Yet he is the one resorting to insults. Is a4z responsible for making sure the LQ members do not insult LP?

by making GNU dependent on their init/OS. Imagine if Kelloggs became the patent owner of corn (all corn) and they decided to alter the DNA of corn and since they own the worldwide patent on all corn now your tortillas must be made with their altered corn or else its a lawsuit for your company. Oh wait, thats Monsanto not Kelloggs.

By making Gnome and the guts of GNU dependent on systemd, ipso facto Linux distros are also, with the exception of some.

2 members found this post helpful.

Bad designs are just what they are, bad.

However, just like any knowledgeable security tech specialist would tell you, this design is like a screen door on a house with no main door, and only a flimsy lock to keep intruders out, and the door is made of cheap aluminium, not hardened steel.

I'm just wondering how more this madness is going to be allowed before we end up with a full fork of the project to reestablish some sane boundaries that should and shouldn't be crossed.

2 members found this post helpful.

There was a fork. It was called uselessd: http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/

It died.

1 members found this post helpful.

Uselessd aimed at the init structure only. It didn't so much die, it just got to a point where further work was a bit mundane. There is minor work on the svn tree just about the same as sysvinit gets. Though honestly most init systems get to a point where maintenance is the only recourse.

2 members found this post helpful.

than discuss, just for one example, bind .it is actually part of Slackware
https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-00913/...ty-Matrix.html
You don't? requires to much of understanding than you systemd copy and past concerns?


not even close to true, or how is it than possible that recently just the 3rd gnome Slackware project was started?

and it is not Red Hat that makes software dependen to systemd, it is the developers that find that convinient,
and if you do not like that, its open source, fork, make it better, and than talk.
You can not, right, because this would need more skills than writing nonsense into forums. But I understand your frustration, I feel sorry for you.

1 members found this post helpful.

To ask why we're not talking about bind instead of systemd is really a nonsense question to ask; and your added insult at the end of your comment here reminds me of a youtube video, I once seen, where Lennart Poettering insults anyone who is opposed to systemd or even has concerns of any serious nature.

e

if you can not map the relation of discussion about security issue of systemd to those to bind and the post of ChuangTzu because it is more important for you to show me that you are unable to get the point than I feel also sorry for you.

Edit:
btw, like with the last systemd thread I will report this now for a removal from the Slackware forum since this topic has 0 Slackware realtion. hope the mods will either close this, or move it to the general section where is should have been from the very begin

Well, then no need to feel sorry for me, because, I could choose to do that, yet, I intelligently choose not to.

I keep seeing you pop up in Slackware threads armed with insults; maybe its time to grow up a little bit?

1 members found this post helpful.

Why? The thread was created because LP talks about Slackware and that makes it relevant to this forum. It should not be moved.

You were the very first in this particular thread to start the flamewar which then naturally degraded into a systemd discussion. But be aware that systemd was not mentioned until you started messing with this thread, calling someone a Grossmaul - which is a derogatory if not insulting word for anyone who speaks german.
You should really grow up and stop fuelling the controversy. You can simply try NOT to write comments.

7 members found this post helpful.

LP talked not about Slackware, in this interview, he was asked how he came to linx, so Slackware is not even 1% of the talk.
may I remind you on post #5
it was this stupid floppies ... yea, but I guess bashing and flaming on this level is ok for you

May I remind you of the first post. It introduces the interview to us, Slackware users, because Lennart talks about Slackware, calls it crazy and difficult, being stupid because it installs from floppies, and admits that he never was able to start X until he installed Redhat 5. Relevant in a Slackware context to me and many others.
Also, Kikinovak commented on Lennart's general stance - he did not target you. You on the other hand lashed out with personal insults towards kikinovak. You started the downhill action. What did you expect about how this discussion would continue?

3 members found this post helpful.

It's called a "block/ignore user" feature for a reason...

well, you can take it personal, and than its for me paranoid, since the few seconds are about a 'first Linux experience 1995'.
that Slackware was in the context is unimportant, and making such a story out of this show only
a)how important some Slackware users would like their distro to be.
or
b)a level of paranoia which is unhealthy

and than there is still the fact the most flaming is here is still not from me against users here but from users against others not even reading this forum or tech not even being part of Slackware , so totally OT.

That's why I think this topic is OT since post 5, it is not about how beginner (un(friendly is Slackware or how did this change over the years, or similar, but the same brainless bashing as always. But of course, this is OK for some sect members, but not when you point on this fact. this is downhill action. well, no downhill action required, hail PV users will do this for this anyway, just an other proven fact.

There's a big difference between bind having security flaws (as many programs will) vs PID1, which is a conglomeration of many programs, having a serious flaw that any authenticated unprivileged user can take down the whole system.

In this thread, I haven't really noticed any discussion on the merits of whether systemd is beneficial or not (like many other systemd threads on this forum)... but it was brought up that the security implications of having so many things running as PID1 is problematic. Surely, even you can see how that can be bad from a security standpoint. Programs should ideally be sandboxed from each other to prevent one program from taking down another. systemd threw that out the window and tried to add many programs all together.

To take that to your bind example, what if bind also had control of your processes, logging, device creation, user authentication, system time, etc... now imagine all those bind security issues you linked to. It is possible that something that would normally just affect DNS stuff when bind, the normal program, has issues, now could bleed over into other portions of bind, the super program, and now prevent you from logging in to your machine, or from creating your /dev/sr0 device, or updating the system time, or to prevent new process creation... etc.

3 members found this post helpful.