3 ms·

systemd already has encrypted boot support. I suppose when you rip something out you have to reinvent all its functions. At that point, any rational person woul

systemd already has encrypted boot support. I suppose when you rip something out you have to reinvent all its functions. At that point, any rational person would question the reasons for doing so. Like removing the transmission from a car out of spite then realizing you need a way to switch gears.

jeffrallen 2y ago
Or ripping the combustion engine out to make a better car with electric and then realizing you ALSO don't need the transmission!
- imp0cat 2y ago
  And then later finding out that a transmission in an electric car will help you both with top speed and mileage, so you have to put it back. This is just the same old "systemd sucks, let's rip it out" and then later reinvent everything it provides, because it was needed. Also commonly known as reinventing the wheel, the curse of any IT project.
  - wtetzner 2y ago
    > Also commonly known as reinventing the wheel, the curse of any IT project. Continuing with the vehicle metaphors, the wheel has been reinvented many times for different purposes. The wheel on a tractor is different from that of a Formula One car.
tinyrichard 2y ago
So removing a transmission and installing/testing/improving a new design or way to solve the problem that hasn't been popularized isn't a worthy cause? How do you think we developed the first transmission? Or the various improvements we all take for granted these days? Yes, systemd can do this, but that isn't a reason to imply developing an alternative that can do the same, albeit in a different way, is irrational.
geocar 2y ago
> systemd already has encrypted boot support. It has all of those words next to a bullet point, but the implementation is quite different, and I (like the presenter and probably many many others who are clearly not you) have more confidence in a simple fuse than with systemd[1]. [1]: https://app.opencve.io/cve/?vendor=systemd_project&product=systemd https://app.opencve.io/cve/?vendor=systemd_project&product=s... > At that point, any rational person would question the reasons for doing so. That is excellent advice. The presenter has done something you clearly cannot. You should be rational, follow your own advice, and try to figure out what those reasons are (hint: some of them are actually in the video). That might take a few hours to a few weeks of reading depending on your own experiences, and that's just how life is sometimes. > Like removing the transmission from a car out of spite then realizing you need a way to switch gears. When I have a new gadget I want to produce, I'm responsible for all of the code in it, so productivity, reliability, performance, and size are important to me whether I have written the code or I have merely used it in my product. I do not understand the way these things are important to the systemd people (or even if they are important at all), so for me, systemd is off-the-table to begin with. Or to put it another way: I never needed a car in the first place, because I'm making boats, and I'm not starting with a car just because I like the people who made the engine. Ignoring "solved problems" can just make everything more expensive, and maybe I only know that because I've seen enough people make that mistake, but sometimes this is true. Keeping an open mind means allowing yourself to be convinced too.
- bythreads 2y ago
  Hear hear!, It's like flogging packages and frameworks at a problem without ever considering if it was easier/more efficient to roll your own.
  - acka 2y ago
    I hope this lesson has become clear more clear with the recent deepseek upset. That proved that simply throwing more money and hard to wear at a problem doesn't guarantee a better outcome, innovation seems to favor the opposite. As as Germans say the German saying goes: "
- 2y ago
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
See this is how we end up with things like electron.

jeffrallen 2y ago

Or ripping the combustion engine out to make a better car with electric and then realizing you ALSO don't need the transmission!

imp0cat 2y ago
And then later finding out that a transmission in an electric car will help you both with top speed and mileage, so you have to put it back. This is just the same old "systemd sucks, let's rip it out" and then later reinvent everything it provides, because it was needed. Also commonly known as reinventing the wheel, the curse of any IT project.
- wtetzner 2y ago
  > Also commonly known as reinventing the wheel, the curse of any IT project. Continuing with the vehicle metaphors, the wheel has been reinvented many times for different purposes. The wheel on a tractor is different from that of a Formula One car.

tinyrichard 2y ago

So removing a transmission and installing/testing/improving a new design or way to solve the problem that hasn't been popularized isn't a worthy cause? How do you think we developed the first transmission? Or the various improvements we all take for granted these days? Yes, systemd can do this, but that isn't a reason to imply developing an alternative that can do the same, albeit in a different way, is irrational.

geocar 2y ago

> systemd already has encrypted boot support. It has all of those words next to a bullet point, but the implementation is quite different, and I (like the presenter and probably many many others who are clearly not you) have more confidence in a simple fuse than with systemd[1]. [1]: https://app.opencve.io/cve/?vendor=systemd_project&product=systemd https://app.opencve.io/cve/?vendor=systemd_project&product=s... > At that point, any rational person would question the reasons for doing so. That is excellent advice. The presenter has done something you clearly cannot. You should be rational, follow your own advice, and try to figure out what those reasons are (hint: some of them are actually in the video). That might take a few hours to a few weeks of reading depending on your own experiences, and that's just how life is sometimes. > Like removing the transmission from a car out of spite then realizing you need a way to switch gears. When I have a new gadget I want to produce, I'm responsible for all of the code in it, so productivity, reliability, performance, and size are important to me whether I have written the code or I have merely used it in my product. I do not understand the way these things are important to the systemd people (or even if they are important at all), so for me, systemd is off-the-table to begin with. Or to put it another way: I never needed a car in the first place, because I'm making boats, and I'm not starting with a car just because I like the people who made the engine. Ignoring "solved problems" can just make everything more expensive, and maybe I only know that because I've seen enough people make that mistake, but sometimes this is true. Keeping an open mind means allowing yourself to be convinced too.

bythreads 2y ago
Hear hear!, It's like flogging packages and frameworks at a problem without ever considering if it was easier/more efficient to roll your own.
- acka 2y ago
  I hope this lesson has become clear more clear with the recent deepseek upset. That proved that simply throwing more money and hard to wear at a problem doesn't guarantee a better outcome, innovation seems to favor the opposite. As as Germans say the German saying goes: "
2y ago

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

See this is how we end up with things like electron.