="#1
https://www.digitalocean.com/commun...ournalctl-to-view-and-manipulate-systemd-logs Some of the most compelling advantages of systemd are those involved with process and system logging. When using other tools, logs are usually dispersed throughout the system, handled by different daemons and processes, and can be fairly difficult to interpret when they span multiple applications. Systemd attempts to address these issues by providing a centralized management solution for logging all kernel and userland processes. The system that collects and manages these logs is known as the journal. The journal is implemented with the journald daemon, which handles all of the messages produced by the kernel, initrd, services, etc. In this guide, we will discuss how to use the journalctl utility, which can be used to access and manipulate the data held within the journal. _____________________________________________________________________________ ----------------- RE: centralized logging -- here called an 'advantage' translates into 'control' On puppy linux, I have had on two separate occassions, a systemd distro write without my consent extended attributes to savefiles making them ro. On exploration, SELinux had been installed, again without my knowledge or consent. In the past, I could copy a savefile under a differing name as backup. Twice, after installing sytemd, I could no longer do so. Don't ask me how it was done, I don't care, but it was. Amen! ______________________________________________________________________________ #2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21896703 Debian votes for Proposal B, “Systemd but we support exploring alternatives” (debian.org) . . . hazeii 7 months ago I hope that "exploring alternatives" isn't code for dropping sysvinit. Even with the latest debian, switching away from systemd is easy as:- apt-get install sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils cp /usr/share/sysvinit/inittab /etc/inittab reboot apt-get remove --purge --auto-remove systemd Our reasons for doing this are we run stripped-down systems that go for years (even decades), but which we absolutely must be able to fix ourselves with the proverbial rusty hairclip. The general bloat of linux distros (due to gnome/systemd and others) really doesn't suit our use case (although obviously it suits others, even the majority). . . . _____________________________________________________________________________ ----------------- I find the above excerpt informative on both getting rid of systemd in Debian and on the mindeset of the MAJORITY of those present at the discussion.
Democracy fails to work when the majority is wrong or do not care -- Me _____________________________________________________________________________
#3
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/02/msg00695.html Re: how to remove libsystemd0 from a live-running debian desktop system
ok, so there's been quite a discussion, both on slashdot, where amazingly the comments that filtered to the top were insightful and respectful, and also here on debian-devel and debian-users. as i normally use gmane to reply (and maintain and respect threads) but this discussion is not *on* gmane, i apologise for having to write a summary-style follow-up: if people would like me to reply (thank you christian) please cc me in future, but (see last paragraph) i think the software libre community's interests are best served if i wait for replies to accumulate for a few days.
after thinking about this yesterday, a random sentence popped into my head, which i believe is very appropriate: "i disagree with what you are saying, but i will defend your right to say it". i believe it was someone famous who wrote that, and it applies to this situation because this really isn't about the technical merits of the available software: solutions will come in time (and already are: eudev, mdev, uselessd and many more). the reason why i've joined this debate is because i feel that closing doors on choice in ways that force people to have to make extremely disruptive and risky decisions that could adversely affect their livelihoods - i have a *really* bad feeling about that, and i cannot sit by and let it happen without speaking up.
n the past two days i've seen a lot of people on this list make it clear (by saying for example "you have the source, go modify it") that they do not truly appreciate the responsibility and duty of care that they have. in saying that i can say that *i know* how you feel: i've been the leader of many software libre projects where people would expect me to feed them answers for no financial reward - and all those other nuances that we frequently encounter. but i learned in the past few years that even if you are not being paid, you *still* have a duty to those people less intelligent or with less time or less money than you. we're *serving others* with our skill, time and intelligence. it's a really awkward and delicate situation, i know, but answering "go away and modify the source yourself" is to do both yourself and the recipient of that answer a very strong disservice. anyway - down to it.
so, marco, you wrote: > Again, you clearly do not understand well how systemd works.
marco: understanding or otherwise how systemd works is not the point: the point is that there has been a unilateral decision across virtually every single GNU/Linux distro to abandon and remove *any* alternative to having libsystemd0 installed. historical precedent in the software industry and beyond tells us that placing so much power and trust in a single system and a single group should be ringing alarm bells so loudly in your head that you should wake up deaf after having first passed out with dizziness!
so could i ask you, as i really genuinely don't understand, why is it that the lack of choice here *doesn't* bother you? i'm not asking for a technical review or a technically-based argument as to "why libsystemd0 is better" - that has been debated many many times and is entirely moot. i'm asking "why does *only* having libsystemd0 as the sole exclusive startup method, removal of which prevents and prohibits the use of a whopping FIFTEEN PERCENT of the available debian software base, and where that exclusive exclusionary process is being rapidly duplicated across virtually every single GNU/Linux distribution that we know; why does that *not* make you pause for thought that there might be something desperately and very badly wrong?"
ric writes, amongst other things: > You are completely free to fork or go your own direction, indeed we are, and in fact one person mentions further in the thread so far that they did exactly that. they also outline quite how much work it is. on the slashdot discussion, someone pointed out that it was really unconscionable that people have to go to such extreme lengths.
GNU/Linux distros should be a place where people can make happy and convenient choices, not extreme decisions! the extreme absurd version of what you suggest is to do what very very few people in the world have ever done (one of them being richard lightman, an amazingly intelligent and reclusive individual), namely to create an *entire* linux distribution - on their own - from source. i take it you can see, from that example, quite how much of a disservice it is to say what you said, ric?
no, the very fact that this *doesn't go away* - that discussions about libsystemd0 are *continuous and ongoing*, should tell you that there is something very, very badly wrong with what's going on. and that's what i want to get to the bottom of. like... *properly* understand. the second thing, ric, is that i have to point out, respectfully, that there are signs that you didn't read the slashdot article summary, nor my report, as shown here:
> But, to raise comparisons to MicroSoft is very much out of line. that is a conclusion and an insight that i reached with some care and consideration, and unfortunately it appears that you reacted badly and emotionally to that without reviewing the logical reasoning by which i arrived at that insight. as a general rule, asking people to retract a conclusion without first showing that you have read, acknowledged and understood their rationale is ... well... i won't make judgements but i _am_ going to ask you to be more conscientious in future, ok? can i leave it with you to read further and to respect that request? the reason i say that is because i did actually forsee the argument about "anyone can fork or patch code", and provided insights as to why that is not true, both in the slashdot article as well as the report. russ writes:
> Alas, the resulting distribution is still hopelessly compromised by the > NSA, who might be even worse than Lennart Poettering. To see how deep the > tendrils of US government infiltration go, just try removing libselinux1, > and marvel at how much concerted malevolent effort has gone into > destroying your freedom.
and: > Or, alternately, you could research how and why one would use shared > libraries in a binary distribution to support optional features. But > that's boring, prosaic, and nowhere near as much fun to write about. ahhh russ - good maaan
here we have a hint of a possible solution, one where i'm going to need to speak to the systemd team for a feature request / design decision (and can i ask you and anyone else to do the same?). you've hit on what i believe is *the* perfect and acceptable decision that is hinted at by the ridiculousness of the drastic demonstration that i made [to modify and recompile debian packages]. of *course* libsystemd0 should be dynamically loaded, and the userspace applications make the decision *at runtime* as to what to do! yet the staggering thing is that you are quite literally *the* only other person whom i've *ever* encountered - in this entire aggressive storming bloody mess - who has proposed this so simple and respectful design concept! why is that, because i really don't know.
now that just leaves the mention of the dreaded NSA and the dreaded libselinux1 to contend with, which eduard also raises as being a potential target of ire. i have the advantage of having answered this before in other conversations, as well as having worked closely with libselinux, so have some key insights into both how it works as well as _why_ it was developed.
SE/Linux is an implementation of a well-researched (independently researched) security model known as FLASK. FLASK was developed around very very good principles that are often implemented right across the security and defense industry as actual *physical* measures. the example i typically give here is when a 5 star General goes to a base, his papers are *taken away* (preventing and prohibiting him from being able to travel), and he is given a security badge that *only* allows him access to the absolute specific locations in the building that he is there to visit. on leaving (if he leaves...) that badge is *taken away* and he is handed back his papers. but those two transactions of paper-swapping are actually independent, in SE/Linux (and in the physical security world) it has to be pointed out. the key question though is _why_ did the NSA sponsor SE/Linux?
the reason for that is because the adoption of GNU/Linux in secure environments and in USA government departments and military establishments was progressing at an alarmingly high rate, and the NSA became concerned about how to validate its security. i don't know if you're aware of this, but in the intelligence community, *not knowing* if something is secure *or insecure* is *much worse* even than knowing that something *is* insecure. the "not knowing" is their absolute worst nightmare, because if you *know* something is insecure, you can at least avoid it or do some risk assessment. in other words, in the risk assessment of "things unknown", they are forced to put "infinite probability of attack" into the equations, and that they really don't like doing!
however given that the FLASK model is actually a formal mathematical language, and given that the SE/Linux m4 macros may be likewise mathematically analysed, the NSA *really can* make formally-provable statements about the security of computer systems within their care and responsibility. and that makes them - and their clients - very very happy. so to summarise: * the use of libselinux1 is dormant (i.e. whilst you can't remove it without inconvenience, its use is entirely optional, right from the kernel level) * its development and documentation is rational and well-researched * the timeline behind its introduction was done in a respectful and reasonable way * it would be *counter* to the NSA's *own remit* for them to compromise it! * there are several independent people who have reviewed it now let's compare that to the situation that we find ourselves in with libsystemd0: * the use of libsystemd0 is MANDATORY and EXCLUSIONARY (everywhere except slackware and FreeBSD) * its development is a moving target and the documentation of the roadmap is informal and sparse. * the timeline behind its introduction indicates that it is being rail-roaded through * there have been similar conspiracy theories about libsystemd0 but it is too early to make rational assessments * the people who have reviewed libsystemd0 and systemd and found really good technical as well as sysadmin work-related reasons as to why it is lacking have been *COMPLETELY IGNORED*.
so from that can you see why libselinux is, far from being a "bad" example that many people should feel compelled to rip out at the roots, is in fact a *good* example by virtue of helping to demonstrate how libsystemd0 *should* have been introduced and most definitely has not?
the summary is that the process by which SE/Linux was introduced was done in a respectful way, where people were invited to review the papers as well as the code at every step of the way. objections may have been raised, however we see from the lack of past and ongoing fuss (in direct contrast to libsystemd0) that those objections must have been dealt with. by complete contrast, the shit-storm behind libsystemd0 is *not going away*. ... that's quite a lot, there - did i make the point clearly, russ?
marco writes that he believes i accused him of being part of a conspiracy: > Cool! It has been since my Usenet days that I have not been accused of > being part of a conspiracy. Thank you, I missed this. any time, marco - you clearly enjoyed reaching that conclusion, and whilst i wouldn't wish to take that away from you, i do feel compelled to point out that the perception of a conspiracy really is in your own head
my reply to christian's kind words make it clearer: > i'll hazard a guess that it's because they had no idea that, in the > very near future, all the major desktop developers and all the major > distros would make the unilateral decision to hard-code the > *exclusive* use of systemd (or parts of it). in other words, it's *not your fault* marco. .it's *not your fault*. it's *not* your fault. you didn't do anything wrong, ok? you made the best decisions that you could with the information available to you at the time. nobody could have predicted how this would turn out. TheWanderer mentions, in response to the question "how to give people choice" > As Russ pointed out in a thread on -project last month: either revive > ConsoleKit, or reimplement logind in a way which isn't dependent on > systemd, and do either or both in a way which is acceptable to all > relevant upstreams (including PolicyKit). russ seems to have a clue, i believe: he's the one that's also raised the idea of dynamic-loading optional libraries (that may, clearly, then be packaged as separate optional .debs). we are, however, talking not about distro-maintenance but are now talking about making proposals of design decisions to the upstream developers. would it be worthwhile starting a separate discussion about doing that, and where would it be best to do that (where is the best *public* place to do that, i mean, where the most number of people with a stake in the outcome would be able to review and contribute? let's learn from the good example that libselinux1 set, in other words). christian makes the following point: > And what do you mean by "unilateral" decision?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unilateral this came up on slashdot. the relevance is best answered by this post, here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6972495&cid=49063619 > If you want to be > involved in the design and development of a software, do what everyone > else does -- contribute. That works for everyone else, AFAICT. this is not about you, or me. again, like ric, you appear to not have read (or you did, but you didn't acknowledge *that* you had read), the points made both in the report as well as in the text of the slashdot article. as you are the second person to have implicitly indicated that you haven't read what i wrote (in which i foresaw and forestalled exactly the argument that you make), i will repeat it here: " We aren't all "good at coding", or paid to work on Software Libre: that means that those people who are need to be much more responsible..." there's a more detailed version of that on the report, and it was very interesting to see that people on slashdot agreed with me. this *isn't about* you or me. we *can* (and i have - as you can see from the report) contribute, we *can* code. what do you think i'm doing, here??
i'm letting people know that their right to choose has been violated, i'm showing them (if they are brave enough) that they *do* have a choice, and i have provided instructions on how to get that choice back, i'm mulling over ways in which that right to choose can be reinstated in ways that the upstream developers can understand and appreciate, and i'm finding that i am not the only one (Russ for example) who has thought of these ideas, which is great! so i am a bit puzzled, and would really appreciate your insight and answer: what is it about what i am doing is sufficiently unclear that you do not perceive it to be a contribution? > If you know something that all-the-desktops and > all-the-distros don't, then act on that knowledge. i cannot claim to know everything - none of us can - but i *am* acting on the insights that i am able to perceive, highlighting as best i can the issues that i perceive to be important. and i *have* - and am - taking action. exactly as the quote hints at, right at the beginning of this message, i take my duty and responsibility to defend software freedom - even on behalf of those people who do not understand why software freedom is important - very seriously. why do you think i dedicated four years of my life to bridging the yawning gap between the microsoft and UNIX worlds - without adequate financial compensation and without the kind of recognition and awards that *everyone else* in the samba team received at the time? also you also make this point, christian:
> I'll hazard another guess, namely that the great vast majority of users > simply do not care. and then the NSA was discovered, through the publication of a huge mountain of undeniable evidence in direct violation of local and international law, to be doing exactly what all the people who had been scoffed at and ridiculed for decades, with accusations of them being "paranoid" and "conspiracy theorists", had said that the NSA was doing, all along. at that point, suddenly two things happened: * the vast unwashed majority of users suddenly cared * the people who provide service *to* those users took action. and that's really why i'm pursuing this, cross-posted on these two mailing lists (yes alasdair, we don't want to lose good developers, and yes matthias, i believe that both the debian devs and users should listen.... to each other). the vast majority of users don't care because they *don't know*, so it is up to us to make a proper assessment as best we can on their behalf. but what i find to be completely overwhelmingly incomprehensible is how little it is appreciated to be extremely alarming - by the upstream developers as well as the GNU/Linux distribution maintainers - the imposition a monoculture boot system is for software freedom. and, as mentioned above, i'd genuinely very much appreciate people explaining to me why they do not perceive this to be a really, *really* serious problem.
as i can see so clearly why it is such a severe problem - that has absolutely nothing to do with the technical merits of any of the available solutions - it's critical for me to understand why this is so unclear to everyone else. ok that's enough. again, apologies for the summarising-nature of the above (and for its length, in answering everyone as best i can). if it's ok i will do the same again next time, leaving it for several days for the debate to bring out the best from everyone. l. ____________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ The Below is included simply FYI -- and I found it enlightening, myself ____________________________________________________________________________ ------ #4
https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/systemd-can-reach-4175522084/page4.html
Old 10-21-2014, 07:26 PM
#46 harryhaller Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: Slackware-14.0
Posts: 452
Systemd means essentially the death of Slackware.
Systemd is the first part of a project which will take over the whole of the gnu/linux system. Lennart Poettering explains the whole project in this video:
http://www.montanalinux.org/video-systemd-as-core.html of his talk given at the FOSS 2012 in Bangalore, India. He says, right in the beginning, that he regards systemd as the start of Core OS. In 2013 there appeared a distro of that name:
https://coreos.com/about/ Whether they are connected or just that Greg Kroah-Hartman grabbed the name before Poettering could legally claim, I don't know. But please, watch the video and understand that systemd is not just "modernising" init, but is a clearly stated first step of a strategic move.
Listen to Poetering's own words - and then understand how significant the lock-in process is. In any case - if Slackware adopts systemd - it will probably no longer exist in ten years. Systemd is about a uniforming process that will result in a system that will barely allow any individuality at its core. It's aim is to produce a common platform for user applications. Slackware and other distros will only survive by developing in a different way.
Only the large corporate distros will survive, with Debian as consolation for the "amateurs". . . .
__________________________________________________________________________________ It seems all not part of their system who try to warn the hoi polloi of what is really going on are discredited by the 'powers that be' in one way or another."]
