The problem with this line of thinking is it gives automatic carte blanche to anyone pointing out problems to implement "solutions" to those problems with little interrogation of whether those solutions are actually better.
SUID, like any system, is flawed. Most of those flaws are balanced trade-offs; if you're addressing one you need to be aware of the severity of any counter-problems you're inevitably introducing.
Lennart is well known for criticising existing systems while simultaneously ignoring & dismissing criticism of the proposed solutions - you need to be able to weigh up both sides in a balanced way. Lennart demonstrably isn't.
Just because it has been pushed by RedHat and others are semi-forced to adapt, it doesn't mean all distros got in line to get a copy of the software and get it adopted.
Pulse has been replaced with the pipewire as soon as it arrived, for example.
> Ah the old 'we were forced to use this free thing'. Sure.
Well, I was a tech lead of a Debian derivative when Debian held the vote. I have seen and read enough. Didn't see the other "threats" thing, but since I had access to debian-devel, I was in the middle of it.
My views about systemd has not changed since then, and can be found if you search HN.
On the other hand, I have used 4-5 init systems in the last 20 years, and none of them were that aggressive and had the "we know the best" attitude, while going against all the best practices and making the same mistakes done in the past.
> Pipewire combines alsa, pulse and jack. They all have different strength.
Nope. ALSA is always there, working as the primary sink, delineating user space and hardware. I used Jack back in the day for recording, and never got to like pulse because of its backwards defaults and lassies-faire behavior about multi-channel audio (plus glitches, etc).
Pipewire is a great sound server which sits on top of ALSA, and replaces Pulse transparently, and makes everything 100x nicer along the way.
Lastly, it's Lennart Pottering. Not Lennard. :)
P.S.: It's important to understand that my views are not against the persons, but the behavior of the projects. I'd drink a nice round of beer with all of them, if I had the chance. :)
The reality Debian didnt want to or couldnt develop their own. The system people used them was simply shit. And the alternatives like Upstart were just crap.
Nobody forced Debian. I followed it live too. I remember him talking to Debian and he made a technical argument for it.
I had already switched to Arch and had already been using Systemd for years at that point.
The reality is, nobody was stepping up with better solutions. Would porting SMF have been better, maybe, but nobody was porting that.
There are distros with Systemd, often very compatible ones, and almost nobody uses them.
BSD folks for years have been hoping for the linux exodus over systemd and it has never happen.
And it has to be said a 1000x times. Systemd was never just init and it mever claimed it was. By now Systemd is just a software project that makes all kind of software that you can use with or without systemd the service manager.
The should just call it the "Linux Userland Software Group" and change their naming. Then people wouldnt get triggered by the term 'systemd'.
You can have whatever technical opinion you like about systemd. Fact is most people use it, including in very large organisations. And the other fact is nobody forced systemd on Debian. Whatever consipiricy was apread in 'Devel' (and elsewhere).
Thanks for confirming that I can have technical opinions about systemd, as an admin who touches more than a thousand physical servers. :)
I'll agree to disagree on the systemd's "we will replace anything and everything we even slightly dislike, and slowly make them dependent on systemd (the service manager) while not listening to you and your pesky experiences" attitude, and wish you more power for your future endeavors.
![https://unpkg.com/@material-design-icons/[email protected]/outline...](https://unpkg.com/@material-design-icons/svg@0.14.13/outlined/refresh.svg){kind=link}
SUID, like any system, is flawed. Most of those flaws are balanced trade-offs; if you're addressing one you need to be aware of the severity of any counter-problems you're inevitably introducing.
Lennart is well known for criticising existing systems while simultaneously ignoring & dismissing criticism of the proposed solutions - you need to be able to weigh up both sides in a balanced way. Lennart demonstrably isn't.