Recent searches
Search options
The level to which systemd stans demand you prove claims against systemd that you didn't even make as soon as they see you say something they interpret as vaguely "anti-systemd" is really astounding and impressive.
@dalias I maintain a distribution that probably exercises more code of systemd than any other distribution out there, it's not beautiful, there's a lot of issues but what I don't really understand after dealing with the alternatives is that other people seemingly *not involved* into working with the object of interest doing weird over-intellectualization of system design to discuss abstract problems related to that ecosystem.
@dalias What I find fascinating is that the discussion always goes like this and I am still unable to find a satisfying understanding of that behavior beyond different tastes and colors and a strange feeling of reading FUD (about user hostile behavior).
But I would be glad to understand that I am completely wrong and missing the point and actually the problem is **concretely** X, Y, Z.
@raito The only comment I made here about "user-hostile behavior" was in a subthread about dbus and tight coupling and my observations of the philosophy it developed out of, going back to the early 1990s. It's barely even related to systemd.
I could make "user hostility" complaints about systemd but that's not what I came to do because I've really gotten tired of that topic.
@dalias Fair enough, be it related to dbus or tight coupling, I am afraid I am still unable to grasp what point you are articulating *concretely* with that. I see mostly theoretical concern, not grounded in modern and actual blockers you might have encountered because I still cannot derive a concrete instantiation of what you are saying, applicable to objects I am familiar with.
@raito I don't want the softwares I'm running talking to each other. I want their behaviors to be predictable, tractable to mentally model, independent of what else I have installed/running. I want principle of least surprise. I don't want weird actions happening because I happened to plug in thing X and software Y that was running is interested in that. I don't want privacy spills from what I was doing in one app showing up in another. ...
@raito I don't want processes running as root to magically appear and become attack surface because some application I was running prodded a dbus address and dbus activation ran a daemon that happened to get installed as part of some package something else depended on.
@dalias Still have difficulties to grasp. I can actually disable all dbus activation if I want on my system. Or have mathematical guarantees on such stuff. What is preventing your system integration to do so?
@raito Nothing is preventing me from hacking out behaviors I don't want except time and mental energy.
The whole point was just drawing out that there is this big clash of philosophies underpinning these issues that's rarely examined.
@dalias OK, that's fair. Nonetheless, I must point out that both philosophies have produced different results, whether you find that user hostile seems to depend on your definition of user (for example, you but not me). You talked about "imposition of policy" in another thread, I must say that conversely this sort of final opinion is also for me the consequences of "imposition of policy" unilaterally by like-minded thinkers.
So in the end, I find these arguments hard to accept as criticism.
@dalias They seems to boil down to tastes and colors in system design and architectures. Yes, you eliminate classes of issues with yours, but you put under the carpet other things and retrospectively, the same can be said about the other philosophy.
@raito "Imposition of policy" was in a completely unrelated thread that has nothing to do with this.
It still sounds like you have stuck in your mind that this is supposed to be some sort of indictment of systemd that you're supposed to "accept as criticism". That is totally not the point.
@dalias Fair enough.
