Arguments against systemd

From Without Systemd
Revision as of 04:59, 30 August 2015 by Wicket (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Breaking promises and immaturity

"After udev is merged into the systemd tree you can still build it for usage outside of systemd systems, and we will support these builds officially. In fact, we will be supporting this for a long time"

"...this will effectively also mean that we will not support non-systemd systems with udev anymore starting at that point. Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call."

Linux (kernel) coup attempt: "kdbus support is no longer compile-time optional ... We encourage all downstream distributions to begin testing kdbus by adding it to the kernel images in the development distributions, and leaving kdbus support in systemd enabled." comment on this on LKML

Scope creep

Absurd Bugs and Responses

Scope Creep Leads to Vulnerabilities

Poor design

  • Improper argument parsing
  • systemd has a filename that starts with a hyphen! This causes all sorts problems as it will usually be interpreted as the start of a command option when used on the command line. You don't even need to specify the filename for it to cause problems as it will affect commands that use globbing. Not to mention that the file in question, "-.slice", they refer to as the "root slice" which causes confusion as the term "slice" has been used for decades as an alternative way of referring to a disk partition yet their usage is completely unrelated.

Myths

Debunking the myth of unit files being significantly shorter than scripts used by all other init systems: A side-by-side look at run scripts and service units

Ignorance of fundamental operating system concepts

su isn't supposed to inherit cgroups or audit, those concepts are relatively new and arrived well after the creation of su. TTYs were originally physical devices so of course su is supposed "inherit" the same device otherwise it would be truly broken. Pseudo TTYs emulate real TTYs so their behaviour is obviously expected to be identical. su really is just a simple mechanism that calls setuid and setgid system calls in order to switch to another user. If he needs to write a new utility that handle scenarios that su was never designed to handle, no problem, but to label it as a "broken concept" is ridiculous.

Personal tools