6 ms·

Well, seems to have worked for us for 20+ years. I wonder where gnome and systemd will be in 20 years? Horses for courses.

by hazeii 7y ago

xyproto 7y ago
Systemd can do things that were not relevant 20 years ago.
- evgen 7y ago
  Like introducing an RCE into your init system.
  - bonzini 7y ago
    Link?
    - corprew 7y ago
      CVE-2017-15908
      - the_why_of_y 7y ago
        https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-15908 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-15908 says this is a infinite loop DoS in systemd-resolved, so it can't be the (hypothetical) bug described by the GP since it's neither a RCE nor in systemd PID1.
    - hazeii 7y ago
      Possibly the IPv6 packet one, CVE-2018-15688? [0] A basic buffer overflow in systemd meant oversized network packets could be used for DoS or "potential code execution". [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/26/systemd_dhcpv6_rce/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/26/systemd_dhcpv6_rce/
      - bonzini 7y ago
        Good one but not in PID 1, in fact networkd is probably the "most optional" of all systemd components.
- castis 7y ago
  That's true but what we're hoping for is that Debian doesn't change things so much that sysvinit is unusable. Systemd does have its advantages but some people _like_ sysvinit.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    > but some people _like_ sysvinit Is that really true, or is it just that some people have a grudge against systemd and sysvinit is the only other practical option?
    - johnr2 7y ago
      >> but some people _like_ sysvinit > Is that really true Yes
      - IntelMiner 7y ago
        Forgive me if it sounds like I'm trying to bait into an argument, but Why? What is the appeal of writing immensely long, fragile shell scripts? Having to wrap them in various monitoring and logging daemons Having to have different ones for every distro you want to support with your software Is this something that is truly a productive use of your time? Putting aside the question of if systemd is "good" or not. Is the current sysvinit system truly "good enough" and not in need of change?
        yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
        > Is the current sysvinit system truly "good enough" and not in need of change? Something having been used for decades certainly doesn't mean that it's optimal and shouldn't be changed, but it does strongly suggest that it's good enough.
        johnr2 7y ago
        > Is the current sysvinit system truly "good enough" and not in need of change? For me it's relative and a case of "the devil I know". I actually prefer BSD-style init to sysvinit, but I've used the latter for ~20 years. I'm aware that traditional init systems may not meet the requirements of certain users (eg. those who run very large server installations), but for my simple use case (small servers and workstations) they do the job. I'm not against change per se; I'm running Void (with runit) on one of my systems, and the desktop I'm using to post this runs OpenBSD.
- johnr2 7y ago
  > Systemd can do things that were not relevant 20 years ago. Yes, "horses for courses" as stated in the post you're replying to. I don't require systemd, but I have no problem with it existing for those who do need it. I do have a problem with the idea that something that works better for me should be removed merely because it's "old".
  - 1_player 7y ago
    And this is why improving anything on the Linux ecosystem is a nightmare. What do other init systems do that systemd doesn’t? It might have had a controversial history, but it’s here to stay. Just deal with it.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      Because the Linux community is not made up of product managers. It's full of software developers each who thinks their way is the best. Distros, maintainers and users will always be fighting political battles.
    - johnr2 7y ago
      > What do other init systems do that systemd doesn’t? If they're script based, they allow lower level troubleshooting and modification without having to recompile.
      - andrewshadura 7y ago
        That's an illusion. systemd is written in a language that is easier than shell to get right, and it's capable of things very few script-based init systems are capable of, so in practice it's very rare that the code of the init system itself needs to be debugged. It's basically rock solid compared to sysv-rc.
        johnr2 7y ago
        > systemd is written in a language that is easier than shell to get right You might regard C as easier than shell to get right (that's debateable), but systemd has many many more lines of source code than sysvinit. Good luck debugging it at source code level on a remote system if that "very rare" event occurs.
keymone 7y ago
> The GNOME Project > Founded August 1997; 22 years ago
- hazeii 7y ago
  Our oldest running systems are from 1994 (previous to that date we only used linux for special projects).
  - alfiedotwtf 7y ago
    Curious as to what systems you're running... your HN bio sounds like an interesting backstory
    - hazeii 7y ago
      In this case, telecomms hardware (there may be older systems out there that are off support). Uptimes are often into years; we used to have systems that would run in 8Mb of RAM though the oldest I know of now has 32Mb :)
      - planck01 7y ago
        Uptime of years? How does that work, security wise?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        cuspycode 7y ago
        Security patches don't necessarily affect uptime. For example, patching and replacing e.g. libc on a live system is entirely possible, even though it's not the standard procedure.
        ac29 7y ago
        Its quite possible that for systems that old, there are no updates even available. Its also possible the systems have no route to the internet, which while not making them immune from compromise, certainly makes it more difficult.
pojntfx 7y ago
GNOME is literally 22 years old (1997).

Well, seems to have worked for us for 20+ years. I wonder where gnome and systemd will be in 20 years? Horses for courses.

by hazeii 7y ago

Well, seems to have worked for us for 20+ years. I wonder where gnome and systemd will be in 20 years? Horses for courses.

xyproto 7y ago

Systemd can do things that were not relevant 20 years ago.

evgen 7y ago
Like introducing an RCE into your init system.
- bonzini 7y ago
  Link?
  - corprew 7y ago
    CVE-2017-15908
    - the_why_of_y 7y ago
      https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-15908 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-15908 says this is a infinite loop DoS in systemd-resolved, so it can't be the (hypothetical) bug described by the GP since it's neither a RCE nor in systemd PID1.
  - hazeii 7y ago
    Possibly the IPv6 packet one, CVE-2018-15688? [0] A basic buffer overflow in systemd meant oversized network packets could be used for DoS or "potential code execution". [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/26/systemd_dhcpv6_rce/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/26/systemd_dhcpv6_rce/
    - bonzini 7y ago
      Good one but not in PID 1, in fact networkd is probably the "most optional" of all systemd components.
castis 7y ago
That's true but what we're hoping for is that Debian doesn't change things so much that sysvinit is unusable. Systemd does have its advantages but some people _like_ sysvinit.
- shawnz 7y ago
  > but some people _like_ sysvinit Is that really true, or is it just that some people have a grudge against systemd and sysvinit is the only other practical option?
  - johnr2 7y ago
    >> but some people _like_ sysvinit > Is that really true Yes
    - IntelMiner 7y ago
      Forgive me if it sounds like I'm trying to bait into an argument, but Why? What is the appeal of writing immensely long, fragile shell scripts? Having to wrap them in various monitoring and logging daemons Having to have different ones for every distro you want to support with your software Is this something that is truly a productive use of your time? Putting aside the question of if systemd is "good" or not. Is the current sysvinit system truly "good enough" and not in need of change?
      - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
        > Is the current sysvinit system truly "good enough" and not in need of change? Something having been used for decades certainly doesn't mean that it's optimal and shouldn't be changed, but it does strongly suggest that it's good enough.
      - johnr2 7y ago
        > Is the current sysvinit system truly "good enough" and not in need of change? For me it's relative and a case of "the devil I know". I actually prefer BSD-style init to sysvinit, but I've used the latter for ~20 years. I'm aware that traditional init systems may not meet the requirements of certain users (eg. those who run very large server installations), but for my simple use case (small servers and workstations) they do the job. I'm not against change per se; I'm running Void (with runit) on one of my systems, and the desktop I'm using to post this runs OpenBSD.
johnr2 7y ago
> Systemd can do things that were not relevant 20 years ago. Yes, "horses for courses" as stated in the post you're replying to. I don't require systemd, but I have no problem with it existing for those who do need it. I do have a problem with the idea that something that works better for me should be removed merely because it's "old".
- 1_player 7y ago
  And this is why improving anything on the Linux ecosystem is a nightmare. What do other init systems do that systemd doesn’t? It might have had a controversial history, but it’s here to stay. Just deal with it.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Because the Linux community is not made up of product managers. It's full of software developers each who thinks their way is the best. Distros, maintainers and users will always be fighting political battles.
  - johnr2 7y ago
    > What do other init systems do that systemd doesn’t? If they're script based, they allow lower level troubleshooting and modification without having to recompile.
    - andrewshadura 7y ago
      That's an illusion. systemd is written in a language that is easier than shell to get right, and it's capable of things very few script-based init systems are capable of, so in practice it's very rare that the code of the init system itself needs to be debugged. It's basically rock solid compared to sysv-rc.
      - johnr2 7y ago
        > systemd is written in a language that is easier than shell to get right You might regard C as easier than shell to get right (that's debateable), but systemd has many many more lines of source code than sysvinit. Good luck debugging it at source code level on a remote system if that "very rare" event occurs.

keymone 7y ago

> The GNOME Project > Founded August 1997; 22 years ago

hazeii 7y ago
Our oldest running systems are from 1994 (previous to that date we only used linux for special projects).
- alfiedotwtf 7y ago
  Curious as to what systems you're running... your HN bio sounds like an interesting backstory
  - hazeii 7y ago
    In this case, telecomms hardware (there may be older systems out there that are off support). Uptimes are often into years; we used to have systems that would run in 8Mb of RAM though the oldest I know of now has 32Mb :)
    - planck01 7y ago
      Uptime of years? How does that work, security wise?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - cuspycode 7y ago
        Security patches don't necessarily affect uptime. For example, patching and replacing e.g. libc on a live system is entirely possible, even though it's not the standard procedure.
      - ac29 7y ago
        Its quite possible that for systems that old, there are no updates even available. Its also possible the systems have no route to the internet, which while not making them immune from compromise, certainly makes it more difficult.

pojntfx 7y ago

GNOME is literally 22 years old (1997).