Re^2: How not to implement updaters

Completely unrelated, systemd running as process 1 (a.k.a. init) on our fileserver decided to crash, complain loudly on the console how evil the world is, disconnected from /dev/initctl and dbus, and made the entire server refuse to reboot.

I feel your pain. There have been some terrible, terrible IT decisions made over the last quarter century but IMHO systemd takes the absolute biscuit. On systems where I have any say in the matter we do not and never will run systemd because I, apparently unlike many others, prefer my systems to boot reliably. It should be no surprise to anyone that Poettering now works for M$ (and still tries to infect superior systems with his crud).

🦛

Comment on Re^2: How not to implement updaters

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: How not to implement updaters by etj (Priest) on Jun 03, 2024 at 14:30 UTC
The thing I have yet to understand is why `systemd` took over. https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxquestions/comments/12sz3da/why_is_systemd_controversial/ says it simplifies some things, but it seems there have been many negative consequences too.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: How not to implement updaters by bliako (Abbot) on Jun 04, 2024 at 07:30 UTC
After reading the link you posted and the included https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237, which is a case-in-point where systemd runs unit's process as root if username starts with digit, some systemd uber-programmer (poetering whatever) makes the wild claim that such usernames are invalid and blames it on bugs elsewhere outside systemd: `"0day" is not a valid username. I wonder which tool permitted you to c +reate it in the first place` [download] (https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237#issuecomment-311900864) this is what is wrong with systemd and similars (like NetworkManager IMO): the lethal combination of ignorance+audacity. Little god syndrome.	[reply] [d/l]