Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd
On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 12:17 +0100, deloptes wrote:
> Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> > Basically, it was a completely inconsistent mess before systemd.
> > Now you at least have a central place where you can configure your
> > system behaviour.
>
> 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. I do
> not
> understand it and it is a mess. So we have 1:1 :)
> Perhaps we like the old mess better than the new mess ;-)
>
> Please do not try to impose your opinion on others. Free software is
> free
> for this reason and we want to stay like this. We respect each others
> opinion.
I think you are allowing your dislike of systemd to cloud the truth of
Michael's statement.
In the past, we had *no consistency*: inittab had one thing, display
managers another, ACPI scripts another...if you wanted a specific
policy, you had to change three or more separate systems.
Along came [a new system] which provided a single place to define a
consistent policy.
Now, you may not like [a new system] for any number of reasons, related
or unrelated to this example. You may not like the default policy that
is now applied using [a new system], but that does not change the
essential truth of the previous paragraph.
--
Jonathan Dowland
Reply to: