Lennart, please don't shut off and stop listening just yet. I realize that your rant was aimed at this whole thread rather than at my post specifically, but I'd like to make it clear that I'm not one of those who "keep trying to noisily shoot systemd down" as you put it. I see a lot of value in SystemD. I wrote that is has some really nifty features and I meant it. I also do feel the need to change the init system. I have written a few initscripts and I'm definitely not satisfied with that way of doing things. Thank you so much for writing SystemD! I think SystemD is a really exciting improvement, but I also think Steve Grubb may have a good point or two. There are some people on this list who are best ignored in my opinion, but I think Steve Grubb may be worth listening to. He seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to security. I hardly think replacing SystemD with XinetD would be a good idea, but if you can find a way of addressing his concerns without complicating things too much, it just might be worth doing. If you read my previous post again when you have calmed down a bit, I think you'll see that I didn't complain but tried to suggest a way forward. I'll admit that I know nothing about the internal design of SystemD and can't judge what is feasible and what isn't. Moving most of the functionality to process 2 may or may not be a good idea, but it was meant as a constructive proposal – a possible improvement that might help to make security-minded people like Steve Grubb feel more comfortable about SystemD. I also want to say that I'm impressed with how you usually manage to stay calm and keep to the point despite all the abuse you seem to always get for everything you do. I'm not sure I could do the same if I were in your situation. Björn Persson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
