Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday August 31 2015, @04:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the so-su-me dept.

The Linux Homefront Project reports on Lennart Poettering looking to do away with the good old "su" command. From the article, "With this pull request systemd now support a su command functional and can create privileged sessions, that are fully isolated from the original session. Su is a classic UNIX command and used more than 30 years. Why su is bad? Lennart Poettering says:"

Well, there have been long discussions about this, but the problem is that what su is supposed to do is very unclear. On one hand it’s supposed to open a new session and change a number of execution context parameters (uid, gid, env, …), and on the other it’s supposed to inherit a lot concepts from the originating session (tty, cgroup, audit, …). Since this is so weakly defined it’s a really weird mix&match of old and new paramters. To keep this somewhat managable we decided to only switch the absolute minimum over, and that excludes XDG_RUNTIME_DIR, specifically because XDG_RUNTIME_DIR is actually bound to the session/audit runtime and those we do not transition. Instead we simply unset it.

Long story short: su is really a broken concept. It will given you kind of a shell, and it’s fine to use it for that, but it’s not a full login, and shouldn’t be mistaken for one.

I'm guessing that Devuan won't be getting rid of "su."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by srobert on Monday August 31 2015, @04:46PM

    by srobert (4803) on Monday August 31 2015, @04:46PM (#230263)

    Advocates of systemd are quick to point out that ordinary users, like myself, aren't knowledgeable enough to participate in the discussion. There's actually some truth to that, but even I know what su is used for and what it does. As far as I can tell it's doing it well enough. For what reason does it need to be folded into the init system? Though I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand the technical arguments for and against systemd, something about it just doesn't pass the smell test. I'm glad FreeBSD is usable for me as a desktop OS.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AnonymousCowardNoMore on Monday August 31 2015, @05:07PM

    by AnonymousCowardNoMore (5416) on Monday August 31 2015, @05:07PM (#230276)

    Unity. Metro. Ribbon. I could go on but I think you get the point. If you still believe the developers who claim to know better than you what you need, I've no hope for you.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @06:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @06:45PM (#230358)

      I bet you are a RIOT at an Obama rally.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday August 31 2015, @05:08PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday August 31 2015, @05:08PM (#230278)

    For what reason does it need to be folded into the init system?

    Basically, what systemd has become (if it wasn't intended to be this already) is Linus Poettering's means of completely scrapping all things POSIX and replacing it with whatever he feels like to make it behave more like OS X.

    Sometimes, what he feels like is an improvement. Sometimes, though, it crashes the kernel [iu.edu]. But, and here's the key, his project couples everything together so that you can't take the good bits and throw out the ones that break everything. That this is a complete violation of the basic design principles of UNIX going back to the days of Thompson and Ritchie does not seem to matter.

    Advocates of systemd are quick to point out that ordinary users, like myself, aren't knowledgeable enough to participate in the discussion.

    But a lot of people who are knowledgeable enough, like Linus Torvalds (see above) and long-time contributor Christopher Barry [iu.edu], hate it, in part for the same reasons you and I do.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Monday August 31 2015, @05:51PM

      by Francis (5544) on Monday August 31 2015, @05:51PM (#230309)

      OK, so it's not a matter of me not understanding Systemd, it's a matter of them making some horrendous choices and then foisting them on other people.

      I can understand that sudo and su are going to have some problems, I wouldn't even install sudo on my system and su itself isn't supposed to be used like a root shell. If I need that, I'd log in as root or just use su -, to get the full shell.

    • (Score: 2) by mtrycz on Monday August 31 2015, @06:55PM

      by mtrycz (60) on Monday August 31 2015, @06:55PM (#230365)

      Last time I checked, Thorvalds doesn't have any strong (positive nor negative) feelings about systemd. Can you provide a link?

      --
      In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
      • (Score: 5, Funny) by Thexalon on Monday August 31 2015, @07:19PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday August 31 2015, @07:19PM (#230385)

        Linus' opinion [zdnet.com]

        I don't actually have any particularly strong opinions on systemd itself. I've had issues with some of the core developers that I think are much too cavalier about bugs and compatibility, and I think some of the design details are insane (I dislike the binary logs, for example), but those are details, not big issues.

        So except for the design being insane, the code buggy, and the developers rude and unresponsive to the point where he refuses to merge their code [iu.edu], he has no strong opinions about it. Which to me seems like "Except for that one little incident, how was the play, Mary Lincoln?"

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @07:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @07:38PM (#230401)

      Basically, what systemd has become (if it wasn't intended to be this already) is Linus Poettering's means of completely scrapping all things POSIX and replacing it with whatever he feels like to make it behave more like OS X.

      You're mixing up Lennart Poettering with Jordan Hubbard, who is aiming to make FreeBSD more OS X like — including launchd, libnotify, and libdispatch — with NeXTBSD [nextbsd.org] (because "FreeBSD X was already taken").

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Francis on Monday August 31 2015, @08:57PM

        by Francis (5544) on Monday August 31 2015, @08:57PM (#230448)

        He has no interest in merging those changes into any of the BSDs though. People who want it, would have to download a completely different disc and do a completely different install. And that doesn't replace what people already have.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @02:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @02:50PM (#231281)

          Seems like he was very much in favor of changing Freebsd, but got so much pushback about it that he has settled for a fork.

          • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday September 02 2015, @04:45PM

            by Francis (5544) on Wednesday September 02 2015, @04:45PM (#231339)

            Probably not. FreeBSD was never run like that. Yes, there have been times when mistakes were made, but *BSD projects are mostly not about ego. Theo, notwithstanding.

            The mailing lists are publicly accessible, if you think that he wanted to put it into the release, I recommend going on and looking. For the most part the developers involved with producing the code are just not that interested in ego. The market share is largely a matter of not feeling the need to go around aggressively bullying people into installing the OS or spreading untrue rumors about the competition like Linux did early on.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @08:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @08:22PM (#230429)

      Linus Torvalds "likes" systemd "sees no problem with it". He has been payed off.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by morgauxo on Monday August 31 2015, @06:21PM

    by morgauxo (2082) on Monday August 31 2015, @06:21PM (#230333)

    It should never pass the smell test when someone tells you you are not knowledgeable enough to evaluate something that you use. If whatever problems he thinks he iis trying to solve were problems for you then you WOULD know.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @06:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @06:24PM (#230340)

    Advocates of systemd...

    ...are idiots.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by rtfazeberdee on Thursday September 03 2015, @02:53PM

      by rtfazeberdee (5847) on Thursday September 03 2015, @02:53PM (#231778)

      you are not smart enough to make that claim

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by turgid on Monday August 31 2015, @07:29PM

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 31 2015, @07:29PM (#230391) Journal

    Advocates of systemd are quick to point out that ordinary users, like myself, aren't knowledgeable enough to participate in the discussion.

    Ah yes, Soviet democracy in action. Only Party members may vote.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:03AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:03AM (#230567)

      Do you also assume that when one advocates for freedom they are advocating for anarchy? There is a flaw [wikipedia.org] in your argument.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by NickFortune on Tuesday September 01 2015, @08:27AM

        by NickFortune (3267) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @08:27AM (#230701)

        So tell me, what level of qualifications are needed before the systemd developers accept you as being qualified to disagree with their design philosophy?

        The bar for agreeing with them is set pretty darn low, I've noticed that much.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday September 01 2015, @09:59AM

      by Bot (3902) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @09:59AM (#230726) Journal

      In Soviet Russia, systemd superusers YOU!

      --
      Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 31 2015, @07:40PM

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Monday August 31 2015, @07:40PM (#230403) Journal

    Advocates don't really understand the issue at large themselves. I am sure most of them are in fact said ordinary users who don't fully understand the scope of what systemd does or it's consequences. The only thing they can muster in defense are mundane details like more intuitive syntax & configuration, parallel startup/faster boot time (which isn't that fast to begin with) and a better desktop experience. What ever that means.

    The one thing is that is plainly visible to everyone: systemd has grown, far, far beyond its original scope of just an init system. We are at the point where systemd is becoming an operating system itself. We are moving away from the traditional Unix architecture of loosely coupled components that work together to form a complete system to a monolithic "runtime". We are already seeing systemd working itself into not only the core of the OS but also into the desktop. Pretty soon you won't be able to run a useful Linux desktop without *all* of those components being present. Sure you can run a Linux desktop without systemd/gnome. Just don't expect the more popular software packages to work for you as they will most likely have dependencies on systemd. Thankfully POSIX support isn't going away, the Linux kernel handles that. So we can still run legacy.

    What we are really seeing is a new OS being developed. One which eschews the legacy Unix underpinnings and ideals and moves more towards a new monolithic collection of intertwined software. When you think about it, perhaps moving forward is a good thing. Shedding cruft and legacy is always a good thing right? It may seem so. And there are a lot of people who subscribe themselves to this train of thinking without ever looking at the big picture. Change is good. But change for the sake of change is bad.

    So, if it fixes the old crusty bits, then why is it harmful? It's harmful because it robs us of freedom. Linux is more than a desktop OS for running Firefox, Steam or Libreoffice. It is a collection of interchangeable software that users can craft to their liking. The old mantra: Linux runs on wrist watches to supercomputers and everything inbetween. Some people think this is part of the reason that we don't have a homogeneous desktop. That is false. The Linux desktop as it stands is very complete. It's like moving from a bin full of lego pieces to a pre-formed plastic hunk that snaps onto a base. You can't break it apart or replace parts without breaking everything.

    You want my $2E-2?
    systemd gets OS design completely wrong. Rob Pike said it best in an old article he wrote back in 2000: go for depth, not breadth. Instead of giving us a better init system and PID1, we got a friggin OS instead. Developers, please, make yourself very familiar with the writings at cat-v.org [soylentnews.org]. Some of it may sound silly or arrogant. But the point they are making is the KISS principle is ignored in software design. Rob's article I spoke of is liked at the bottom along with another very relevant article he wrote: UNIX Style, or cat -v Considered Harmful. Even though the articles themselves are very old, they still make sense in today's bloated, overcomplicated rube goldberg methods of software development. I largely blame it on the overconfidence of developers who are looking to stand out and make a name for themselves (Poettering certainly has).

    • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @08:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @08:02PM (#230412)

      The problem is that systemd offers solutions for problems software developers have. Nobody else bothers to listen, not to mention to implement any alternative solution more in line with whatever ideals may apply.

      Just take running X11 without being root. That has been a goal when I became active in Linux in the mid 1990s. Logind finally enables that. Wayland will also require logind fornthe same funxtionality last I checked. There is just no other solution to that problem to be had.

      Please somebody start to listen to the need of developers and come up with solutions that do not rely on systemd! Otherwise we will be stuck with that for sure.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Monday August 31 2015, @08:25PM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Monday August 31 2015, @08:25PM (#230431)

        http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-desktop-74/running-x11-as-root-4175505576/ [linuxquestions.org]

        The entire thread disagrees and offers pretty simple workarounds.

        Sometimes the fact that it is difficult to do something means the developers need to figure out how to make that happen. Security is a real concern, and it takes some very simple mistakes to open the gates.

        For the easiest example, take Android. "Let's make the lives of developers REALLY EASY" they said, and thus it has taken years to implement security controls by default, as mentioned in one of today's articles. Developers could implement whatever permissions they needed. Now they are switching tracks because privacy and security have finally (thanks to a certain hero of the people) become a concern for the general public.

        Poettering has solved many issues, and made it easy to accomplish some rather specific tasks, but so far I have yet to see a single comment from the supporters claiming how much easier it is to code now. There were old and crufty systems and place to be sure, but the scope creep is insane... How people can imagine this is ok is beyond me, I guess its because we're in the 21st century now and all those old people didn't even know what they were doing. I can't believe I'm saying this but where are the code hipsters that think the old stuff is still cool? Another few years maybe, after some major bug/privacy scandal?

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @09:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @09:12PM (#230453)

          thanks to a certain hero of the people

          Funny. Your hero worship does not extend to everyone. "It is important to ME, so therefore it is important to EVERYONE."

          Don't be such an arrogant ass.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @06:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @06:37PM (#230934)

            Thank you echo chamber. May I have another down mod? I'll toe the Party line, Comrade, and dare not speak against the groupthink anymore.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @03:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @03:44PM (#231805)

        1. logind enables nothing. polkit is the active part in the whole shebang. That is the part sitting suid root and doing all the delegation of resource access.

        2. wayland at its core is a svgalib for the GPU era. It is basically there to paint pretty stuff in the GPU buffer and thats it. On its own wayland does nothing, unlike X11. With wayland the WM is the party that does all the device access etc. Thus it is Gnome, KDE and the rest that needs some way to get root grade access to /dev entries. Hence logind (because the forerunner consokekit, that didn't need a specific init sitting as pid1, was depreciated by Poettering) acting as the go between for the WM and polkit.

        3. The reason for X11 being run as root was that it needed access to a bunch of /dev entries. By default those are root exclusive. So running it as root was the quicker way.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:37PM (#230497)

      Ever notice that the logo|signage that Red Hat uses doesn't mention Linux at all?
      I'll be perfectly happy after they have let Lennart have his way and there is no more Linux left in Red Hat.

      In the meantime, there are still many ways we can have Linux as it was meant to be--sans Lennart. [without-systemd.org]

      -- gewg_

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:48AM

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:48AM (#230559) Journal

        That's the way it appears to be headed. GNU/Linux becomes RedhatOS.

        What I cant believe is how the rest of the community was sold a big mistake by a commercial vendor. Didn't we learn anything from letting big commercial vendors get in the way? Isn't that why some of us moved or adopted open source and GNU/Linux in the first place?

        I'm flabbergasted.

      • (Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday September 01 2015, @03:45AM

        by M. Baranczak (1673) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @03:45AM (#230638)
        http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page#Free.2FOpen_Source_Operating_systems_without_systemd_in_the_default_installation [without-systemd.org] Devuan won't be ready for a while, if ever. Slackware sounds too user-hostile for my needs. I used Gentoo for a while, and it worked pretty well, but that was years ago. I've never even heard of any of the other ones on that list. Anybody have recommendations?
        • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday September 01 2015, @06:38AM

          by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday September 01 2015, @06:38AM (#230679)

          http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page#Free.2FOpen_Source_Operating_systems_without_systemd_in_the_default_installation [without-systemd.org] ... I've never even heard of any of the other ones on that list. Anybody have recommendations?

          PCLinuxOS [pclinuxos.com] is worth a look. And the Slackware derivative Salix [salixos.org]*, a (somewhat) simplified Slack with an easy to use package manager that looks after dependancies.

          *Warning: I went to Salix when I dropped OpenSuse and stayed with it for a couple of weeks before moving on to Slackware; the same could happen to you.

          --
          It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @10:16AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @10:16AM (#230734)

          Devuan

          If you were happy with Debian before Lennart, try antiX (pronounced "Antiques").
          It's based on Debian Testing but has avoided Lennart's junk.
          They recently had a new release. [freeforums.org]

          They have several spins and as long as you have 64MB of RAM and a blank 700MB CD-R (or a thumbdrive), you should be golden.
          If your box has some modern oomph, this will make it like a 427 AC Cobra.

          -- gewg_

    • (Score: 1) by rtfazeberdee on Thursday September 03 2015, @02:04PM

      by rtfazeberdee (5847) on Thursday September 03 2015, @02:04PM (#231740)

      You haven't yet worked out the difference between systemd the binary and systemd the project. The "monolithic" argument is complete cock, the kernel is monolithic, not systemd. whjy don;t you complain about the kernel being a monolith?

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Thursday September 03 2015, @05:02PM

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday September 03 2015, @05:02PM (#231857) Journal

        You haven't yet worked out the difference between systemd the binary and systemd the project.

        I am well aware of this.

        The "monolithic" argument is complete cock, the kernel is monolithic, not systemd.

        You have to grasp the meaning of monolithic before arguing about it. Monolithic in the sense that you either adopt the entire system or you don't. systemd is now working its way into desktop environments and software to the point where without systemd, desktop environments and applications might not be able to run without it. What's worse, since Linux implements syscalls beyond the scope of POSIX and systemd makes generous use of them, porting systemd to another operating systems is most likely impossible or very unlikely to happen.

        whjy don;t you complain about the kernel being a monolith?

        Moot point.

        There are a few big issues with systemd. The first is the system is absorbing what were previously separate components into one giant package (that's why it's monolithic). It's a take it or leave it scenario. The second issue is security. With so many critical daemons being re-written, many new bugs are being introduced. Only time will tell how many of them are major security issues. And I guarantee there will be issues. And third, systemd is killing the freedom of software portability. It's not that systemd is completely bad for Linux, it's bad for everyone else that shares software with Linux and doesn't run systemd. Gnome is going to put stubs in the code to allow for use on non-linux operating systems. But how long that can stay practical is unknown. KDE is now calling non-systemd code "legacy". I guess the BSD people can suck it right? They'll be forced to fork those projects and waste manpower maintaining something that didn't need maintaining.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Michelle on Monday August 31 2015, @08:09PM

    by Michelle (4097) on Monday August 31 2015, @08:09PM (#230421)

    Advocates of systemd are quick to point out that ordinary users [...] aren't knowledgeable enough to participate in the discussion.

    To me, this philosophy just reeks of typical 20-something techie elitism. I've been working with Unix since the dinosaur days and Linux since about '94. So far, it's all worked pretty well. As others have said, it's just a compulsive need to gut something and make changes for the sake of making changes. Poettering & crew just want their name in the spotlight, regardless whether it's for something beneficial or not. The arrogance of people like this is astonishing.

    --
    "Right now is the only moment you'll ever have; so why be miserable?"
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:10AM

    by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:10AM (#230647)

    Advocates of systemd are quick to point out that ordinary users, like myself, aren't knowledgeable enough to participate in the discussion.

    They are mistaken. You may or may not be knowdgeable enough to comment on the quality of the code, but you _ARE_ knowdgeable enough to comment on how systemd (and all of its baggage) fits in with your requirements*. In fact, when it comes to _YOUR_ requirements it is they who "aren't knowledgeable enough to participate in the discussion."

      

    *One of your requirements is trusting your computer.

    --
    It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by caseih on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:23AM

    by caseih (2744) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:23AM (#230653)

    It's not folded into the init system! What are you talking about? Look, the problem with these systemd discussions is that "ordinary users" such as yourself can't be bothered to even learn what systemd is let alone what it can do for you before you start arguing like this. If you really do want to know what systemd is about, I'm sure people who are up on it are happy to talk to you about it and explain its benefits to you.

    People have this weird idea that systemd is some monstrous, monolithic init system. It's not at all like that. Systemd is not monolithic at all. It's simply a collection of utilities and services, most of which are optional, among which is a very fast and very flexible init system that is simple better than anything out there right now. Systemd services and utilities do depend on core systemd components, true. But many components are for specialized use cases like containers, so those parts simply aren't necessary on your desktop system and most likely not installed. For example, networkd. But for those that want and need such a beast, it's there and it is well-integrated once you install it.

    I use systemd on all my machines, but I only use a small portion of it. I have at most systemd libs, init, and journal, and some of the command line utilities. And, gasp, I run rsyslogd to keep a standard syslog available since systemd preserves the standard syslog interface. I could use the journal if I want or need--it does do finer-grained logging which is nice for debugging--but my syslogs are all there like they always were before. I don't use machinectl and I'm unlikely to need it anytime soon as I don't run containers. So the ability to safely and securely get a root shell with machinectl doesn't affect me in the slightest. I continue to use sudo su - for most of my root shell needs.

    • (Score: 2) by srobert on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:28AM

      by srobert (4803) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:28AM (#230670)

      "It's not folded into the init system! What are you talking about?"

      The title of the article referenced in this story is "Lennart Poettering merged “su” command replacement into systemd". Systemd, I was told by people who are supposed to know, is the new init system in Linux. So you should be able to see how I interpreted that as "su being folded into the init system".

      " Look, the problem with these systemd discussions is that "ordinary users" such as yourself can't be bothered to even learn what systemd is let alone what it can do for you before you start arguing like this. If you really do want to know what systemd is about, I'm sure people who are up on it are happy to talk to you about it and explain its benefits to you."

      Re-read that last part and substitute the word "scientology" for "systemd". :-)

      It's not that I can't "be bothered". It's more that my base of knowledge isn't sufficient to absorb all that those who are up on it want to tell me. What I do understand is that systemd is being vertically integrated into the system in such a way that desktop systems such as Gnome3 and Cinnamon were becoming dependent on it, making them unavailable to those of us who choose to use BSD or Linux distributions that haven't bought into abandoning the "quaint notion" of each tool doing one thing well.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by caseih on Wednesday September 02 2015, @02:44AM

        by caseih (2744) on Wednesday September 02 2015, @02:44AM (#231107)

        I did try to explain what systemd is. It's suite of services and utilities for managing a Linux system in an increasingly complex environment where things like virtualization and containerization are the norm (CoreOS is a great example). Systemd does provide a replacement for init, but that's only one small part of it. Related services like udev, that are required by systemd and many other services, are pulled into the systemd project umbrella. Such a move only makes sense, since udev is so important. Systemd provides optional services that are of use to containers and virtual machines (networkd for example). When people say such and such is being added to systemd, they don't mean it's being added to an increasingly bloated init. Far from it. Most of the time they simply mean that the systemd project is now including a new utility or service that you are free to use or not.

        Like I say, I use systemd on my computers and I only use as much as I need, which for now is really only the init system. The journal is there, but I don't use it right now; rsyslog still works fine for my purposes. I do like the new config files for setting up services. Way simpler than init scripts, and potentially more secure since complex things like forking a daemon are done by one chunk of auditable code, rather than relying on every daemon to correctly implement daemonization. I don't use machinectl at all, which is what the original article is about, not su. Talk about misleading headline! Though it's fair to say that sudo and su do have serious deficiencies when it comes to kernel session management.

        Sorry that my earlier response was a bit short; most people jump all over systemd without even wanting to understand the rationale, preferring to heap ad hominem attacks on Mr. Poettering or question the intelligence of RH's engineers who are very smart people and really do have a handle on security and implications. Initially many of RH's engineers were resistant to systemd, but they took a long hard look at it and came to the conclusion that it actually does things right. That's why they use it.

      • (Score: 1) by rtfazeberdee on Thursday September 03 2015, @02:07PM

        by rtfazeberdee (5847) on Thursday September 03 2015, @02:07PM (#231745)

        well, if you actually read about what has been developed instead of relying on a troll bait lie of a headline, then you will see "machinectl shell" and "su" are separate binaries and will co-exist. "su" has not been deprecated. do some research.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by utoddl on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:19PM

      by utoddl (819) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:19PM (#230787) Homepage

      If you really do want to know what systemd is about, I'm sure people who are up on it are happy to talk to you about it and explain its benefits to you.

      Not in this forum. Look at the vitriol above and below. Look at the info to condescension ratio (almost 0.01%) in those comments. Why would anyone who understands why systemd is useful wade into these waters? Life is short enough.

      The reasons for this move were not spelled out very well in the opening paragraph, so it's understandable why there would be questions. That doesn't justify the pile-on of hate. If the system provides sessions and cgroups, and you want to start a root session, it makes sense that you would obtain a new session from the part of the system that generates sessions. Sudo and su can't do that; they are part of existing sessions. Sure, you can get a root shell, and if that's all you need, fine, use them. But if you need a session unpolluted by your user session, this is a much cleaner (i.e. actually has a hope of working) solution.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @03:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @03:47PM (#231808)

      One may wonder if the confusion of systemd the binary and systemd the project is an intentional PR psyops...

  • (Score: 1) by Eunuchswear on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:52PM

    by Eunuchswear (525) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:52PM (#230802) Journal

    As far as I can tell [ su ] is doing it well enough. For what reason does it need to be folded into the init system?

    Maybe you should read the original bug report? [github.com]

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video [youtube.com]
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by rtfazeberdee on Thursday September 03 2015, @01:58PM

    by rtfazeberdee (5847) on Thursday September 03 2015, @01:58PM (#231734)

    "For what reason does it need to be folded into the init system? Though I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand the technical arguments "
    1. its NOT folded into the systems, its an optional additional feature.
    2. You don't need to be knowledgeable in most cases of ranting against systemd, most anti-systemd rants are misinformation. Jut read and comprehend before believing any anti-post