3 ms·

The reason why a project with a bunch of tightly-coupled disparate components will have a hard time doing anything well is that an expert who could do a good jo

by agwa 12y ago

The reason why a project with a bunch of tightly-coupled disparate components will have a hard time doing anything well is that an expert who could do a good job isn't going to spend their time working on an implementation that can only be used along with a bunch of unrelated baggage. They're going to work on an independent implementation that can be used by as many people as possible. Take DJB. He's an expert and djbdns has a stellar security record. He's not going to spend his time trying to make systemd's resolver secure. Instead systemd is going to end up repeating all the same mistakes BIND has made. At least BIND has a substantial head start over systemd-resolved.

Someone1234 12y ago
> They're going to work on an independent implementation that can be used by as many people as possible. So they would work on systemd then? Since it is set to have a far larger customer base in the near and long term than most independent cache resolvers (just see the list of distro's who have taken it up). > Instead systemd is going to end up repeating all the same mistakes BIND has made. At least BIND has a substantial head start over systemd-resolved. Potentially. But I don't think you've successfully shown that that is inherently due to systemd's design, complexity, or componentization. Instead it is likely due to systemd's relative immaturity of a codebase and that as discussed previously most cache resolvers have had a checkered history of security issues (and assuming systemd is "as bad" as everyone else, it will have security issues).
- protomyth 12y ago
  > So they would work on systemd then? Since it is set to have a far larger customer base in the near and long term than most independent cache resolvers (just see the list of distro's who have taken it up). Is the systemd project passionate about DNS? Is the curl team passionate about protocols and files? Is the opensmtpd team passionate about e-mail? I think two of the three are yes answers. The great strength of UNIX has always been people's ability to flock to places where their passion is shared and improve and learn (institutional knowledge) about their passions. I don't think systemd will have passionate people for these extra services and it seems they don't have the institutional knowledge that others have gained since this is not a new kind of bug.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    As has already been shown through example, having a single unified purpose does not make something immune (or even resistant) from security issues. Tons of projects with a single focus have had countless security problems, some so bad the entire project was completely scrapped. So the entire argument is based on a flawed premise.
    - protomyth 12y ago
      I think history favors projects, companies, and individuals that concentrate one something as opposed to big entities that try to be all things to everyone. This is how small companies are able to dislodge larger ones. Focus is important in anything. The argument is far from flawed, as limited counter-examples are hard to find.

by agwa 12y ago

Someone1234 12y ago

> They're going to work on an independent implementation that can be used by as many people as possible. So they would work on systemd then? Since it is set to have a far larger customer base in the near and long term than most independent cache resolvers (just see the list of distro's who have taken it up). > Instead systemd is going to end up repeating all the same mistakes BIND has made. At least BIND has a substantial head start over systemd-resolved. Potentially. But I don't think you've successfully shown that that is inherently due to systemd's design, complexity, or componentization. Instead it is likely due to systemd's relative immaturity of a codebase and that as discussed previously most cache resolvers have had a checkered history of security issues (and assuming systemd is "as bad" as everyone else, it will have security issues).

protomyth 12y ago
> So they would work on systemd then? Since it is set to have a far larger customer base in the near and long term than most independent cache resolvers (just see the list of distro's who have taken it up). Is the systemd project passionate about DNS? Is the curl team passionate about protocols and files? Is the opensmtpd team passionate about e-mail? I think two of the three are yes answers. The great strength of UNIX has always been people's ability to flock to places where their passion is shared and improve and learn (institutional knowledge) about their passions. I don't think systemd will have passionate people for these extra services and it seems they don't have the institutional knowledge that others have gained since this is not a new kind of bug.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  As has already been shown through example, having a single unified purpose does not make something immune (or even resistant) from security issues. Tons of projects with a single focus have had countless security problems, some so bad the entire project was completely scrapped. So the entire argument is based on a flawed premise.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    I think history favors projects, companies, and individuals that concentrate one something as opposed to big entities that try to be all things to everyone. This is how small companies are able to dislodge larger ones. Focus is important in anything. The argument is far from flawed, as limited counter-examples are hard to find.