Daily reminder that both PulseAudio and systemd works like a charm.
Daily reminder that both PulseAudio and systemd works like a charm
Thanks Lennart.
Pulse audio yes
Systemd no
>systemctl enable/start/stop/restart nameofservice.service
It just werks
binary log files
And?
he is back, lets get our systemd discussion, this RUST shill are to boring
I can't say no to William Dafoe.
Let me explain. systemd is shit. It's like a child in a sandbox that shits his pants and pisses in the sand and then goes home to take a bath and shit in the bath and then shit on the toilet not in it and then shit out a stupid fucking error message that makes no sense "oopsie me poop me pants" and then shits all over the place good job using shitty software...
Munich
What a wordsmith
systemd is bad!
systemd is botnet
until it doesn't
C
I
NSA
Agree. So does the backdoor.
rcctl
Pulseaudio no
Systemd maybe
I've had a shit load of problems using pulse, I've sworn off it, alsa works fine.
Systemd is botnet, I've had problems using it but nothing too bad. I don't use it anymore of course but usability wise it isn't awful (it's just bad).
>/etc/rc.d/service start/stop/restart
It just werks
>Systemd is botnet
whats wrong with it?
ok tell me why do I need another 68 systemd binaries for that
>became more than an init system
>bloated codebase, unnecessary features
>DNS resolver build in, IP forwarder built in
>defaults to Google DNS, no way to change this without rebuilding from source
>shitty DEs depend on it (GNOME)
why should a DE depend on an "init" system? That's fucking retarded.
It's not confirmed botnet but it sure is bloated.... Meaning that auditing it personally is a chore. Meaning that if some faggot wanted to place a backdoor in there it'd be easier than backdooring something that does it's fucking job as an init system instead of other BS.
>but muh Linux kernel is bloated
Yeah but there are more people working on it, more trustworthy people verifying commits, etc.
This poettering faggot always blames his faults on others. I seriously wouldn't want someone as ignorant as him verifying commits to a bloated codebase.
>why such a strong claim then?
Because it's in the github issues, read them for yourself.