On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Bob Proulx <b...@proulx.com> wrote: > Andrew McGlashan wrote: >> >> Yes, that's what I meant, sysvinit is not broken. > > I rather agree. But the opponents cite corner cases where the > previous security model doesn't handle every possible access case. > > I always hate it when people say such vague statements such as > "modern" or "is broken" without actually saying why it is one way or > the other. After reading months of arguments these next two postings > were the first real postings I had read with any detail in them. > Especially the second one. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/06/msg00455.html > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/06/msg00461.html > > These are things that probably 99.44%[1] of the population hasn't ever > needed before. The 99% where everything works for us are all of us > crying about the disruption. But for that 0.56% that worried about > those corner cases they see the old system as really broken. They are > probably right that it is broken for them. But there are better ways > to go about improving the system than the unpleasant way that systemd > has been rolled out to the community.
Didn't all DEs use consolekit and policykit? IIRC wasn't the CTTE bug filed because of a debian-devel@ thread about Gnome depending on systemd (because of logind and/or libpam-systemd)? The problem's that consolekit is abandonware upstream, logind is its replacement, policykit removed consolekit support, and logind requires systemd as pid 1 (or systemd-shim). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sz2spufui38q+l2hgjxmkv7bmfwuelfzksey2z3mgg...@mail.gmail.com
