3 ms·
Ubuntu oozes over debian like a parasitic malaise of vile chicanery. Their entire goal is to, essentially, use the work of untold millions, provided for free,
by b112 8mo ago
Ubuntu oozes over debian like a parasitic malaise of vile chicanery. Their entire goal is to, essentially, use the work of untold millions, provided for free, to build their own cathedral.
People complain about AWS and others taking OSS projects and profiting wildly off them, but they're all children compared to the machinations of Ubuntu.
It's been this way from the start. The constant conflict of interest, where Ubuntu devs manipulate debian democratic processes, and the inclusion of systemd and its ridiculous swiss-army-knife implementation of an init system and surrounding tools.
You ever see those knives, the huge ones, with a screwdriver, plyers, and 100 other tools on them? Thing is, they're all crap. They work for an odd case, but you always need to reach for a real tool.
That's systemd. Whether systemd-timesync, its dns services, or anything else it does, it's kiddie time. Barely functional, broken in inane ways, and leaving any professional in a situation of endless masking of a myriad of barely cogent and horribly malign services.
We didn't gain anything with systemd, except for an init system 1000 times larger, codebase wise, and a collection of tools you have to replace anyhow.
And now these guys want to do Amutable. I hope they fail, for if they succeed, they will sink us further into this absurd system. Systemd for death. For despair. For dislike. For dumb. For disregard, devilment, debased, disturbed, systemd is all these things, and more, all packaged for you, all presented to you, all given to you, to all of us, dragging us down, destroying us.
If there is an apocalypse, it'll be somehow some bug in systemd that causes it. Nukes will fly due to its broken code, viral containment systems will fail due to buffer overruns in its code, systemd is the end-of-world waiting to happen, its over-complicated, poorly written code a guillotine waiting to fall upon us all.
I run thousands of sysvinit, and thousands of systemd systems.
Which ones, do you think, have the worse record of "something stupid" bringing down a service, a machine, preventing a boot up, you name it, it's systemd.
I swear to God that Trump exists because of systemd somehow. I place all the ills, perils, at the feet of systemd. It represents everything wrong in the tech ecosystem, its tendrils spreading dark, deep disturbing dreams of madness through all it touches.
Just learning how to use systemd, destroys the logic centres of the mind, rendering advocates incapable of productive work.
All wrong and ill that befalls this world, is at its feet.
I suspect through some incomprehensible twist of fate, the entire fabric of the universe may unravel, undoing all that is, and ever was. All lost, all gone, all because of systemd.
I am beginning to suspect I dislike systemd.
(Send $19.95 to my address, if you wish to subscribe to my newsletter, and hear my REAL, UNFILTERED opinions about systemd)
- imtringued 8mo agoI could have gotten behind the first three paragraphs until you started mentioning systemd. After that everything you've written sounds like the rambling of a crazy person. systemd won the init system wars because it is pretty damn good from a technical perspective. The competition didn't even try to participate. >Barely functional, broken in inane ways, and leaving any professional in a situation of endless masking of a myriad of barely cogent and horribly malign services. Everything you're complaining about was even more true of previous init systems and barely true for systemd at all. Meanwhile Ubuntu is a garbage fire from a technical perspective. Snaps are garbage and forced down your throat.
- b112 8mo agosystemd won because of politics, and absolutely nothing more. Debian, the root of the most used tree of Linux distros, only adopted systemd due to pressure from Redhat/Gnome, and threats that if it didn't? Gnome would no longer work on Debian. Understand, that many of the issues "resolved" by systemd, were redhat issues. And further, not even init issues. For example, the most predominant being "predictable NIC names", which were already a thing with Debian. Or bootup times, of which Debian had excellent parallelization and boot times of a similar scope to how "fast" systemd was. There's really nothing good, from a technical perspective, when something is enlarged 1000x the requirement. If you look at the code for sysvinit, it's maybe 10k lines. Systemd is > 1M lines of code, likely approaching 1.5M by now. So I suppose, 100x the size. It needs to be understood that the more code you have, the more bugs. It's just the way it is. There have been more security issues in core systemd yearly, than sysvinit in its entire lifespan. That's not even systemd's fault, it's just a simple fact, you have more code, you have more bugs. And when you say "systemd", you're likely referring to all the inane nonsense it does? How broken it is managing mounts, which really isn't an init's job anyhow? Or the absurd nature of having shutdown and startup identical, with automatic ordering, so you end up in all sorts of ridiculous edge cases? Why would anyone presume that start and stop MUST be mirror images of each other. The very logic is broken, and shows an immense lack of comprehension of how the real world works. And you speak of "it won" for superior this and that? At the start, it didn't even have an easy way to extend stop time. Hell, even now it just sends SIGTERM and a nanosecond later SIGKILL, as if shutting down a box FAST FAST NOW NOW is more important that data integrity or properly closed tcp connections or processes doing any form of proper cleanup. The number of mysql/database issues caused by this behaviour in the early days was insane. Look, I get you like systemd. But it's provided no real value, and certainly, even if there is some? The detractors outweigh it as the sun turns meat to leather.