• esc@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    You are allowed to build minimal systemd, which didn’t change that much in many years, no scope creep, consistent, simple.

    • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

      • esc@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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).