[Jonnax]

Is that really how they develop software?

Because I'm pretty sure that most of the components are optional.

You did not even discuss the reasoning given for not using sudo to instead hop on your soapbox to say it's bad software with bad practices and that they are stupid.

It's annoying how in the the more surface level Linux communities there's 0 value in discussing systemd.

"1 million lines of code for PID0!"

The new thing is blaming systemd for that recent exploit even though distros were patching in the bug themselves.

People analysing the exploit determined that a new version of systemd was going to prevent the exploit vector so the exploit seemed to have been rushed out.

Isn't this just textbook FUD?

What I've noticed is over the years is systemd would have identified a gap in functionality.

Like systemd-homed having a solution for automatically encrypting home directory when the machine is suspended.

Is that a functionality that OSX has had for years? Yes.

But anti-systemd people will dislike it automatically.

[constantcrying]

Why are you bringing up random arguments I didn't even make?

No, I am a dedicated systemd hater ever since I spend over a month full time writing and debugging systemd services for work. Systemd (the init system) is just all around badly designed and executed, I have very little confidence in the developers and their technical abilities and their tendencies to expand into completely unrelated areas for seemingly no reason makes me quite concerned.

I wouldn't blame the xz exploit on them, it is very hard to call it their fault in any way. But I do think it is a symptom of a system which has grown far too thin and wide.

[Jonnax]

Because your post is the repeating cliches that are under every discussion about systemd.

You're essentially saying that the month you spent is enough for you to call it bad and the creators incompetent.

What qualifies you to make a determination like that?

There is never any actual technical reasons it's always about vague things like not adhering to UNIX philosophy, lines of code or it being badly designed (without any real architectural criticism)

This is an article about why they believe sudo isn't a good system. Where's your criticism of that from a technical / security perspective?

It's been about 10 years since systemd was adopted by Debian/Ubuntu/Redhat/Fedora etc.

Millions of deployments over the years. The companies that build and are paid to support for years with SLAs the operating systems are using it without issue.