4 ms·
> It quotes the author of systemd to prove that the claim is made, but it does not give a link or say from where the quote was taken (so we don’t know the conte
by UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
> It quotes the author of systemd to prove that the claim is made, but it does not give a link or say from where the quote was taken (so we don’t know the context or age of it, i.e. we don’t know it is still relevant).
I'm critical of the article also, but they in fact did. If you click the "Forward Secure Sealing (FSS)" it takes you to a G+ page with the quote on it from Lennart Poettering on Aug 20, 2012.
- teddyh 12y agoIt was not stated that that was the source of the quote, and the link was not given anywhere near the quote, but I guess you are right that there was a link… So this quote is from Aug 20, 2012. Has Lennart’s opinion of this changed during the more than two years that have passed since? Does the documentation of systemd make this guarantee? Did the documentation ever make the claim that FSS is an complete replacement for remote logging? Now that I think about it, and have the context of the quote, I think that I (and the blog post author) maybe misunderstood Lennart. FSS is not a complete replacement for remote logging, but: Among other things, remote logging used to be the only way to get immutable logs. If this was your only reason for using remote logging, then FSS is a viable replacement. EDIT: Now that I can actually read what Andrew Wyatt wrote and how he wrote it, I can see why he was blocked. He was condescending and vague on details, and (according to Lennart) Andrew had a habit of doing that. The comments to the blog post actually cover what I wrote in my previous paragraph, so there is no excuse to dig this up now, two years later, and deliberately misunderstand it in order to gain points with the systemd haters. This is FUD.