3 ms·

Yep. Pretty much. The setup is that you have your init, which handles startup, shutdown, reaping, and runs your RC. From there, you'll run process montoring for

Yep. Pretty much. The setup is that you have your init, which handles startup, shutdown, reaping, and runs your RC. From there, you'll run process montoring for daemons (this is sometimes integrated into rc, sometimes spun out, resulting in runit, s6, and the rest of the daemontools family). This is sometimes mashed together into one program. Sometimes RC and init are the same, and process monitoring is spun out. But that's the pattern. Most RCs and process managers also have the ability to run as PID 1 if you want them to, and many do. But it's not necessary, and it is a security liability (although not as much of one as systemd, which does so much more than all of this, and which people are trying to expose to the internet directly).

justinsaccount 10y ago
> which people are trying to expose to the internet directly [citation needed].
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  Bows Gladly, good sir. https://cfp.systemd.io/en/systemdconf_2016/public/events/21 https://cfp.systemd.io/en/systemdconf_2016/public/events/21 Sit back, and witness the insanity.
  - justinsaccount 10y ago
    That's funny, because that's the same link referenced in the blog post, where david says: > That presentation is from the Cockpit project, which isn’t part of systemd and doesn’t even share its main developers. It’s as much “remote access to systemd” as using SSH and then invoking systemctl. and then further states in the 2nd blog post: > I certainly don’t buy his original argument (which he hasn’t repeated in his second post) that tools like Cockpit should change the view of systemd. Just like SSH or Remote Desktop in Windows, Cockpit is the tool providing the remote, privileged access; systemd is just on the server listening locally. Blaming systemd for a Cockpit-based compromise is like blaming the “dnf” utility for removing the web server packages after someone gets root over SSH. (Cockpit is neither developed by the systemd team nor installed by default in any distributions.) So.. > Sit back, and witness the insanity. Who is acting insane here? A systemd developer, or people spreading FUD?
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      First off, this doesn't defeat my point: people are trying to connect systemd to the browser. Secondly, no, I wasn't aware it was a separate project, because it didn't initially appear to be. Ordinarily, I'd assume it was, but frankly, at this point, I can totally see Lennart doing this. So yes, systemd isn't at fault, and I did miss it, and, to some degree, spread FUD, for which I am sorry. However, it's still a very silly idea.
      - agwa 10y ago
        No need for you to apologize - you never said systemd was at fault. (Neither did I - the point is that systemd has to be careful with its inputs, since they won't necessarily be coming from someone with root shell access.)

justinsaccount 10y ago

> which people are trying to expose to the internet directly [citation needed].

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Bows Gladly, good sir. https://cfp.systemd.io/en/systemdconf_2016/public/events/21 https://cfp.systemd.io/en/systemdconf_2016/public/events/21 Sit back, and witness the insanity.
- justinsaccount 10y ago
  That's funny, because that's the same link referenced in the blog post, where david says: > That presentation is from the Cockpit project, which isn’t part of systemd and doesn’t even share its main developers. It’s as much “remote access to systemd” as using SSH and then invoking systemctl. and then further states in the 2nd blog post: > I certainly don’t buy his original argument (which he hasn’t repeated in his second post) that tools like Cockpit should change the view of systemd. Just like SSH or Remote Desktop in Windows, Cockpit is the tool providing the remote, privileged access; systemd is just on the server listening locally. Blaming systemd for a Cockpit-based compromise is like blaming the “dnf” utility for removing the web server packages after someone gets root over SSH. (Cockpit is neither developed by the systemd team nor installed by default in any distributions.) So.. > Sit back, and witness the insanity. Who is acting insane here? A systemd developer, or people spreading FUD?
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    First off, this doesn't defeat my point: people are trying to connect systemd to the browser. Secondly, no, I wasn't aware it was a separate project, because it didn't initially appear to be. Ordinarily, I'd assume it was, but frankly, at this point, I can totally see Lennart doing this. So yes, systemd isn't at fault, and I did miss it, and, to some degree, spread FUD, for which I am sorry. However, it's still a very silly idea.
    - agwa 10y ago
      No need for you to apologize - you never said systemd was at fault. (Neither did I - the point is that systemd has to be careful with its inputs, since they won't necessarily be coming from someone with root shell access.)