Skip to Content [alt-c]

Comment

In reply to Comment by Reader David Strauss

Anonymous on 2016-10-02 at 02:59:

This is a fair point, but it also isn’t a fundamental design element worthy of calls to abandon systemd. As most, it would justify a call to fork systemd and reverse the umask default.

I liked this bit. Because it is a fundamental design element when the developer team developing your software are completely unwilling to consider any suggestions from the outside. And you know that, because you suggested a fork right away, which of course, never would gain any traction if the fork is only about default policies.

I bet If I were to open a bug proposing to reverse the default behavior to a fail-safe behavior it would just be closed as wontfix with one or more arrogant "systemd is perfect as it is" comments below it. This gives good indications towards the design goals of systemd. It is not meant to be a solid and reliable foundation for Linux systems. That would be boring. It is meant to be an attractive sham-bandwagon to jump onto, selling the feel of flashy and new. Fail-safe behavior gets in the way of that, even if systemd cannot uphold the things it promises for every user.

So yes, it is worth abandoning systemd exactly due to issues like this.

Reply

Post a Reply

Your comment will be public. If you would like to contact me privately, please email me. Please keep your comment on-topic, polite, and comprehensible.

(Optional; will be published)

(Optional; will not be published)

(Optional; will be published)

  • Blank lines separate paragraphs.
  • Lines starting with ">" are indented as block quotes.
  • Lines starting with two spaces are reproduced verbatim.
  • Text surrounded by *asterisks* is italicized.
  • Text surrounded by `back ticks` is monospaced.
  • URLs are turned into links.
  • Use the Preview button to check your formatting.