I am surprised over all the effort given to the systemd-api. Are any of you guys actually _using_ the api? Does it matter if the library functions are public or non-public?
Personally, it scares the sh?t out of me that it (ie systemd) presents a single attack-vector - and so should you all. Next in line - binary (and broken when things break/go awry) journals. And no - I have not scrutinized the code (and yes, I _am_ a c-programmer first and foremost, script-kiddie next and sysadm for more years than I care to remember) - what concerns me more than code quality is the haughtiness of the devs and their attitude to problems/bugs - and then they want to take over the world. I know none of you will ever ask _my_ opinion on it - so I'll give it to you for free. I wouldn't touch systemd with even a red hot poker. |
Quote:
Does Slackware need PAM to compete with other Server grade distributions? No it doesn't because you have all the tools to add PAM yourself, and there's tons of examples out there for setting it up. Does Slackware need systemd to be a modern distribution? No it doesn't because systemd isn't even near completion yet in terms, and Slackware already is modern with it's packages and strong community support levels. So what does Slackware need? Nothing but a willingness to learn to do for yourself with the tools provided. There's no problem with creating optional packages, but when someone tries to push optional as required, it's going to draw criticism, and it could be harsh. |
Systemd is a constitutional change. If this were politics you'd need an Amendment to get it accepted. Yet here we are having it applied by a few to the majority. This is rather familiar territory - large changes forced on the majority, at the behest of a minority, with all debate shut down or reduced to rock chucking matches. This is how politics is now run, it's therefore of little surprise that its bleeding into software - after all, it's the Corporate influence that has led to this situation, whether in politics or software.
|
Quote:
The handful of people that here explaining the world how a Linux system has to be, from which most of course do not even spend their most time on Linux, floating each thread here with their FUD, paranoia, simple nonsense and technical incompetence are a shame for Slackware. If you want to bring Slackware user into a bad light you need just to quote from this thread was several people have written here, how embarrassing. You think you do something good to Slackware and Linunx, acting like radical ultra orthodox fanatics, arguing with FUD, paranoia, technical incompetence and strong cool language, scaring away everyone who is not on your radical trip? how disgusting, but of course you will have success. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Some interesting points in the article. |
Quote:
You are ignoring the use-case for PAM. If you have the time to tinker with your Slackware system and add PAM in a meaningful way, then that is not trivial, takes time, and introduces a maintenance burden because your computer may refuse to let you in after any official Slackware update if the "wrong" package gets updated and you did not notice. Also, this is a typical case where you are not going to have any use for PAM, since tinkering usually means, you are dealing with a single-user system. Requiring someone like kikinovak to add PAM himself seems reasonable, because he can make a decision between the added work load of maintaining out-of-tree Slackware packages versus the increased functionality he can offer his customers (aka increasing revenue). Still, this strategy will introduce "islands" of non-standard Slackware setups that are hard to troubleshoot because if you post your issues here at LQ, none of us will be able to help because of the unknown implementation. PAM is not evil despite rumors of the past. If implemented in a proper way, it will not add complexity to your computer. In its simplest implementation, you can just continue with your user management the way you are used even with PAM inbetween, while allowing others to add more complex authentication schemes without having to rebuild several core packages. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Cheers |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:43 AM. |