Actually I was hoping you would "get" the message as it was directed at you specifically.

From various responses I hoped you would by now realize this but I guess I could throw in some suggestions while I'm at it: please lurk before you post, read up on all things slackware (I'm talking months not minutes) and phrase things to actually show you grok slackware philosophy and please avoid posting anything other than strictly technical questions and replies and do so without referring to anything that is not directly related to the thread topic.
Please make an effort.

Thanks in advance.

Maybe this has been an Achilles heel of Linux that has finally been abused enough for people to take some notice, but wasn't apparent.

Standards are created to protect the wide range of interests of the whole, not just the one and the few. When you uphold standards, you set in motion the means to preserve things with great clarity and ensure that things that aren't standardized and compliant with those standards, or even compatible with them, are not given grounds to create a quagmire of issues.

Because, in my opinion only, many Linux distributions have chosen to fore-go POSIX compliance, things like systemd, which are not even compatible with POSIX nor complaint, are allowed to flourish and grow and create an atmosphere where people say standards don't matter, when they should matter. If people are willing to fore-go one standard, who's to say what is next? dare I say this, but... if people are willing to not adhere to even basic standards like POSIX, would they be willing to violate a licensing agreement like GPLv3 and such stating, "Licenses hold back progress so we don't need to abide by them. Progress is only what matters, not an outdated agreement that serves no purpose but to hinder."

Would, if given a fair chance, anyone be willing to violate a license for the sake that their argument that "progress is being held back makes the license invalid and useless" and openly do so?

I think they would, because in their mind, a license is meaningless, just like a standard.

While most Linux distributions trend to follow the Linux Base Standard which follows guidelines that are compatible with POSIX and SUS, this specification is not sturdy enough, at least in my opinion, to ensure and enforce standards remain intact and compliant with and compatible with SUS and POSIX.

Maybe the LBS is not enforceable because people let it get that way and the LBS needs desperately to be rewritten to be compliant and compatible with SUS and POSIX standards and actively enforced by the Linux community at large.

RPM is not part of the POSIX standard.

RPM is recommended in the Linux Standards Base, but it is not required to be the default package manager of LSB-compliant distro. With regard to RPM support, both Debian and Slackware satisfy the LSB specification (with 'alien' and 'rpm2tgz' respectively). Neither Debian nor Slackware claim to be LSB-complaint.

GNOME 3 was a failure and the bazaar already works it out. That is the advantage of having everything open source.

They may be people in the "free desktop" ecosystem, who in their hybris really think, they can force something on anyone: "This is now your desktop, deal with it." Then I say: "No, I just ignore you like everybody else." It may be hard to move away from Windows or Android due to market power, but I perfectly can live a life without ever knowing about the existence of GNOME. In the big picture, they are almost irrelevant.

From my understanding of Slackware Philosophy of LQ (Not Patricks Slackware Philosophy) is this:

1- Don't compare Slackware to anything.
2- Don't criticize anything of Slackware.
3- Don't respond back to others that disrespect you or call you out
4- Don't disagree with anything Slackware people want
5- Hate Systemd, Pulseaudio, Lennart, Red Hat, Microsoft... etc.
5- Get attacked by a mob of posters with ridiculous comments that make no sense
6- Get called a troll when they fail to put you down otherwise

Am I right? What else am I missing?

I don't want to say everyone is like this but many are.

Mercury, I've long realized that criticizing stuff online leads to negative reactions, not matter what you criticize.

Give it a break, please. I think we've all got the point now. Let us agree to disagree and stop bickering. This being the Slackware forum, you're bound to come across people who see your posts in a negative light. I don't see how that can be equated with "philosophy" of anything.

For your information, I'm not pro-Slackware or anti-Slackware myself. Ask a few long-time members of this forum of how, once upon a time, I used to criticize Slackware (even if mildly) and get similar reactions. It's not worth the negativity.

P.S. Even being pro-Debian sometimes irritates a lot of Slackware users. I've learned to ignore it and to be honest, unless you provoke the issue first, nobody cares what you think.

Violating a copyright is not just non-conformance but a violation of the law. I am quite sure that the EFF (and possibly others) would jump at the chance to fight back over such activities to protect open source licenses. Unless you're operating out of China, you can't just ignore copyright issues.

1. You can compare Slackware with other distributions but please be respectful to Slackware and with the other distribution in question.

2. Criticism is welcome as long as it's constructive criticism, not destructive.

3. Respect should be freely given and wanted, but never expected as a right.

4. Everyone is free to agree and disagree with what gets added or removed from Slackware, but stand with some foundation in what is best for all, not just the few or the one.

5. We don't hate Lennart, Red Hat, etc. we just despise the commercialism, egocentric attitudes, and willingness to abandon principles and foundations that have made Linux successful not just as it's own brand and type of operating system, but the willingness to obscure the fact Linux has contributed to BSD, UNIX, etc just as much as they have contributed to it.

6. Making remarks without foundation and with willful malice towards the community and a person is what it is. A lot of stuff also doesn't need constant references as much of it is common sense. Nobody really enforces topics and posts to where everything has to be formatted and posted like a research paper with APA format to include citations and quotes.

Mercury, most of what LQ is... it's about using common sense and seeing what is not is a truth, but is a fact. Truths can be lies just as lies can be truths. Facts and evidence, to quote from the TV show CSI, are what they are facts and evidence. Common sense tells you what logic and reason should prove in facts and show up in evidence. And often to get a clearer picture you have to see the meanings within meanings. Often an ulterior motive is not right there in front of you, but hidden so you have to keep digging. However, people tend to sugarcoat the truth to make it appear factual, but often it isn't factual and isn't founded well. That's where you have to use common sense, logic, and reasoning to formulate and find the facts and the evidence that supports them.

I don't think this thread will ever die. To prove the point I'm adding this post.

The fact is, too many people see too many flaws in the implementation of systemd to make it universally practical. People see things like:

- unwanted bulk added to the system

- additional unneeded resource usage

- the fact systemd is created by the same ego-driven author of PulseAudio (that openly stated BSD is outdated when we all know Linux, BSD and all other UNIX variants have equally contributed to each other) who works for Red Hat who is the Microsoft clone in the Linux world

- and the fact that systemd is tied specifically to Linux and is not compatible with any other UNIX variant system or kernel.

Users of Linux, network engineers, and systems admins have all seen the good and the bad systemd brings and for many of them, it's more bad than good. The only real good feature people have seen is the speed improvement, and for many that's not a valid selling point. The usage of system resources that should not be accessed without permissions is troublesome, and the expectation that using overbloated RAM intensive initramfs files for booting split /usr partitions means more work and complexity that isn't following the principles of simplicity.

Many have stated the opinion centering around the fact that if systemd was a real replacement for sysvinit, bsdinit, upstart, etc. that worked across the board with all flavors of UNIX and UNIX-like systems, wasn't bulky, bloated, and didn't tie down the system and overtake all it's functions, it might have been seen as a professional project and not a blatant attempt at the aforementioned attempt to cut of Linux from UNIX completely.

However Mercury, the facts are in, the evidence is clear, and the voices and opinions of the community have a majority stating that simply... systemd is just not wanted because it's harmful to Linux, and logically by the points made against it with effective reasoning, it just is not helpful in the long term to be a valid solution to a problem that does not exist.

The fact that this is a forum for technical discussions around the Slackware Linux distribution. Not your private interactive logotherapy.

By "technical discussion", people here generally understand that 1) you want to achieve something, like sharing files, getting your wireless to work, connect to your printer shares, then 2) you've done your homework and documented yourself a little bit, like googling for the subjects, reading (printed) books about the matter, or at the least asked for some documentation pointers on this forum, and finally 3) ask on this forum about the things you still don't understand after RTFM.

By "technical discussion", people here generally do not understand your average rant in the spirit of a bar conversation about the respective merits of cars / football clubs / girls / Linux distributions.

This leaves you with three things to do.

1) Ask yourself what it is you want to do with your computer.

2) Read the documentation.

3) After (1) and (2) ask precise questions.

Thank you for getting the message.

A member for one full month and you know all that already?

Fast learner.

It has come to the stage Mercury that I no longer enjoy visiting this forum because of your spamming, and I was about to give up until a moderator finally intervened. It's quite obvious you have been deliberately dragging the conversation down, either because you're an attention grabber and you think spamming conversations with inane and tedious drivel is funny or you're on the payroll of a business who feel the need to attack smaller operators like Slackware. You say you want to learn this, that and the other (and everything in-between) but you spend none of your time learning and all of your time here posting. You've already posted more in one month than I and many others have in three years.

Take the moderator's advice and go away to think about what you're doing. If you have a genuine interest in learning Slackware and/or programming take your questions here and people will answer them. If you're here just to wind everyone up then do it somewhere else. There are many, many places on the internet where people with idle minds who enjoy this kind of thing fit in nicely.

So... on systemd

After reading the code (still looking through it, but I have other stuff to do) I think the FSS scheme in systemd changes its sealing key at fixed times, like at 21:00, 21:15, 21:30 instead of 21:03, 21:18, 21:33. The 15 minutes is compiled in.

Therefore
1. Someone hacks into a systemd computer with FSS turned on.
2. They store the sealing key before it changes.
3. They replace the journal system with a modified one, since it's an optional component.
4. Recreate whatever log entries they want for that time period and use the stored sealing key to make the logs "authentic".
5. Administrators believe everything is fine when they verify using the verification key.

If I've not misunderstood the code, then doesn't this scheme just provide a false sense of security? Perhaps someone else can also take a look at the code and tell me whether they come to the same conclusion I have.

In the short term I would not like to see systemd in Slackware since it is still being modified at a much too rapid pace. In the long term I'm not so sure, I do hope systemd does not become the only usable init system in Linux.

I think we have already established there is room for improvement.
Some members added helpful suggestions (thanks).
Your suggestion is not constructive and not respectful and besides conspiracy theories have no place here.
Do not do that again.

That can never happen, even if all the DE people want it to, there are always going to be hackers out there that will hack some patches together that will make KDE,GNOME and the like work with init... this whole systemd thing is a bad idea, but just because someone has an idea doesn't make it standard no matter who adopts it. RPM is still considered the Linux package manager, but how many distro's use it? a few? 10 maybe? Look at LILO vs GRUB... how many battles has that lead to.. guess what? Both are still used, why? Because it doesn't matter which software tyrant wants to force their idea on to you... The choice is yours at the end of the day.

I don't agree with somethings that were removed from Slackware or changed, so I "fixed" them to my liking, is Pat going to come to my house and take my computer away because my install of slackware is custom? I think not! So then who cares, Pat's obviously not going to do the systemd thing so why the worry and even if he does, you can bet he won't just throw init right out.

It's not like the kernel devs are going to stop init from booting the system, and even if they do, that can be patched, and fixed so really who cares about systemd, let them play with it in their own, if they like it, good for them, if not init is another choice.