Being subjected to both OpenRC and Systemd, I can appreciate both but Systemd is convenient and gets the job done. Maybe it’s how the service is packaged and not OpenRC’s fault, but I get better logging with Systemd services. Status of a failing service on OpenRC is it exited and that’s all I get. Guess I have to fuck around and find the logs myself (because search results are people telling you to find them), whereas its a better time in Systemd.
I can’t live with out the CachyOS patches. I need the optimized repos which you can add to Artix but really shouldn’t. I got the CachyOs kernel installed in Artix. I was so surprised that didn’t break anything. All of the tinkering for a system that’s less capable than CachyOS just didn’t seem worth it and I gave up.
What are the alternatives to systemd? Why people are hating it (besides the AI slop and age verification stub in it)? Why is it not written in the D programming language?
Old man yells in SysVInit
I yell in rcctl
Systemd and Wayland have become ragebait for some people.
I know. My simple criteria is pretty simple: Does my computer boot and show me pretty pictures of kittens after it boots. If it does, I do not care.
Systemd is stable and can get the job done, I don’t love how it does it, but I accept that it’s a reasonable choice.
Something need/s/ed to replace X11. The fact that I still can’t autohotkey in Wayland is fucking insane. 9/10 of my current issues in Linux are Wayland-related. We’re being corralled into wayland as distros drop X11 and I don’t have time to keep chasing that fox.
Gentoo lured me into OpenRC a long time ago and it’s just basically my go to now. It’s just so easy and “feels” less bloated to me.
I like systemd because my distro came with it and my computer boots.
It’s like that very very old joke…
Geek: “So then I brought the girl home…”
Excited crowd: “and then?”
Geek: “then I pushed the keyboard and sat her on my desk…”
Excited crowd: “woah, you have a PC? What processor do you have? Do you overclock? What cooling do you use?”Something something robe and wizard hat
Funny thing is, that’s not even his best stuff! Yaarrrrrr!!
Underrated comment. Sauce: https://knowyourmeme.com/sensitive/memes/i-put-on-my-robe-and-wizard-hat
at first i read it as greek and was very confused
… and then we had wonderful souvlaki! OPPA!!!
ᕕ(ᐛ)ᕗ
It probably also works, depending on your audience.
I was genuinely looking for alternatives to systemd, just because I was curious.
I stumbled upon: https://nosystemd.org/
The anger sits deep. What a beautiful sight.
The only distro I recognize on their list of systemd-free distros is PCLinux. I actually used it for a bit a long time ago. Not a bad distro, but not a great one either. So I moved on.
It’s like the Amish but with operating systems. Technology has advanced this far but must advance no further.
Damn, that’s some massive copium on that site.
I still don’t understand what it is and I read it. Oh, well. *continues with Mint*
It is a discussion about the UNIX philosophy and architecture and it is not about functionality. That’s why it seems to be a bit short-sighted. However, I do understand both sides, but I would never go this far and create a website to promote my views and opinions. It is as if you had a discussion between team
emacsand teamvim.Even though that the reliability of OpenRC is 0.00000001% higher, they keep forgetting about operational costs. And since my day only has 24h, I’d rather be able to copy&paste an installation script from the Docker website (which includes systemd commands), instead of manually writing it and losing 30min of that day.
But you know, to each their own. I love OpenRC, I love systemd.
That site is unusable on FF mobile.
It has some craptastic scroll animation thing happening and have disabled the FF reader mode somehow.
Which is a shame, I’d like to have read it :-(
Works on my machine
Of all the people who have incredibly strong opinions about not-so-incredibly important things, the virulently anti-systemd crowd are among the ones that baffle me the most.
There are many legitimate complaints. Bundling a bunch of services into a single binary goes completely against Unix philosophy. Systemd changing from text to binary logs is my pet peeve.
Copying how Windows does things isn’t necessarily the best.
I was annoyed with binary logs until I found cases where compressing logs was literally 10x or more improvement, like if you ran into a bug that just repeatedly spit the same log.
And I know logrotate compresses text logs too but if you’re going to compress logs into tar.gz, might as well just make it binary by default and have a nice interface (journald) on top
You know it’s not a single binary, right ? Systemd is a bunch of different, mostly single usage, mostly optional, binaries. As far as Unix philosophy goes, Systemd is definitely following the principles, which is not the case for the Kernel for instance.
As for the binary logs, I used to hate it, but then, not having to manually parse logs for filtering is really nice.
I do have my issues with Systemd, but it not following the Unix philosophy is not one of them.
It’s not people disliking it that makes no sense to me; everyone has their opinions.
I just can’t imagine having the level of anger displayed by some of the most vocal of the anti-systemd crowd.
If your favorite thing is being ruined and you can’t stop it, I can understand frustration being displayed as anger.
It’s the same when Windows users get angry at things like OneDrive. It’s forced on them and they don’t want to have to work around removing it like people having to work around how Gnome is integrated into systemd.
How is GNOME integrated with systemd?
If your favorite thing is being ruined and you can’t stop it, I can understand frustration being displayed as anger.
That’s the joy of open source though: you can stop it. You are free to use another init system, fork projects, etc. With Windows, you can’t do any of that. Since it’s closed source, workarounds that may be temporary are all you can do.
That’s the joy of open source though: you can stop it.
Not really. Unless you are prepared to devote your life to changing the source code to what you want, you have to accept it. And because you forked you are no longer downstream and will have to spend the rest of your life keeping up with patches.
It’s not much different than Windows. You could write a OneDrive uninstaller but you will have to spend the rest of your life with patches every time MS updates and breaks your uninstaller.
I mean we are literally on a couple of open source solutions communicating using an open protocol probably using some sort of open OS.
https://nosystemd.org/ is a thing. I dont have particularly strong opinions on the matter.
You don’t need to do it alone. In fact, people can come by, fix some things, then go about life. Or donate money instead of resources. If you have used lemmy/piefed/mastodon/peertube in the past, theres a tiny bit of my code in there that makes things just a tiny bit better. Thats not a brag or anything, its just that multiple people can contribute.
But I hear the frustrations. There is a certain mindset you have to have, hopeful you and others can build something…or with enough hatred to build out of spite. Sometimes thats hard to do with everything else in life. Sometimes the best thing to do is to accept and move on. Or go looking for new solutions without maintenance.
… and yet not a single one of you have ever donated to cURL
If you like a distro and they switch to systemd, there’s not a lot you can do if you aren’t up to forking the whole distro. I feel like too many people in open source forget that most people have lives outside of Linux.
That’s the joy of open source though: you can stop it. You are free to use another init system, fork projects
That and a big company looking to manufacture a perceived advantage by aggreasively pushing their shit into the mainstream - good fit to be taken over by IBM - who can bankroll the slapdash dev and bully ISVs, and you’re set.
your favorite thing is being ruined and you can’t stop it,
Hardly a ‘favourite thing’; it’s like making a water slide out of a river : Wantonly wrecking something simple, effective and usable for this mishmash isn’t ruining something sacred as much as it is destroying something for no reason to dramatically create something lesser the world didn’t need. Except with more hype, payola, ageism, strong-arm adoption and cult worship.
Richard P. Gabriel, in his essay “The Rise of Worse-is-Better,” expounds on this theme (see Appendix A). His thesis is that the Unix design philosophy requires that all design decisions err on the side of implementation simplicity, and not on the side of correctness, consistency, or completeness. He calls this the “Worse Is Better” philosophy and shows how it yields programs that are technically inferior to programs designed where correctness and consistency are paramount, but that are evolutionarily superior because they port more easily. Just like a virus.
The highest achievement of the Unix-aesthetic is to have a command that does precisely one function, and does it well (…) This philosophy, in the hands of amateurs, leads to inexplicably mind-numbing botches like the existence of two programs, “head” and “tail,” which print the first part or the last part of a file, depending. Even though their operations are duals of one another, “head” and “tail” are different programs, written by different authors, and take different options!
From The Unix Hater’s Handbook
(I like Linux, but it’s not all sunshine and rainbows)
That head/tail thing is kind of a goofy argument. For one thing they aren’t duals;
tailis naturally more complex because the end of a file often changes and the application can optionally keep showing you the new output. Also, the fact that they’re separate applications in the first place is arguably better than the a one-application approach, which would always require a command line switch to select between outputting the start or end of a file. And finally, while I guess this could vary between implementations ofheadandtail, mine has identical switches for all the common options.I initially agreed with your take there but I actually think they’re a great argument for their point.
headandtailare the exact same abstraction. Their implementations will be quite different, but they both serve “provided this data, give me these lines”. Consider instead that these are simply operations on arrays and actually they map perfectly to Python slices:data[:10]anddata[-10:]. This abstraction mapping also shows that, imo, the tool should providedata[n:m]and it would still be entirely consistent with the Unix philosophy. In fact, this tool exists in the Unix toolkit:sed -n n,mp. Three tools then are currently required for the simple concept of “slice lines”. I also think it’s a bit of a mess. You could replaceheadwithsedfairly easily:sed -n '1,10p'but nottail(it is possible, but quite slow and very opaque)As an aside I actually found this quite frustrating myself because I don’t like reaching for
sedin then:mcase (I always forget and end up pipingheadtotail) and ended up writing my own tool for essentially this style of slicing input, also replacing probably my least favorite use of my least favorite Unix tool,dd, to slice arbitrary byte sequences. The tool doesn’t feel overloaded and I use it quite often.(I’m sure many people have written this same tool. There is probably a widely known open source option that I’ve just never come across)
They could have been two commands that call a single parent command with different options. For example, imagine if
cathad an option-Nto restrict the number of lines that was printed, and also an option-tto start from the end.headwould just proxy tocat -Nand tail would proxy tocat -N -t. Combining the three into a single implementation reduces total LoC and opportunity for bugs. Also reduces total maintenance burden.I believe
busyboxis like this actually - a ton of Unix commands in a single package. It’s used by Alpine Linux, a tiny and performance linux distro commonly used by docker containers.Busybox is literally just a bundle. That’s its whole purpose. It doesn’t reimplement anything.
Some quick research says that it is indeed a re-implementation. The first line of the wikipedia, says:
BusyBox is an implementation of many Unix commands in a single executable file.
You can download the source code yourself to verify. And if you’ve actually used Alpine Linux before you would have also noticed that the commands provided by busybox have only a subset of the options provided by their GNU coreutils counterparts.
Please do your research before so confidently correcting other people.
The head and tail programs also do completely different things. What differences in options do they have?
Really completely different? Do they not print first / last lines of text from a file into the terminal?
The way they do it is fundamentally different. Head just reads until number of newlines is the target number. Tail has to first read the entire file and keep a buffer of the file and/or offsets for each line ending to determine what the last 10 (or so) lines are.
This idiot (Gabriel) probably thinks exclusively in the real world paper line analog.
I also just looked at each program’s command line options and they’re identical. Less things only Tail can do (because they’re fundamentally different operations)
This idiot (Gabriel) probably thinks exclusively in the real world paper line analog.
Typical of Internet discourse to just immediately brand someone you disagree with an idiot… That “idiot” is one of the designers of common lisp, among other things. You’re allowed to disagree with a smart person too you know
OK. Designers of programming languages can be idiots.
Lisp is a bad language IMO. Way too mathy. Nobody programs like that anymore for a reason.
“This program sucks because it doesn’t come with the world’s most confusing GUI and doesn’t do a trillion things”
If you ask this person what “technically inferior” actually means you’d probably get a different answer every day.
But that’s not what either of the guys complained about
Yea what a hot take that was, critiquing words that were never there and then calling the person an idiot.
GUI certainly has its place.
Yes and so do simple CLI tools that work. Head and Tail are about the worst examples because they work very well and also do very different things.
There’s also a few cases of feature and scope creep, including the infamous
systemd-resolved.
Systemd, your job is to launch services, manage logs, and do timers and relaunches on a service crash. DNS is out of scope, leave that to existing services.resolved is entirely optional and disabled by default, I use it on case of non-mobile devices but leave it on laptops etc.
DNS resolution isn’t something exotic, it makes sense for systemd to implement it in a simple optional daemon
You’ve misunderstood something.
systemd-resolved is one of the services that uses systemd’s service management system
You’re saying “don’t use this service management system to manage your services”I may have written that in a confusing way. I’m saying systemd’s job is service management. Systemd-resolved is an unnecessary bit of scope creep.
systemd-resolved is a service. It’s not scope-creep. It’s its own thing built in the systemd framework.
I agree, though my biggest headache has been with systemd handling mounts. You have to modify a ton of units to add
AfterandRequiredto make sure the NFS shares you have in fstab get mounted before starting services that depend on them. And then if the package maintainer updates their unit files, all your changes disappear!Such a huge headache compared to the classic init.d that mounted everything very early – with just the occasional “boot delayed a couple seconds because your share was offline” or such.
You’re not supposed to modify shipped unit files, that’s why systemd supports drop in snippets
A single binary? What?
Systemd changing from text to binary logs is my pet peeve.
Fast searchable compressed files is a fantastic idea.
The other day on a thread here about “people who use other init systems, why?” and i wrote about my experience with systemd and git downvoted for mysterious reasons. Other people that did the same as me also got their downvote sixpacks. And now they want to make it seem like it’s just the people that hate systemd the annoying ones…
git downvoted for mysterious reasons
Lemmy is just highly opinionated, poor social skills, and often closed minded.
There are too many people who use downvote to disagree with cogent and well written points.
I try to only downvote if something is obviously trolling, in bad taste, or wildly stupid.
Downvoting is a legitimate tool of expressing your disagreement.
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I downvoted your comment. Mainly because I think it’s funny when people can’t come up with compelling arguments and complain about being downvoted instead, but also because I’m part of the conspiracy making sure that people vocally complaining about systemd seem really annoying and wrong.
It attracts a lot of silent disagreement that’s for sure.
By far my most controversial post was negative about systemd, while posts on Palestine, anarchy, etc. received no negative attention at all.
Palestine
Well, perhaps Palestine is not controversial at all?
What systemd binary is the worst offender, in your opinion?
Logind. Right after udev.
Not sure what’s annoying about logind, but udev was introduced eight years before systemd was a thing.
It’s not the binary. It’s that the logs it writes are in binary so can’t be read without a program.
Even systems that use text logs, compress logs using logrotate and you have to uncompress before you can read them. Also since the compressed tar.gz logs are a bunch of separate files, if you don’t have an exact date of what you’re looking for, you have to uncompress and search through all of them. I much prefer just using journalctl
I mean… zless and zgrep have been a thing since forever ago. And some distros ship with lessopen(?) preinstalled, so it’s seemless.
There are only so many times I’m willing to put up with lost logfile due to a crash. Logrotate wouldn’t do this.
You can read systemd logs with
stringsprogram (part of binutils). Even if the file itself corrupted due to a crash.But then you aren’t just using a text editor anymore. If you’re willing to use programs like zless and zgrep, then you can just as easily use journalctl. And I’ve never lost a logfile before, over many years, so not to discredit your experience but at least in my experience journald has been an upgrade
Why would I ever use a text editor? I think our approaches to viewing logs are fundamentally different.
You can’t read a text file without a program either.
be nice to him, he’s baffled
The real problem with systemd is figuring out what’s is or isn’t part of systemd…
That’s easy: If it’s a service reasonably expected to be present on most desktop systems, it’s part of systemd or will eventually be.
And if it’s not expected, it also eventually will be part of systemd.
I hear they will work on a display server next called waylanD or something /s
They don’t really target desktop systems.
Why do so many people think it’s a good thing??
Because it’s a good project, extremely well documented, which tries to make administering linux system easy and predictable.
I don’t particularly hate systemd, but when they said they are considering incorporating age verification stuff I switched to void.
Good news is that systemd is not incorporating age verification just like they are not incorporating name verification.
Both name and birth date are just userdb fields with no verification at all.
There are complicits.
Just as complicit as for name verification. 🤷♀️
In the same sense a database is complicit.
No. A database doesn’t have these specific fields by default.
Neither does systemd. They are optional.
LDAP has had a birth date field for like 20 years now. Is it “complicit” as well?
Neither does systemd. They are optional.
Fields are optional, but developers of systemd consciously implemented those fields.
And in a DB that’s not the case.
This field appeared in LDAP for different reasons, than age control.
the virulently anti-systemd crowd are among the ones that baffle me the most.
Tell me you need to learn more about scope creep, Unix and system design using different words.
It’s popular to hate systemd. Just as it’s popular to hate PHP. It makes people feel like they’re part of an “elite group” that are above these things. Most of the time, people can’t even explain why they hate it. Just ask someone why he hates systemd and in 95% of all cases, you won’t get a straight answer, except, of course: “It ViOlAtEs LiNuX pHiLoSoPhY” yes timmy and how does that affect you while browsing and playing games, because that’s all you do on your PC.
I’m not saying that there are no reasons to dislike systemd for some people. There might be a handful of them who genuinely dislike it and have justified reasons for it. However, an overwhelming majority of the people that hate it don’t even have a fucking clue what it is, let alone why it’s dislikeable, they just read on twitter or reddit that it sucks. And that’s it. It’s a bit like a big streamer saying: “Game XYZ is shit” and a majority of that streamers following will think its shit.
As someone who designs systems as part of his job, “it violates Linux philosophy” is a perfectly valid reason to hate something as critical and low level as an init system.
I think “hate” is a strong word, mind, but following consistent design patterns and constraining scope matters. The problem is that it’s one of those things that doesn’t tend to matter until shit hits the fan.
The scope creep exponentially raises the efforts needed to properly test, troubleshoot, secure, and just generally work with the project code. The unique design creates rough edges for integrations with other pre-existing systems and tools, while also raising the effort needed for troubleshooting when something goes wrong.
There’s also the whole “Chesterton’s Fence” aspect to a lot of it, where the project runner’s overall attitude has been dismissive of existing conventions and separation of functionality.
There’s a lot of perfectly valid reasons to dislike it. That said, I think full on hate is extreme for an aspect of the overall Linux “system” and “user experience” that most users never interact with. Like having an opinion on the order your BIOS handles things in.
Which part of the “Linux philosophy” does systemd “violate”.
The scope creep exponentially raises the efforts needed to properly test, troubleshoot, secure, and just generally work with the project code.
I keep seeing these words, “scope creep”, in this thread, and I don’t think most people understand what they mean.
The scope of systemd is an init and service manager, and any basic service required for a minimal, coherent system to work. If you think that it goes too far, then we should be talking about the Linux kernel and all the stuff it has that could run on userland and doesn’t, or coreutils, which essentially is the shell equivalent to systemd without the integration.
I keep seeing these words, “scope creep”, in this thread, and I don’t think most people understand what they mean.
Which could apply to GNOME or KDE given they do more than just desktop environments.
Sure, and that’s just as valid points against them as well. For my part at least, none of this is meant as some sort of death knell, or direct damning evidence that some software is some sort of terrible piece of garbage.
I just refuse to believe that someone would literally be entirely incapable of comprehending any of the reasons people dislike systems to only be capable of engaging with the criticisms in bad faith.
You are allowed to build minimal systemd, which didn’t change that much in many years, no scope creep, consistent, simple.
That only has impact on the security risk surface exposed for your own install and for troubleshooting on your own machine. The maintainers and other coders on the project still have far more space, complexity, and features to cover.
It’s not a death knell by any means, but still a valid cause for concern.
Predictable, more-or-less identical systemd, with its stance on limiting eveything and being secure by default is more of a security risk than old-timey inits that were different for every distribution with init scripts made by different people with different abilities and customizations?
When I started my ops journey systemd wasn’t there, and it was far harder to make compatible software. Also if you are designing a system how exactly general use systems come into picture at all?
By every reasonable measure systemd is a win, it started to appear even in automotive industry, which is regulated as hell, by 2022 (when I left).
There’s legitimate criticism of systemd and I do understand that people can hate it.
Anyways, systemd is so nice to use. Even more with nixos.
I’m trying to use alpine Linux on a VM. The amount of things depending on systemd is extreme. It’s a pain in the ass not having it.
Orr… I’m shitty at Linux.
it’s not just you. it’s either systemd or no GNOME or KDE (technically possible if working around bugs is your 9-5).
I’ve been running KDE on Alpine since Alpine v3.20 and I haven’t had any issues with it that I haven’t had on, say, Debian. If I’m not mistaken all components of KDE that depend on systemd are replaceable by standalone projects.
A lot of people suddenly talking about NixOS lately but literally the only news I’ve seen about it in a while was that the maintainers are Slopping with AI Code.
Is there an article on this I can read? I was about to start looking into trying Nix and that’s kinda disappointing to hear
I might be exaggerating based on the little I’ve seen, particularly this post LINK which has a very misleading title, but the number of packages for AI integration to NixOS and forks for Agentic OS and workflows, the amount of support (real or otherwise) for AI in the NixOS communities, and articles like this one: LINK, would be a hard sell to tell me were all coincidence.
Thanks for the link. Might put me off Nix a bit. I may look into comparing some of the other immutable distros like Fedora’s. Idk I avoided them early on, but I’ve had to spend a lot of time fixing shit lately and was considering a change.
Have you tried CachyOS? It’s built on Arch but it’s a lot easier to get into, let’s you pick a desktop environment such as KDE Plasma or GNOME in the installation, the install media itself is a portable OS.
Definitely good to keep an open mind while you shop around for your next distro.
Recently there was a hacker issue with the AUR repos, but most of the packages you need are likely already on the official CachyOS package search without requiring an AUR package.
I tried arch for th first time a few weeks ago and honestly it wasn’t that bad. A little intimidating for sure but I got an os running first try in a few hours.
I’m actually on CachyOS now. I’ve got a list of stuff I need to fix with it unfortunately. Namely issues with monitors, and some finicky stuff with USB devices that I’ve got to unplug after every wake on sleep, plus a handful of other items I don’t notice as often.
But it does work, so I haven’t been too unhappy with it. It’s just the time to fix things that bugs me sometimes.
Debating reinstalling again since there’s been some major changes like ditching Octopi and Cachy Package manager for Shelly. Plus I’ve kinda wanted something different from KDE and now that they’ve got Noctalia in the default installer it seemed appealing.
Lol I’m not one for doing updates too frequently so I did miss the AUR issue. I saw the news, but hadn’t updated so I was in the clear
NGL I haven’t had much experience with the package managers because I’ve been installing everything with the konsole via
pacman -Sandflatpak install flathubcommands or manually if needed. I’m surprised to hear about the USB devices issue, even my analogue audio interface worked plug and play and I’ve never had to reseat them.
Linux users: come join the community! It’s free, safe, and accessible!
Also Linux users: you fucking swine? You do WHAT?!
Like just be happy more people are joining the community and contributing. Shesh
I once saw a guy standing on the edge of a bridge, about to jump. I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!”
He said, “Why shouldn’t I? Nobody cares about me.”
I said, “Well, do you run Linux?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Me too! Desktop or server?”
He said, “Server.”
I said, “Me too! Debian-based or RPM-based?”
He said, “Debian-based.”
I said, “Me too! Debian stable or Ubuntu LTS?”
He said, “Debian stable.”
I said, “Me too! systemd or an alternative init?”
He said, “Alternative init.”
I said, “Me too! runit, OpenRC, or s6?”
He said, “s6.”
I said, “Me too! s6 with s6-rc as the service manager, or s6 with 66?”
He said, “s6-rc.”
I said, “Me too! s6-rc with the full supervision tree defined declaratively, or with hand-rolled run scripts?”
He said, “Hand-rolled run scripts.”
I said, “Die, Poettering apologist!” And I pushed him off.
Is joke.
Jokes are usually funny though
After the 1000th time, it stops being a joke. Say something enough times, and it becomes your truth.
no
He presents well, but many of his arguments beg þe question – þey assume false premises. I’m not going to dissect þe entire hour-long video, but as an example þe main premise he starts wiþ is þat people who don’t like systemd don’t like it because it isn’t familiar. I doubt þis is true except in his BSD domain. I’ve been using systemd since before it grew into þe monstrosity it now is, and I’m equally comfortable writing systemd services and timers, and am familiar wiþ þe commands. I’ve learned to not like it as it’s grown and gotten worse, and I’d guess þat a survey of anti-systemd people will show most of þem use systemd enough þat þe presumption of disliking it because it’s “different” is wildly wrong.
I also take exception to his discounting þe value of mix-and-match systems. It’s funny þat he disparages “contempt” and þen tosses out negative statements like “having to cobble togeþer a bunch of different pieces of software,” as if somehow diversity and choice is bad. It’s such a strange mentality for someone from þe BSD community.
þe
Yeah, I’m not going to read that shit
pee
I avoid relying on it too much and don’t make any especially custom configurations. I honestly don’t like it. But the alternatives just never really seemed much better, so I use it by default. If there were a truly good replacement with good documentation and examples, I’d adopt it.
The only thing I didn’t like about systemd was the unfamiliarity of the commands. Typing systemctl and a verb and a service and some more arguments feels a bit clunky.
But otherwise it all seems to make sense to me - lots of little commands running with least privilege, very simple description of services in unitary files, secure binary logging with proper filternig, proper utilisation of cgroups to reliably kill processes and enforce limits, parallel startup/shutdown etc.
Most of the objections I’ve see to it online seem miss the point and ignore answers which would solve or refute their objections.
Yes, I do. And even worse: I like it. 😈
There’s no way he’d get laid with a keyboard like that.
Noone will ever take my full-size keyboard from me and I have no issues getting laid, I just don’t want to most of the time.
I have a keyboard like that and I used to get laid…
See?!
No, I mean I also had a keyboard like that back when I used to get laid… 🤔
Nup. No taksies-backsies.
I’ll take the opportunity to manipulate a slight misunderstanding in your words to drive home my point on an inconsequential post on the internet, to hide my insecurities, and project out on them, of not getting laid no matter what keyboard I have. It is the Lemmy user way 🙏
Also, do you remember the model of the keyboard you had when you got laid? Asking for a friend.
Used to? Maybe you need to upgrade your keyboard!
