Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts

[Frederica Bernkastel]

>NO COMPLAINING ABOUT SOYSTEMD!!!!
>NO SUCKLESS SOFTWARE!!!!
>NO COMPLAINING ABOUT BLOATED SOFTWARE!!!
And let me guess,
>YOU CAN'T SAY RUST IS BAD!!!

(Posted from my Artix linux PC with DWM)

The hilarious thing is these are the Chimera Linux devs, and they split off from Void. See this.

 

[skunt]

> systemd is not the root of all evil

fair, it's true after all. jews are the root of all evil.

 

[306h4Ge5eJUJ]

why do people have strong opinions on systemd

systemd aggressively expands, is written by Poettering (one of the most hated people in FOSS), and its devs play gay politics games in distros to get it adopted.

 

[Kola]

I've never had a single problem that could be traced to systemd and nobody I ever asked was able to point to a concrete example that they had. A lot of systemd whining is just /g/ users who copy what they've seen elsewhere because they think that whining = I am le smart.

 

[Atlas Sneezed]

I've never had a single problem that could be traced to systemd and nobody I ever asked was able to point to a concrete example that they had. A lot of systemd whining is just /g/ users who copy what they've seen elsewhere because they think that whining = I am le smart.

No fuck you, I had a personal beef with that shit years ago. If your unit had child processes, and it would take a while for them to shut down, it would send a sigterm to the parent process but issue SIGKILL *immediately* to child ones. Well this was a problem because the parent process was a simple bash script which setup the Java VM, but the child ones were the actual Java apps. This resulted in corrupted data on each unit restart. Debian noticed it around the same time I did for different reasons (missing/corrupted shell history), I escalated it to SuSe because my company used SLES at the time. We all ganged up on Lennart and he told us to pound sand because changing this behaviour would break somethig in systemd-nspawn, and that was *his* area of interest so get fucked. So SuSe, Debian and a couple of others carried custom patches for years for it to behave properly (first SIGTERM and only after a timeout SIGKILL).

AFAIK this is *still* somewhat of a problem with k3s

Fuck SystemD, fuck Poettering.

 

[CNerd Prog]

does linux even subscribe to the unix philosophy other than the coreutils being FOSS re-implementations of unix core software

 

[CNerd Prog]

(Posted from my Macbook Pro) more like.

Activists LARP as Linux users but always crawl back to Momma Tim.

do asashi linux users count

 

[UERISIMILITUDO]

does linux even subscribe to the unix philosophy other than the coreutils being FOSS re-implementations of unix core software

GNU's Not UNIX.

Also, VI VI VI is the editor of the beast. Emacs is roughly as old as UNIX, and started on a completely different kind of system, ITS. Rather than pretend to have security mechanisms like UNIX, ITS didn't even pretend and made everything accessible to everyone. I can't stand the thought of forgoing Emacs.

Anyway, the UNIX philosophy is meaningless, and only those Suckless retards still care about it for the most part.

 

[WielkiWapiesz2137]

Unix philosophy is the biggest nonsense that I have ever seen, as it is just shitty functions with inconsistent interfaces that break half of the time. No wonder that no program of note is written in such manner.

 

[AmpleApricots]

I came to the conclusion that people who don't understand the downside of the needless complexity of systemd and it's really bizarre attempt to include everything and the kitchen sink (and make an entire OS userland beholden to one single software) vs. some simple inits that take a few sh scripts to set everything up you just can't really argue about the topic with. There's fundamentals in "understanding the problem" missing. BS like this is why I left Windows behind over twenty years ago and now look in what state it is. I'd even go a step farther and argue that if you don't understand why systemd could be a problem at least theoretically, you exhibit poor judgement in regards to software. I did use systemd for a brief time. My impression was that it was huge, hard to grasp, needlessly complex, and slow. It felt like a software written for "linux consumers and customers" I am not supposed to understand on a more intimate level. It also often felt like change for change's sake, which is not a good attribute for software that needs to be a reliable part of the system. The maintainers seemed to be hostile (downright aggressive sometimes, even) and didn't seem to tolerate any critique well, which for me usually is a good indicator that I'm probably dealing with poorly written software. Somebody with such an attitude usually also has trouble learning from his mistakes or even acknowledging them, a very bad attitude to have as a programmer or any job with "engineer" in it's name. If your job is to solve problems that is a very important skill to have because you make mistakes all the time and there are always ways to do your job better if you are willing to learn them. A programmer who closes himself off from that for ego reasons is not a good programmer and will probably spend a lot of time and energy working around his own poor choices because he refuses to acknowledge them.

Basic processes my system relies on running on need to be that: basic. That way I ensure there are never any surprises and I remain in full control of everything. I wrote the current version of the script that brings my linux up into a "ready to load daemons" phase about ten years ago and rarely made some minor changes to add functionality. I've used that single script across many computers a few distributions and even two different init systems without doing any sweeping modifications. I'm not sure how it could become any simpler for me or how systemd could improve my experience in this regard. I don't think it could. All the softwares that are basic parts of my system has to align with this philosophy because I am a lazy man. I want my computer that works today also work the same way in five years. I want to be able to dig out a computer I haven't used for a year or two, run updates, and still be able to expect for it to work largely the same. From what I have seen, that alone would be impossible with systemd and it's ilk. Not without giving up a great measure of control. I'm not interested in software that tries to reinvent the wheel on a bi-yearly schedule to please the egos of the programmers working on it or hit some corporate-set productivity target.

Emacs

People who feel that emacs is bloated make the mistake to see it as a text editor. Emacs is lisp VM who deals in text buffers (app development framework for zoomers reading this). That makes it very powerful. It took a long time for emacs to truly click with me but when it did it took things to a completely different level. That it is on it's way to become "obscure software" is not an encouraging sign of the times but what can you expect from people who defend projects like systemd?

 

[Max Free]

My impression was that it was huge, hard to grasp, needlessly complex, and slow.

Could be said about a lot of FOSS. But then again, I wasn't there 20 years ago.

I want to be able to dig out a computer I haven't used for a year or two, run updates, and still be able to expect for it to work largely the same.

Isn't the whole reason containerization was invented because everybody gave up on that exact requirement?

 

[Eternal Spirit of Light]

(Posted from my Macbook Pro) more like.

The sentence in the parenthesis pertains to me, not the users which I mocked. Artix Linux is a fork of Arch which removes SoystemD, and DWM is Suckless software written in pure C. I am essentially saying that I am the antithesis of these users.

why do people have strong opinions on systemd

Because it is so

slow

When I (briefly) used Arch my computer took more than a minute to boot. Now that I'm using Artix (runit specifically) it takes 13 seconds. This is not the only example of its slowness, of course.
What also pisses me off is that it tries to be more than an init system. Just do your fucking job, nigger.

 

[AmpleApricots]

13 seconds

On my ancient A4-5000 from 2012 using busybox init, the initialization text from my init script signifying the stages the boot process is in appears as one block all at once. It can take a bit longer for all daemons to start up but you can pretty much instantly log in.

I really never understood what the big deal was. Bringing a Linux up is simple stuff. If you have ever written a CONFIG.SYS/AUTOEXEC.BAT it really isn't much more complicated than that. Then I realized most of the current crop of "IT specialists" didn't and editing a config file is very advanced and scary stuff for them. Well then leave it up to the tech troons to make all your choices and decisions for you. Just don't complain later.

 

[unaboomer]

I've never had a single problem that could be traced to systemd and nobody I ever asked was able to point to a concrete example that they had.

I can name one from personal experience. My previous employer had a problem with their RMM agent getting stuck in an infinite restart loop because SystemD would fail to register that the service had shut down successfully during a reboot. None of the commands to reset the internal state of the service in the SystemD blackbox worked; we had to reinstall the agent any time this happened.

With an old-fashioned init system, you can control your service's lifecycle with a simple Bash script. Because SystemD obfuscates this with an over-engineered state machine that gives no feedback when it gets jammed, it's not clear whether it's a problem with your SystemD service or SystemD itself. If it's the latter, good luck getting enough useful log output for a bug report.

 

[AnOminous]

I can name one from personal experience.

"Hurr durr people complain about systemd but never have any specific gripes."
Bunch of people: "Here's one of my specific gripes."
[wait 4 weeks]
"Hurr durr people complain about systemd but never have any specific gripes."
[rinse and repeat]

 

[Eternal Spirit of Light]

I honestly find that Linux is not that good to use for anything serious, especially arch-based distros.
The problem I have with Linux is that everything is scattered and disorganized. (Most of my criticisms will only apply to arch-based distros).
There is no practical reason to install everything in the system yourself, installing arch takes 20 minutes at most, but what's the point? You learn nothing by doing so, there is no practical benefit, and it's just a waste of time. (Not to mention Gentoo, but at least their wiki is decent.) And then, after everything is installed, you just get a barebones system and have to install the WM and other programs yourself. (Also fuck pulseaudio, fucking nigger trash.)
The truth is that Linux is not that useful for anyone looking to do anything productive, the average linux autist spends more time ricing than actually programming.

But, despite all of that, I actually managed to make it useful. I'm currently using Artix with DWM and ST, I dedicated about two hours when I first installed them to make a minimal rice and I've never touched config.h since, because I don't need to. I've taken some time to lean Vim. The only thing I do on my computer is programming and browsing the interwebs.
But keep in mind that I am not the average arch user, I, unlike them, can control autism for my own benefit.

(Retarded and unstructured ramblings. I might organize my thoughts properly so it's actually comprehensible.)

 

[Kola]

Emacs is lisp VM who deals in text buffers (app development framework for zoomers reading this). That makes it very powerful.

That might have been true 20 years ago. Name 1 task for which there's no better alternative than Emacs currently.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

That might have been true 20 years ago. Name 1 task for which there's no better alternative than Emacs currently.

org-mode

 

[ADHD Mate]

There is no practical reason to install everything in the system yourself, installing arch takes 20 minutes at most, but what's the point? You learn nothing by doing so, there is no practical benefit, and it's just a waste of time. (Not to mention Gentoo, but at least their wiki is decent.) And then, after everything is installed, you just get a barebones system and have to install the WM and other programs yourself. (Also fuck pulseaudio, fucking nigger trash.)

Just install OpenSUSE, Mint or Fedora, and stop being bitch ass nigga. Why is criticism of Linux 90% of time people going for the most autistic distro and then bitching they have to configure everything themselves. If you don't care then sure, it's waste of time.

 

[Eternal Spirit of Light]

Why is criticism of Linux 90% of time people going for the most autistic distro and then bitching they have to configure everything themselves

Because that's what linux is at its core. It was never a truly good operating system, and it never will be.

OpenSUSE

Lol.
I'm done distrohopping so I don't care as much anymore.