On Thu, October 9, 2014 6:09 am, Leon Fauster wrote:
> Am 08.10.2014 um 19:35 schrieb Valeri Galtsev <galtsev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> On Wed, October 8, 2014 12:22 pm, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM, <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jonathan Billings wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And the point of it is?
>>>>
>>>> Can someone just send the team that's working systemd on a nice
>>>> vacation,
>>>> say, maybe northern Iraq/Syria, the land of ISIS?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just a heads up to those who haven't seen this yet. The main author of
>>> systemd publicly wrote about being basically persecuted.
>>>
>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/J2TZrTvu7vd
>>
>> OK, I for one am boycotting his creature, to the extent I can, the way I
>> can: I move my servers away from Linux (to FreeBSD, if someone
>> interested). None of my server will run on the box that has systemd.
>> Workstations stay Linux...
>
>
>
> I wonder why personal implications are communicated without explained
> reasons
> (because all are screaming doesn't mean its valid). "Changes" have
> inherent
> implications by it self - it doesn't matter what was the change. Take a
> look
> back (or step) and try to see what is being ignored, changes all over the
> community projects (e.g. kernel, gui, distros, wm, nfs, config syntax). So
> whats
> the point and why bothers other, if the problem [1] lies in our selfs?
> BTW,
> you have the choice.
>
> [1] problem definition: actual state = EL6, goal = EL7 and something that
> is preventing the transition (and that is for sure nothing technical).
Not that simple. Smaller things none of which on its own make you make
fundamental decision just accumulate, so after some critical mass you are
there, the decision is made. I probably will not remember all of them, and
definitely not in the order of their arrival.
1. SELinux (it doesn't not pass _my_ "security has been enhanced"
estimate. It can be turned off on the fly, therefore it is as if it
doesn't exist. It adds tens of thousands of lines of code to the kernel,
thus increasing chance of bugs and deteriorating security. And once my
estimate was confirmed: "critical security update of SELinux"...)
2. The need to reboot linux box often (on average every 45 days in my
observation...). I know, there are workarounds to patch on the fly...
3. Firewalld. I'm tempted to say: the philosophy it's based on is flawed.
Hey, this is our institutional internal network which is behind strict
firewall, so we consider it "safe" zone... Nope. Wherever is the machine
that _you_ do not administer, you better do not consider it "safe" or
"secure". It uses the same iptables kernel module, right? And you can
switch to using iptables instead if it, right? Only one day you end up
running distro with stripped this, stripped that... Small thing in itself
as I said.
4. Systemd. ("If it ain't broke, don't fix it"). I don't want to start
flames again...
And things add up gradually till you realize this. If I were willing to
run M$ Windows I would pay for it, and will curse it legitimately as I
paid for it and my money entitles me to curse it. Now I run free open
source system courtesy of uncounted number of generous developers. I
should be grateful to them and tolerate new routes they take - which is
usually their only reward for their work... So, when I can not tolerate it
any more (... accumulated above critical mass), I just go to another also
open source system, thank goodness, they still do exist...
Valeri
>
> PS: I'm not taking a position for systemd - just seeing some kind of
> structure.
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
