3 ms·

>"What is so bad about systemd? List of notable bugs and security issues: #437: timeX.google.com provide non standard time #1143: PID1 getting stuck printing

>"What is so bad about systemd? List of notable bugs and security issues: #437: timeX.google.com provide non standard time #1143: PID1 getting stuck printing "systemd[1]: Time has been changed" continuously #1312: restarting systemd service on dependency failure #1596: journalctl -r -n flags incorrectly processed #2402: Mount efivarfs read-only #2460: Showing status of service via systemctl is slow (>10s) if disk journal is used #4863: systemd-journald drops all bytes after '\0' #5644: tmpfiles: R! /dir/.* destroys root #6237: systemd can't handle the process previlege that belongs to user name startswith number, such as 0day #6369: hostnamed does not like fqdns with trailing dots #6381: systemd-cryptsetup: Booting with encrypted root partition fails instantly #6478: `systemctl` should not consider active->failed as a successful operation #6620: services writing to stdout become silent after journal restart #7184: resolved: fix loop on packets with pseudo dns types (CVE-2017-15908) Out-of-Bounds write in systemd-networkd dhcpv6 option handling (CVE-2018-15688) #6078: Applying systemd-networkd configuration disconnects all other interfaces System Down: A systemd-journald exploit (CVE-2018-16864, CVE-2018-16865, and CVE-2018-16866) #11810: Can't suspend again after suspending one time (explanation why this is bad) Systemd user manager interferes with ecryptfs - private directory not being unmounted (also umount of ecryptfs does not automatically clear the keyring and ecryptfs-utils: Private directory not automatically unmounted anymore on logout) Other issues arising around systemd: systemd kill background processes after user logs out (see also: [RFE] add a way to run in a new systemd scope automatically) Don't panic, but Linux's Systemd can be pwned via an evil DNS query Systemd Could Fallback to Google DNS? DNS search domain not removed from resolv.conf on disconnect systemd does not respect system wide resource limits"

peter_d_sherman 6y ago
Interesting... This HN article was upvoted, yet, the above set of text, which is copied-and-pasted verbatim from the article, was downvoted... Now, WHY could that be, I wonder? ? A bit of a paradox; a bit of a contradiction there... Are there two different sets of voters, one for the articles, and another for the comments? ? Or is there maybe a (cough cough) machine-learning algorithm out there in cyberspace somewhere (not run by YCombinator or HN -- perhaps run by an adversarial foreign country or corporation) that auto-downvotes things it doesn't like (key words, key phrases, in this case negative comments about "systemd") -- summoning human aid when needed? ("Houston, we have a problem!" <g> Or the foreign equivalent of that! <g>) ? As was the slogan for "The National Enquirer" (a supermarket tabloid) in the 1980's: "Inquiring Minds Want To Know"...(!) <g> I know that such a thing could exist -- because I know that if I were so inclined to do so -- I could write one myself! As could many other AI/Machine Learning Engineers -- in this day and age! (Note To Future Self: Perhaps I should write an essay about this potential phenomenon...)
- peter_d_sherman 6y ago
  I think I'm going to coin a term here: "AI Gaslighting" <g> It's like, if Phillip K. Dick didn't write a futuristic dystopian novel about that phenomena -- then perhaps he should have! <g>
  - peter_d_sherman 6y ago
    Also -- another observation, if I might... I know HN. I know HN very well, since I've been here a long time... Articles might have a lot of activity if they reach they reach the top of the first page on HN -- but they rapidly fall off from there. Like, it's almost one of these "inverse square" laws... When they fall off, and especially when they're a day old or so (like this article is) -- then usually there's very little activity on that article. No one reads them, no one posts, no one comments, no one cares... Yet, yet, when I posted my previous comment -- within a very short time of that post -- it was downvoted... Coincidence? Or was the article and the messages associated with it being monitored by an AI? In which case it would have much faster response time! Note To Future Self: When designing an online message board -- pay careful attention to the relative popularity of a message chain Vs. the average amount of time in which downvotes/negative comments occur... You see, when there are downvotes or negative messages and they are posted on a non-popular message chain, one that wouldn't have much attention by the majority of people visiting the site, and especially when they occur quickly -- then that's the telltale sign that an AI or bot or other monitoring entity -- may be at work! To the people that write disinformation bots and AI's -- you could at least, have the common courtesy to have your algorithm wait a period of time inversely related to the current popularity of the message chain you are posting on, before responding! To the degree that that's not done (and it apparently isn't!) -- I (a human!) can guess that an AI is at work! <g>

peter_d_sherman 6y ago

Interesting... This HN article was upvoted, yet, the above set of text, which is copied-and-pasted verbatim from the article, was downvoted... Now, WHY could that be, I wonder? ? A bit of a paradox; a bit of a contradiction there... Are there two different sets of voters, one for the articles, and another for the comments? ? Or is there maybe a (cough cough) machine-learning algorithm out there in cyberspace somewhere (not run by YCombinator or HN -- perhaps run by an adversarial foreign country or corporation) that auto-downvotes things it doesn't like (key words, key phrases, in this case negative comments about "systemd") -- summoning human aid when needed? ("Houston, we have a problem!" <g> Or the foreign equivalent of that! <g>) ? As was the slogan for "The National Enquirer" (a supermarket tabloid) in the 1980's: "Inquiring Minds Want To Know"...(!) <g> I know that such a thing could exist -- because I know that if I were so inclined to do so -- I could write one myself! As could many other AI/Machine Learning Engineers -- in this day and age! (Note To Future Self: Perhaps I should write an essay about this potential phenomenon...)

peter_d_sherman 6y ago
I think I'm going to coin a term here: "AI Gaslighting" <g> It's like, if Phillip K. Dick didn't write a futuristic dystopian novel about that phenomena -- then perhaps he should have! <g>
- peter_d_sherman 6y ago
  Also -- another observation, if I might... I know HN. I know HN very well, since I've been here a long time... Articles might have a lot of activity if they reach they reach the top of the first page on HN -- but they rapidly fall off from there. Like, it's almost one of these "inverse square" laws... When they fall off, and especially when they're a day old or so (like this article is) -- then usually there's very little activity on that article. No one reads them, no one posts, no one comments, no one cares... Yet, yet, when I posted my previous comment -- within a very short time of that post -- it was downvoted... Coincidence? Or was the article and the messages associated with it being monitored by an AI? In which case it would have much faster response time! Note To Future Self: When designing an online message board -- pay careful attention to the relative popularity of a message chain Vs. the average amount of time in which downvotes/negative comments occur... You see, when there are downvotes or negative messages and they are posted on a non-popular message chain, one that wouldn't have much attention by the majority of people visiting the site, and especially when they occur quickly -- then that's the telltale sign that an AI or bot or other monitoring entity -- may be at work! To the people that write disinformation bots and AI's -- you could at least, have the common courtesy to have your algorithm wait a period of time inversely related to the current popularity of the message chain you are posting on, before responding! To the degree that that's not done (and it apparently isn't!) -- I (a human!) can guess that an AI is at work! <g>