudo a while ago, since
it's more convenient and a tad safer), done. No mess.

But for a desktop environment, which has been silently permeated
by the assumption "one computer -- one user -- one display/keyboard"
and which wants to offer their users transparent access to system
management tasks (install printer, package system, video resolution,
yadda yadda) in a way that looks somewhat like Those Other Operating
Systems, the implementations we have seen *are* a mess, all this
Gnome *kit horror and whatever KDE does (there's enough mess still
left: why have Gnome and KDE to invent their own virtual file
systems? Have you ever had a look at what Gnome does to attach
emblems to files? And so on).

So I understand perfectly that those desktop environments have
clinged desperately to systemd. They are constantly on the brink
of breaking down under their own complexity, so exporting some
of it to Some Other Place always feels like a bit of fresh air.

So in *this* context, I'd say Michael is spot on.

Now if you don't buy into that desktop thing, systemd doesn't
look like a simplification or sorting out some mess, I'd think.
But some agree to differ on that too.

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAloqgaYACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaO/wCfbozo+GxKHs6LchrMG0roUDo1
pVsAnRUpDXw/leYTb3VF541aJZHw4Q6K
=Ligm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: