230

When people complain about systemd "violating the unix philosophy", this is what they actually mean (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by renzev@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Credit for the answer used in the right panel: https://serverfault.com/a/841150

(page 2) 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] onlinepersona@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago

Runit, making systems easily pwnable since 2004 🎉

Step 1: Make a system service run as root
Step 2: Give service a runlevel that starts it at boot
Step 3: Make the file modifiable by a normal user
Step 4: ???
Step 5: pwned

Wow much philosopy. Is great. Incredible chievement. Very pressive!

Anti Commercial-AI license

[-] teddy2021@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago

Gonna be honest, never heard of running before this. Briefly considered switching before OPs presentation in the comments turned me off. I don't want to associate with his/ her mind of weirdo, they aren't fun.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] yournamehere@lemm.ee -5 points 2 months ago

systemd is for the weak. red hat and lennart are just shit.

[-] renzev@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I don't support calling people who volunteer their time to develop free software "just shit", but I can't help but agree at least a little bit about redhat. Redhat is kind of like Richard Nixon: if you just assume that eveything you dislike is their fault, you would be right surprisingly often.

"Predictable" interface naming
avahi
dbus

That being said, they did also contribute to a lot of kickass software, from btrfs to Firefox to linux namespaces to qemu to pipewire, as well as to software that you can't really live without like glibc or gdb. So I guess the converse also holds: if you just assume that everything you like is there thanks to redhat, you would be correct pretty often as well. Can't really say that about Nixon though.