Fear is the mind killer.
SystemD should scare you
Robert Thompson
Gabriel Collins
We must accept no less than the public immolation of Lennart Poettering on the front page of linuxquestions.org
Freedom is not free
Josiah Adams
I ask this every time systemd gets brought up. You people make it sound as if systemd is unauditable, when it only contains 411,674 lines of code. Meanwhile, web browsers that are basicaly become their own OSes contain many times that with Chromium containing 18,824,671 lines of code and Firefox containing 36,890,152 lines of code. Hell, Emacs contains 1,656,961 lines of code. What software do you use on your computer if you consider software containing ~412k lines of code to be unauditable?
sources for those numbers:
openhub.net
openhub.net
openhub.net
openhub.net
Evan Hughes
None of those programs are processID #1, nor are they mandatory in a system.
Grayson Butler
what browser are you using? when was the last time you audited its source?
Elijah Kelly
I'm not a security autist, but people should be allowed to be secure if they want to. It's not the point. SystemD is shit from a design philosophy, and I don't want GNU/Linux to end up like web browsers, since very web browser is shit.
Carson Moore
Remember when the UNIX philosophy was a thing?
Grayson Perez
This
Jaxon Edwards
We're talking about Linux,though.
Ryder Campbell
>None of those programs are processID #1
So you have no issue with the idea of "unauditable" software that contains 46 to 90 times more lines of code than systemd and designed for retrieving and executing code from various sources on the internet. You also haven't answered my question of what size do you consider to be the cutoff as to whether you consider something to be auditable, nor has anyone else any other time I've asked this question.
>nor are they mandatory in a system.
Neither is systemd.
>I'm not a security autist, but people should be allowed to be secure if they want to.
So you're just repeating things you heard on here rather than thinking for yourself.