Ok, this stuff is just too creepy and fucked up. Frankenstienish. Definitely worthy of the whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag. Its just too dangerous for this kind of meddling to be legal.

It is a sensible design. /usr is so called because it is where user installed programs and their supporting stuff usually go, in contrast to /bin which is your main system programs. bin means "binaries", which is exactly what is in there. /dev means "devices", again, thats whats in there. We used abbreviations to reduce the amount of typing needed when using the command line. Hundreds of tutorials and books have been written about the directory structure and explain exactly what it means. /etc really is fine, it does not refer specifically to configuration, but its been in use forever, its just not important enough to change something that is a part of the tradition. If your enough skill to modify config files, good for you, and you can learn what /etc means. I came to Unix from Windows wanting to learn its way of doing things. I tend to place a lot of importance in following the Unix traditions.

I am not averse, to providing additional functionality on top of the Unix canon, but I am for full adherance to Unix conventions, additional functionality can be added on top of that. For instance, in gedit, the user is put by default in their ~Documents folder when they open and save files, so they dont even need to know what /etc is. /etc is for literate users and we can learn what this stuff means.

Linux should have a committment to old hardware. One big issue is the Wayland thing. Wayland supports a grand total of 3 adapter families or so. It only runs on the latest and greatest. There is a lot of old hardware that is supported well by the X server, so the X server needs to continue to be provided for that fallback.

I actually think that Wayland is potentially worse than systemd by far, if we do not allow people to run all their GUI programs as X applications. X needs work on security hardening for sure. But, Wayland puts hardware drivers and address space *inside your web browser*. Excuse me for being a little skeptical. Wayland introduces a very rigid desktop model where its hard to change your window manager without a complete restart of GUI, where the need for network transparency has not been addressed well enough,

I agree that runlevels should be a part of the systemd model. Other basic concepts that systemd was trying to do are not bad. Its hard to argue that a system administrator should not be allowed to configure a certain program to run when the NIC goes up or down or when there is some other system event. It sounds as though systemd's execution of these things may be lacking. systemd should provide support for traditional sysv init facilities as well, if thats what you want to use.

As for binary logs, configuration, I think the system admin should have the choice between binary and text based. Binary has some advantages, in that they can be easily programatically accessed and still be accessed by text based utilities, since there is a hash or b-tree index, a large log or config database can be easily searched without having to do a scan of the entire file. Its also possible that binary logs could be used to generate a text version of the log, if you want to use the vi, and as well to the text file only, without anything being kept in the binary log. So the choice betwene binary and text should be your choice, it shouldnt be an either or thing.

I can definitely agree that with such a core part of the system there has to be a high degree of focus on quality, it needs to be well documented and should not have major bug problems in the stable releases.

The "not very *nix like" is suspect. As long as it supports the traditional unix initization System V facilities, such as the rcX symlink directories and maintains backwards compability with these traditional forms of initilization, its keeping a unix like quality. The addition of new functionality does not mean it is taking away older ways of doing things, and does not mean you are forced into using these new capabilities. If you dont like that the web server is starting from systemd's own method, you just move its initialization over to the old System V facilities.

Its sort of hard to argue that you should NOT be able to set up the HTTP server to be stopped and started with the NIC or run other processes triggered by other events if you want to, and it seems thats what systemd's opponents are saying, "you cant do it that way, you shouldnt be allowed to have that functionality".

The basic concepts of what systemd does is good, this does not mean the execution has been particularly great.

I want to point out that systemd does not take away your capability to use traditional Unix init scripts, these can be easily configured to be spawned by systemd. If you want init scripts, just disable your stuff from starting in systemd's own facilities and move it to your own init scripts. Problem solved. It is odd that people who think that systemd providing additional functionality is taking away something from other people. The fact is, it does not. As for the "single process" issue, that I believes refers to the cron like functionality in systemd. If you really want cron in a seperate process, you can do that by simply starting a seperate cron program and having your cron jobs run by that rather than systemd. Systemd does not preclude you from using other programs for certain functionality. Its not like "now that systemd provides X functionality I MUST use systemd for that!".

Having a text only log and configuration is not necessarily better in all cases, in some cases indexed/binary is better, but, it shouldnt be an either or type thing. People who use the logging and configuration should be able to choose which to use. In some cases, an indexed log and configuration system can make configuration settings more accessible programmatically, allowing for system administrators to write scripts if needed for these things, lets say if they are configuring a large number of systems. Text based utilites can easily access the database anyway for human access. Binary configuration db can in some cases provide for better performance because it is indexed, instead of having to scan the whole file for one value, it uses a b-tree or hash.

I agree with the need for better documentation. On features themselves, something like selinux is a bag of tools for use by experts to configure systems which may have widely different needs. The needs in different installations can be very different and therefore you need a wide set of tools and capabilities so that things can be easily configured how they need to be. It does not mean you have to use all of these tools or need them, but they are there to cover the different use cases. You dont even have to use selinux at all, if you dont want it. Its a tool for people who need its features and one user may need one subset of its features and another user needs another ssubset. For an OS to be useful it needs to cover the whole spectrum of use cases, but you only need to use the tools that are valuable in your particular case.

Introducing non backwards compatable changes for the sake of "i dont like how it looks" is bad because you blow up applications and scripts that depended on it, just because someone "doesnt like how it looks". Your complaints of /etc and so on lack merit, its not hard for someone to learn what these directories are for and not hard to remember. Most non-techie users of distros designed for them never need to mess with these directories, and lack the capability or will to mess with what is in those directories anyway, the apps save and open screens take them directly to ~/Documents, and apt-get et all takes care of app installation.

1. There is a good argument for having an option for a programmatically accessible configuration database, to allow programmatic access to configuration settings as well as human access to these settings. I dont think its an either or thing, both can be provided.

2. The comment about C is absurd. C is a horrible language for applications and almost every C application I have seen is bloated any way, full of memory leaks and buffer overruns. C should be used only in the underlying kernel and system libraries and in the hottest code paths, not in applications. Your better off with python or ruby for apps. The higher level languages can be designed to use "managed code", that is they don't have to run on an interpretor but do use a runtime library that provides for the automatic memory management.

3. If you dont like how systemd works, your probably someone who can modify the system to use something else, and I agree you should be able to do so. The single process is sort of was done for dependant triggering of events between different event types to be done. You can also run an alternative init facility which you can start from systemd, using sytemd for just some basic functions. Again, no one forces you to use systemd for everything on your system, it does not exclude alternatives being used alongside it.

4. I agree that every process should be well documented. The Gphoto thing is not what you would call a core part of the system but is for your camera. I dont know what you expect it to look like, i dont see a problem.

From what I have seen, most of the improvements have increased control and flexibility. Its odd to argue against a system that allows you the flexibility to set a program to run when any other system event is triggered, such as the NIC coming online.

The fact is, the ones who don't like systemd or polkit tend to be a certain percentage of the system administrator types (not all of them). Ironically, these who do most of the complaining have the skills to be able to configure the system how they want. Don't like polkit or systemd? Just configure your system not to use it. No one is stopping you. You can replace systemd with your own init system if you want. Use an older WM like fvwm and you wont have any problem, which you probably prefer anyway. There are many other WMs that dont have any dependancy on systemd, as well. I do agree that a program with a systemd dependancy should not refuse to run at all if systemd is not there, instead, only the systemd dependant features of it would be unavailable. if Gnome does not work this way, that is a valid point., Of course it is okay for gnome to hook systemd features, but if systemd is not there, the basic functionality should still work, just the systemd dependant features would be unavailable.

If systemd and polkit are not well documented and not configurable enough, I think that those are valuable points, these things should make our control and monitoring of the system easier, they should add more options and more logging facilities for expert users to keep an eye on things.

I seriously question the mentality of those who find the general concept of polkit or systemd unacceptable. For instance, it sort of makes sense that there ought to be some sort of an framework for IPC authorization, rather than a million incompatable systems, its better to have a well audited standard facility for that. It can also be handy to have a facility so that I can set up a program to be run when the IP address is asigned or just after another process starts or any other system event. To argue against having this functionality is just bizarre in my opinion and seems to be that these so called "experts" who argue against them want us to have less control over the system.

The basic system of Unix permissions while being suitable in many cases, can be more difficult to manage in others. What if i want to write some rules to say that a particular user should not have access to certain directories, or to say they should only have access to certain directories. Some sort of rule based system where you can define a set of rules that apply to that user can be better in some cases than the per file permissions.What if I want to apply such a set of rules to a single process when he process is run? The same thing goes. The basic system of Unix permissions is good for many things and a good foundation but that doesnt mean its the end all and be all of access control.

I dont have any bigotry, so what are you talking about? So many seem to be awfully good at blaming people of another race for their problems even though the justifications for this have long since vanished. So why do we continue to do it? The Civil Right movement, once valid and justified, once concerned with a valid agenda for an equal employment opportunity, has morphed into a full scale war on white people taken to a now genocidal extreme. And you are accusing me of being racist, who has agrees with such things as equal employment rights. When did I ever say that anyone should be discriminated against in employment because of race. I find the idea to abhorrent, as abhorrent as schemes to try to get revenge against and attack demonized racial group. What other majority racial group has gone so far to gaurantee equal economic opportunity for minorities, protections I support? Not many. So why does an attack continue against this majority group? Its because this is not about rights for minorities anymore, it has morphed into an attack on the majority.

If you honestly think that Cuba will ever allow their people free and open access to the internet your a crack snorting hippie. I know that the communist libtards that run this website probably think that its so wonderful that His Majesty King Obama has extended a hand of friendship to his murderous, oppressive communist regime, that it might change things. It will only embolden them, rather than change anything for the better. It was a gesture from one wannabe communist regime to a communist regime. Obama has long admired Cuba and has long been of the mindset, as other close associates such as Ayers, that the murdererous Castro regime are wonderful communists and how unjust and bad that the US has been to punish them. Obama is envious of them and wishes he had the same powers that that they did, rather than this nasty constitution. Sure, weve been at a stalemate with Cuba for a long time, that doesnt mean that its okay to give way and capitulate. The current castro rulers are in their 80s now so at least we could have waited to see what happens rather than just start giving away possible leverage. But Obama wants to give away as much leverage as possible and undermine american influence whenever he can because of how bad and evil the US is. Sure, mod this down. Gotta suppress the truth. Whatever.

Mod parent too close to the truth. Troll=too close to the truth and we must suppress the truth. Take responsibility for your actions, stop blaming others for your failures and stupidity is my advice. Stop idolizing and giving excuses for the inept and clueless. It seems according to you unless you are for massive taxes and trying to slant the system in every way, to attack white Americans in every way you can, someone is a racist. I am sure you view being white itself as being racist! I am sure you people have an absolutely vitrolic hatred of white people and have orgasmic fantasies about the day when white people will be exterminated, dont you? So you have to accuse anyone who tries to call our your genocidal agenda as being the same thing that you are. The only people around here that are racist and who wants to try to exterminate entire racial groups are YOU and your appalling liberal amoral policies. What a bunch of disgusting and vile genocidal sociopaths.

Mod parent too close to the truth. People need to take responsibility for their actions rather than blame it all on racism. Enough of you libtards and your disgusting and vile BS, trying to label anyone who disagrees with your appalling communist ideology as a racist. Absolutely shameless. The only racist around here is YOU. What the hell is your problem anyway and why do you have such a racist hatred of white people that you feel so inclined to go on the attack whenever anyone should call you out?