On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:08:43 -0600 Daniel Campbell wrote:
> It's marginally clever, but so clearly obvious at the same time. It's
> sad (to me) that the community didn't see it coming. Those who did have
> been written off as conspiracy theorists or FUDders. Time will reveal all.

Indeed time reveals everything and part of this foiled plot
revealed itself two days ago. It was said earlier in the list by
systemd supporters, that this project is modular, fine split to
binaries and thus critical issues in the pid 1 are not that likely.
And just look at systemd-209 release notes:

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-February/017146.html
[quote] We merged libsystemd-journal.so, libsystemd-id128.so,
libsystemd-login and libsystemd-daemon into a a single libsystemd.so
to reduce code duplication and avoid cyclic dependencies (see below).
[/quote]

So all talks about systemd being modular are nothing more than
nonsense. Guess what will happen on segfault in libsystemd.so?
Segfaults in pid 1 are so nice to bear...

And Canek please talk no more about how "talented" systemd
programmers are or even about how "professional" they are, because
they're no longer. They failed a trivial textbook example: what should
one do when libraries A and B have some common code and cyclic deps?
Push common code to library C. That's the Unix way and secure way.
Creating single bloated library will help in neither fencing nor
debugging, nor code audit.

It looks like to me that ultimate goal of systemd is to consume as
much system and user tools and interfaces as possible. Perhaps, in the
ideal systemd world there will be nothing but linux-systemd kernel and
systemd-stuff userspace. Shell communication will extinct, all major
application and daemons will be converted to systemd "modules". Of
course this goal will be never achieved as-is, but one may consider
it as an asymptote of their actions.

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko