I like gentoo but it's only a matter of time until systemd is the preferred option. They discontinued eudev even though people still work on it, and other inits are less supported too.
2 months ago
Anonymous
(OP)
by installing a non-systemd distro, duh
here's a hardcore antisystemd site that has a useful list of them
https://sysdfree.wordpress.com/2023/09/25/363/
didn't they discontinue eudev because it was having a shit ton of bugs and the devs could barely maintain it at the time?
openrc is still the main init. were other inits (such as runit, s6, etc.) even supported in the first place?
despite having their reasons, i don't like how gentoo devs drop software the moment they think it's not being updated as often as they want. the consolekit drop still pisses me off.
2 months ago
Anonymous
eudev is still maintained even now. I installed it to test it as part of LFS just dropping it in instead of udev and it worked. I dunno what bugs there are, but if you read the gentoo notice of discontinuing it they said it was because it was only intended as a stopgap solution until they could compile udev from systemd and run it standalone which they can now do so they don't want to spend time maintaining it. As for other init systems, I don't think they ever fully supported them. But I'm pretty sure they might move to systemd in the future as the main one, then it's a matter of time before the packages of other init systems get removed. They just seem to be drifting in that direction, consolekit, eudev, makes you wonder what's next, that's all.
as an escape hatch for developers that get cancelled by the DEI gestapo
just having such an alternative available might be enough to prevent Debian from going too far in that direction
>someone disagrees with me they must be a chat bot
2 months ago
Anonymous
who are you quoting?
2 months ago
Anonymous
you that is literally what you just said
2 months ago
Anonymous
I said "ok GPT". Stop hallucinating if you're a bot. Take your meds if you're a schizo.
2 months ago
Anonymous
you said that to imply that i am a bot and you implied that i was a bot cause i didnt accept you shakery reasoning for hating systemD
also you morals and political beliefs are wrong cause you hate trans people
systemd is an effort to homogenize linux and ensure that all the major subsystems are under the control of a small cabal of government linked engineers
lennart has already revealed the end game for all this
https://0pointer.net/blog/fitting-everything-together.html
the aim is to make every linux machine, and thus every machine in the world, capable of remote attestation to the government
that way they can prevent anyone going online with any unapproved software installed
some governments will ban all porn, and some will ban all encrypted messaging apps
many will ban Tor and unregistered VPNs
most will ban AI deepfake apps
don't be surprised when a government with this much control starts banning things you like too, such as elections
That article seems to want to make it easy to manage for enterprises and stuff. I'm not sure I quite think the fears are what you think but it's important to have alternatives so users can still have something they can make their own.
>make it easy to manage for enterprises and stuff.
well obviously he's not going to come right out and say it's for ending the freedom of general purpose computing
he has to justify IBM working on it by giving it some sort of supposed commercial benefit
but whatever ends up becoming the systemd standard will inevitably become the desktop linux standard even for home users
2 months ago
Anonymous
Until they get all that forced into the kernel so it doesn't boot without it it doesn't matter, though. You can go without it. So it's only affecting the masses I don't care about. I wish they never switched to linux in the first place.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You can go without it.
i didn't explain myself fully
once it is possible for all linux users to install this systemd remote attestation system, and all other desktop and mobile operating systems have an equivalent system as standard, there is nothing stopping the government from mandating it
the people who use linux but refuse to use systemd are the 4% of the 4%, who no government will even notice the complaints of
the government rules will likely require ISPs to detect and send warning emails to customers whose PCs don't periodically check in with the remote attestation server
after 6 months of warnings, the ISPs will start issuing temporary disconnections, only allowing you to visit a few whitelisted sites for downloading Windows updates or Ubuntu installers
2 months ago
Anonymous
That sounds a little far fetched, you could easily just tunnel through it. Have an approved computer which only receives encrypted data from your real computer and sends it to a vps in some other country that isn't insane and then out to the internet. Your data already goes through the ISP, you're just adding one extra hop.
2 months ago
Anonymous
i'm glad you're thinking this through, but i assure you that the intelligence agencies and big tech companies have thought about this more
once the government has control of all the devices that go online, they can force those devices to report what software they have installed
the first type of software to be banned will be any application that allows arbitrary data to be proxied on behalf of an unapproved device
exemptions will be granted, if you file enough paperwork with the government proving you are a developer or explaining why you can't use a TPM on your device, but connections will still be limited to specific whitelisted IP addresses, hosted within the country, and using only certificates issued by a government run authority
2 months ago
Anonymous
how do you come up with these cuck fantasies?
2 months ago
Anonymous
how are you not aware of what companies have done to consoles and phones?
how are you not aware of what governments want to do with PCs?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/
2 months ago
Anonymous
he is not wrong.
tor recently released new transport which now uses http fingerprinting to bypass detection
[...]
which got me thinking about what this user also said
[...]
let's imagine for a second that masking traffic as http is the ultimate solution to 'hiding in plain sight.' there are no exotic protocols, no weird hash noise that 'looks like nothing' nothing of sorts, right?
so how far will the world go to create new hurdle in this never ending cat and mouse game? and if http is too big to fail as protocol, what is there left to do other than MITMing your very https protocol on hardware level? just think about it for a fricking second
you dont need to go far for examples. turkmenistan for example has real case of implementing 'whitelists' based internet filtering. russia constantly looming with idea of cutting itself off internet also with whitelist system
we will have to see how china will react, china will have final say on the matter and how it will react to a 'threat' of free internet. then world powers follow suit as always
2 months ago
Anonymous
do you really think a tiny fraction of linux users—with or without systemd—is some kind of barrier preventing gubmint from telling you that it's time for pc inspection day? "oh we really want to have a totalitarian state, but there's a dude in ohio who uses arch linux on his desktop and systemd doesn't have TPM 2.5 Online Reporting in it yet! we're doomed!"
2 months ago
Anonymous
>a tiny fraction of linux users
if systemd had never become popular, and all the major distros were running their own custom configurations of various different init systems, there would have been a lot more inertia preventing a single company from rolling out an unpopular piece of low level software across 90% of linux machines
maybe you're right that no government would have qualms about telling linux users to go out and buy a machine with windows or macos installed on it, but they would care about the effect of such a law on businesses
if a country has millions of people employed by businesses that are using a wide range of distros, and those distros decided to coordinate a boycott and hinder the adoption of some remote attestation service, then suddenly those businesses would be lobbying the government not to introduce such a requirement
this plan has probably been in the works for 10 years, around the time of the snowden revelations and the rise of systemd, and it wouldn't have been clear then how popular linux would be in the 2020s
so even if you're right with hindsight that taking control of linux this way was ultimately unnecessary, the people behind the plan couldn't have known that back then, and it's still a very cost effective attack to have this much ongoing control over linux
i mean how much did it end up costing them? a few full time engineers working on systemd from inside redhat, and a free job at microsoft for lennart?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Welcome back Terry glad to see your ok
You have a pretty good point though the government after they take our guns will start taking our internet and online privacy
>Lennart Poettering
Holy shit the main author of Systemd is literally simping for remote attestation.
Now I get all the hatred towards systemd, and I subscribe to it.
i'm glad someone here is intellectually honest enough to update their model of the world when they receive new evidence
long ago there were hints that lennart's goal was to be able to push automated updates to users from a central repository, regardless of what distro they were running
that was all speculative, though
?t=190
the full plan is only revealed in his blog now that TPMs are starting to be mandated by the major OS vendors
>Lennart Poettering
Holy shit the main author of Systemd is literally simping for remote attestation.
Now I get all the hatred towards systemd, and I subscribe to it.
From the first sentences this just looks like image based distribution (like docker) instead of archive based (like deb and rpm).
tl;dr?
He writes it here that the end goal is remote attestation: >Everything should be cryptographically measured, so that remote attestation is supported for as much software shipped on the OS as possible.
Remote attestation is all about effectively forcing you to use locked-down systems, while being able to say "well technically you're not forced to use it" (just prepare to be banned from any network services that don't like your non-locked down machine)
2 months ago
Anonymous
just to clarify, picrel are the comments to the article, not where the quote is taken from -- the main article.
insane that even on a linux/OSS-centric community like LWN people are defending remote attestation with "it doesn't TECHNICALLY force me to use locked down software"
2 months ago
Anonymous
>insane that even on a linux/OSS-centric community like LWN people are defending remote attestation
it's pretty simple
they are glowie / Kosher Tech (same thing really) plants
if no-one important in the Linux community is calling them out they are as well
2 months ago
Anonymous
I mean this shit is on the level of heresy as a high standing member of a fundamentalist israeli sect telling the other members and leaders that it's time to accept Jesus and that they were wrong about the last 2000 years..
Sure, some of the members broke off but most of the leadership is in quiet approval.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Are these people forgetting or deliberately ignoring the past difficulty of running linux on secure boot laptops?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>But in and of itself, it's just a tool.
sure, Wernher von Braun, and i suppose the V-2 rocket is just a short range spaceship
the goal is to make distros irrelevant, and to move to an app store model where some """trusted""" third party like IBM can push apps to your device
by building all distros around systemd, it becomes much easier for governments to make demands of how linux installs should behave, because the necessary functionality has to only be implemented in one place
it's quite common for companies to use the word "encryption" as a selling point to make customers feel safe
they know that customers won't ask the important question of "who controls the keys?"
with TPMs, the keys will be kept in a """secure""" enclave, which is designed to keep secrets away from the user, and under the exclusive control of the manufacturer
exclusive, that is, until the manufacturer receives a warrant with a gag order, at which point the keys are controlled by the intelligence services
2 months ago
Anonymous
Is this TPM on my computer? Can I disable it? How does it work?
2 months ago
Anonymous
The presence of a TPM is not an issue at *individual* level.
It's its widespread presence at societal level that makes it an issue. It means that any network service can deny access to anyone whose machine is unable to cryptographically prove they are only using Big Tech-approved software.
>until the manufacturer receives a warrant with a gag order, at which point the keys are controlled by the intelligence services
Make sure you configure your encryption to require a pre-boot password (when using LUKS or BitLocker). Otherwise, the encryption key is literally stored in plain in your hardware TPM, it's just very difficult to extract.
2 months ago
Anonymous
How can I be sure it's not capturing my keystrokes and storing the key anyway for them to use? Other than the fact that doing so would expose the whole scheme so I'd have to be worth exposing themselves for I suppose.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Trusting that your own hardware isn't betraying you is an orthogonal issue to TPMs.
I don't think it's helpful when people scaremonger about Intel ME or TPM as being backdoors, while missing the forest for the trees: widespread support for remote attestation (which is being popularized by Windows 11) means a future where corporations and governments can effectively dictate which software you're allowed to use, and no TempleOS or SerenityOS is going to come to rescue you (you'd be permanently offline)
2 months ago
Anonymous
most modern computers and phones have a TPM, but it doesn't really matter whether you disable it or not
what it allows your computer to do is prove to another computer that you are running a specific version of a specific operating system
this is called remote attestation, because the TPM is creating an attestation which can be sent to a remote location
however, it can't force your computer to do that, so you could just choose to not run any software which performs this step
also, even if you do send the remote attestation, that doesn't send any private information, or download any malicious binaries
as
The presence of a TPM is not an issue at *individual* level.
It's its widespread presence at societal level that makes it an issue. It means that any network service can deny access to anyone whose machine is unable to cryptographically prove they are only using Big Tech-approved software.
>until the manufacturer receives a warrant with a gag order, at which point the keys are controlled by the intelligence services
Make sure you configure your encryption to require a pre-boot password (when using LUKS or BitLocker). Otherwise, the encryption key is literally stored in plain in your hardware TPM, it's just very difficult to extract.
says, the problem is that network services can start to discriminate against your computer based on which OS and version you are running
if you opt out of performing the requested remote attestation, then the network service will assume the worst, and deny you access
right now, in practice, that mostly means that some online games will assume that you have a kernel level cheat install, and not let you play against other players
but in the future, it means your ISP can deny access unless you are running a version of Windows which has a government mandated backdoor
The main problem with systemd is that software should never depend on an init system. If not for that, I wouldn't give a frick.
Still using systemd though. I just wish it was modularized better.
Is it possible to make the most secure system possible on Artix? I mean have VPN on by default, full strong encryption across the whole of the disk, stuff like that?
I haven't touched Linux in about 10 years since I started work, but now I have a spare laptop and want to get back into it.
The problem with system like Artix that require you to fundementally build the system yourself if that they are inherantly insecure, since you, the person who isn't a professional security analyst, didn't help build the system, unlike the one from Microsoft/Apple where they employ multiple security experts.
It actually caused a number of problems with it. I won't say which, because they're rather specific, and I posted them on the systemd issue tracker using my main account associated with my real name.
>didn't they discontinue eudev because it was having a shit ton of bugs >the devs could barely maintain it at the time
No. Eudev was dropped because it didn't support the udev tag API fast enough. By the time they dropped it from the repositories support was available in a proper release. It was pure politics, same as using systemd tmpfiles and the recent merge of openrc and systend installkernel versions.
By using linux distributions that doesn't have systemd as their init system
Examples : Slackware, Artix Linux
Debian lets you use any init system you want
oh don't go too fast baby boy...
I like gentoo but it's only a matter of time until systemd is the preferred option. They discontinued eudev even though people still work on it, and other inits are less supported too.
(OP)
by installing a non-systemd distro, duh
here's a hardcore antisystemd site that has a useful list of them
https://sysdfree.wordpress.com/2023/09/25/363/
didn't they discontinue eudev because it was having a shit ton of bugs and the devs could barely maintain it at the time?
openrc is still the main init. were other inits (such as runit, s6, etc.) even supported in the first place?
despite having their reasons, i don't like how gentoo devs drop software the moment they think it's not being updated as often as they want. the consolekit drop still pisses me off.
eudev is still maintained even now. I installed it to test it as part of LFS just dropping it in instead of udev and it worked. I dunno what bugs there are, but if you read the gentoo notice of discontinuing it they said it was because it was only intended as a stopgap solution until they could compile udev from systemd and run it standalone which they can now do so they don't want to spend time maintaining it. As for other init systems, I don't think they ever fully supported them. But I'm pretty sure they might move to systemd in the future as the main one, then it's a matter of time before the packages of other init systems get removed. They just seem to be drifting in that direction, consolekit, eudev, makes you wonder what's next, that's all.
then why does devuan exist
>then why does devuan exist
autism.
as an escape hatch for developers that get cancelled by the DEI gestapo
just having such an alternative available might be enough to prevent Debian from going too far in that direction
Devuan is ran by DEI Sweet Baby Inc cucks
who?
Aren't Pat is on the rail to emvrace systemd? Or is it just the lilo?
sudo systemctl mask OP
Unit OP.service does not exist, proceeding anyway.
Created symlink /etc/systemd/system/myself.service /dev/null.
By going back to windows.
>tfw going through the humiliation ritual of using systemd
>cant even name why systemd is bad
bloated anti unix philosophy developed by RedHat/NSA cuck license etc
none of that has anything to do with how it works or how well it works and im sorry but your" morals" are fricking stupid
ok GPT
>someone disagrees with me they must be a chat bot
who are you quoting?
you that is literally what you just said
I said "ok GPT". Stop hallucinating if you're a bot. Take your meds if you're a schizo.
you said that to imply that i am a bot and you implied that i was a bot cause i didnt accept you shakery reasoning for hating systemD
also you morals and political beliefs are wrong cause you hate trans people
systemd is an effort to homogenize linux and ensure that all the major subsystems are under the control of a small cabal of government linked engineers
lennart has already revealed the end game for all this
https://0pointer.net/blog/fitting-everything-together.html
the aim is to make every linux machine, and thus every machine in the world, capable of remote attestation to the government
that way they can prevent anyone going online with any unapproved software installed
so to prevent perverts like you from getting their fitlhy grubby hands on child porn?
good
some governments will ban all porn, and some will ban all encrypted messaging apps
many will ban Tor and unregistered VPNs
most will ban AI deepfake apps
don't be surprised when a government with this much control starts banning things you like too, such as elections
That article seems to want to make it easy to manage for enterprises and stuff. I'm not sure I quite think the fears are what you think but it's important to have alternatives so users can still have something they can make their own.
>make it easy to manage for enterprises and stuff.
well obviously he's not going to come right out and say it's for ending the freedom of general purpose computing
he has to justify IBM working on it by giving it some sort of supposed commercial benefit
but whatever ends up becoming the systemd standard will inevitably become the desktop linux standard even for home users
Until they get all that forced into the kernel so it doesn't boot without it it doesn't matter, though. You can go without it. So it's only affecting the masses I don't care about. I wish they never switched to linux in the first place.
>You can go without it.
i didn't explain myself fully
once it is possible for all linux users to install this systemd remote attestation system, and all other desktop and mobile operating systems have an equivalent system as standard, there is nothing stopping the government from mandating it
the people who use linux but refuse to use systemd are the 4% of the 4%, who no government will even notice the complaints of
the government rules will likely require ISPs to detect and send warning emails to customers whose PCs don't periodically check in with the remote attestation server
after 6 months of warnings, the ISPs will start issuing temporary disconnections, only allowing you to visit a few whitelisted sites for downloading Windows updates or Ubuntu installers
That sounds a little far fetched, you could easily just tunnel through it. Have an approved computer which only receives encrypted data from your real computer and sends it to a vps in some other country that isn't insane and then out to the internet. Your data already goes through the ISP, you're just adding one extra hop.
i'm glad you're thinking this through, but i assure you that the intelligence agencies and big tech companies have thought about this more
once the government has control of all the devices that go online, they can force those devices to report what software they have installed
the first type of software to be banned will be any application that allows arbitrary data to be proxied on behalf of an unapproved device
exemptions will be granted, if you file enough paperwork with the government proving you are a developer or explaining why you can't use a TPM on your device, but connections will still be limited to specific whitelisted IP addresses, hosted within the country, and using only certificates issued by a government run authority
how do you come up with these cuck fantasies?
how are you not aware of what companies have done to consoles and phones?
how are you not aware of what governments want to do with PCs?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/
he is not wrong.
tor recently released new transport which now uses http fingerprinting to bypass detection
which got me thinking about what this user also said
let's imagine for a second that masking traffic as http is the ultimate solution to 'hiding in plain sight.' there are no exotic protocols, no weird hash noise that 'looks like nothing' nothing of sorts, right?
so how far will the world go to create new hurdle in this never ending cat and mouse game? and if http is too big to fail as protocol, what is there left to do other than MITMing your very https protocol on hardware level? just think about it for a fricking second
you dont need to go far for examples. turkmenistan for example has real case of implementing 'whitelists' based internet filtering. russia constantly looming with idea of cutting itself off internet also with whitelist system
we will have to see how china will react, china will have final say on the matter and how it will react to a 'threat' of free internet. then world powers follow suit as always
do you really think a tiny fraction of linux users—with or without systemd—is some kind of barrier preventing gubmint from telling you that it's time for pc inspection day? "oh we really want to have a totalitarian state, but there's a dude in ohio who uses arch linux on his desktop and systemd doesn't have TPM 2.5 Online Reporting in it yet! we're doomed!"
>a tiny fraction of linux users
if systemd had never become popular, and all the major distros were running their own custom configurations of various different init systems, there would have been a lot more inertia preventing a single company from rolling out an unpopular piece of low level software across 90% of linux machines
maybe you're right that no government would have qualms about telling linux users to go out and buy a machine with windows or macos installed on it, but they would care about the effect of such a law on businesses
if a country has millions of people employed by businesses that are using a wide range of distros, and those distros decided to coordinate a boycott and hinder the adoption of some remote attestation service, then suddenly those businesses would be lobbying the government not to introduce such a requirement
this plan has probably been in the works for 10 years, around the time of the snowden revelations and the rise of systemd, and it wouldn't have been clear then how popular linux would be in the 2020s
so even if you're right with hindsight that taking control of linux this way was ultimately unnecessary, the people behind the plan couldn't have known that back then, and it's still a very cost effective attack to have this much ongoing control over linux
i mean how much did it end up costing them? a few full time engineers working on systemd from inside redhat, and a free job at microsoft for lennart?
Welcome back Terry glad to see your ok
You have a pretty good point though the government after they take our guns will start taking our internet and online privacy
>Lennart Poettering
Holy shit the main author of Systemd is literally simping for remote attestation.
Now I get all the hatred towards systemd, and I subscribe to it.
i'm glad someone here is intellectually honest enough to update their model of the world when they receive new evidence
long ago there were hints that lennart's goal was to be able to push automated updates to users from a central repository, regardless of what distro they were running
that was all speculative, though
?t=190
the full plan is only revealed in his blog now that TPMs are starting to be mandated by the major OS vendors
From the first sentences this just looks like image based distribution (like docker) instead of archive based (like deb and rpm).
tl;dr?
He writes it here that the end goal is remote attestation:
>Everything should be cryptographically measured, so that remote attestation is supported for as much software shipped on the OS as possible.
Remote attestation is all about effectively forcing you to use locked-down systems, while being able to say "well technically you're not forced to use it" (just prepare to be banned from any network services that don't like your non-locked down machine)
just to clarify, picrel are the comments to the article, not where the quote is taken from -- the main article.
insane that even on a linux/OSS-centric community like LWN people are defending remote attestation with "it doesn't TECHNICALLY force me to use locked down software"
>insane that even on a linux/OSS-centric community like LWN people are defending remote attestation
it's pretty simple
they are glowie / Kosher Tech (same thing really) plants
if no-one important in the Linux community is calling them out they are as well
I mean this shit is on the level of heresy as a high standing member of a fundamentalist israeli sect telling the other members and leaders that it's time to accept Jesus and that they were wrong about the last 2000 years..
Sure, some of the members broke off but most of the leadership is in quiet approval.
Are these people forgetting or deliberately ignoring the past difficulty of running linux on secure boot laptops?
>But in and of itself, it's just a tool.
sure, Wernher von Braun, and i suppose the V-2 rocket is just a short range spaceship
the goal is to make distros irrelevant, and to move to an app store model where some """trusted""" third party like IBM can push apps to your device
by building all distros around systemd, it becomes much easier for governments to make demands of how linux installs should behave, because the necessary functionality has to only be implemented in one place
What's the purpose of all the encryption? Why encrypt users files and such if they want access to them?
it's quite common for companies to use the word "encryption" as a selling point to make customers feel safe
they know that customers won't ask the important question of "who controls the keys?"
with TPMs, the keys will be kept in a """secure""" enclave, which is designed to keep secrets away from the user, and under the exclusive control of the manufacturer
exclusive, that is, until the manufacturer receives a warrant with a gag order, at which point the keys are controlled by the intelligence services
Is this TPM on my computer? Can I disable it? How does it work?
The presence of a TPM is not an issue at *individual* level.
It's its widespread presence at societal level that makes it an issue. It means that any network service can deny access to anyone whose machine is unable to cryptographically prove they are only using Big Tech-approved software.
>until the manufacturer receives a warrant with a gag order, at which point the keys are controlled by the intelligence services
Make sure you configure your encryption to require a pre-boot password (when using LUKS or BitLocker). Otherwise, the encryption key is literally stored in plain in your hardware TPM, it's just very difficult to extract.
How can I be sure it's not capturing my keystrokes and storing the key anyway for them to use? Other than the fact that doing so would expose the whole scheme so I'd have to be worth exposing themselves for I suppose.
Trusting that your own hardware isn't betraying you is an orthogonal issue to TPMs.
I don't think it's helpful when people scaremonger about Intel ME or TPM as being backdoors, while missing the forest for the trees: widespread support for remote attestation (which is being popularized by Windows 11) means a future where corporations and governments can effectively dictate which software you're allowed to use, and no TempleOS or SerenityOS is going to come to rescue you (you'd be permanently offline)
most modern computers and phones have a TPM, but it doesn't really matter whether you disable it or not
what it allows your computer to do is prove to another computer that you are running a specific version of a specific operating system
this is called remote attestation, because the TPM is creating an attestation which can be sent to a remote location
however, it can't force your computer to do that, so you could just choose to not run any software which performs this step
also, even if you do send the remote attestation, that doesn't send any private information, or download any malicious binaries
as
says, the problem is that network services can start to discriminate against your computer based on which OS and version you are running
if you opt out of performing the requested remote attestation, then the network service will assume the worst, and deny you access
right now, in practice, that mostly means that some online games will assume that you have a kernel level cheat install, and not let you play against other players
but in the future, it means your ISP can deny access unless you are running a version of Windows which has a government mandated backdoor
harder to track shutdown issues, also using sighup by default can frick up ssh sessions.
too restrictive. too tied up. too complicated. too much of everything. it takes away choice
The main problem with systemd is that software should never depend on an init system. If not for that, I wouldn't give a frick.
Still using systemd though. I just wish it was modularized better.
Well make Linux itself not require an init system to begin with. Also systemd is 100% open source.
you've just discovered bsd
>Imagine defending the dev of Pulseaudio
I switched to Artix using dinit and i am happy now. No more stupid stopjobs that eat my time
Is it possible to make the most secure system possible on Artix? I mean have VPN on by default, full strong encryption across the whole of the disk, stuff like that?
I haven't touched Linux in about 10 years since I started work, but now I have a spare laptop and want to get back into it.
Yes
The problem with system like Artix that require you to fundementally build the system yourself if that they are inherantly insecure, since you, the person who isn't a professional security analyst, didn't help build the system, unlike the one from Microsoft/Apple where they employ multiple security experts.
What's systemd? Never heard of that
>t.Artix user
>obsessing over an init system
>accepting your humiliation ritual
It actually caused a number of problems with it. I won't say which, because they're rather specific, and I posted them on the systemd issue tracker using my main account associated with my real name.
frankly, who cares? i'm rolling with whatever init system comes with my fave distro.
>didn't they discontinue eudev because it was having a shit ton of bugs
>the devs could barely maintain it at the time
No. Eudev was dropped because it didn't support the udev tag API fast enough. By the time they dropped it from the repositories support was available in a proper release. It was pure politics, same as using systemd tmpfiles and the recent merge of openrc and systend installkernel versions.
Installing Artix
Install Gentoo