[Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

[Philip Hands]

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> writes:

>  if systemd is so bloated and all-encompassing that it in effect
> demands *all* privileges (it doesn't, but you know what i mean), it
> utterly defeats the object of having the security system in the first
> place.

This appears to be another instance of you conflating the init process
with the project, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

Are you claiming that systemd (the init) uses forks where sysvinit uses
execs?

Surely in order to use exec as an init, one must first fork in order to
avoid no longer having an init process, so what exactly are you trying
to say here?  Does systemd fork all its subordinate processes?

A very quick glance at the source reveals this:

  http://sources.debian.net/src/systemd/232-18/CODING_STYLE/?hl=342#L342

which suggests that they are at least generally intending to avoid what
you're talking about.

Perhaps you can cite some examples where they've failed in that quest.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/attachments/20170216/cc4a1a07/attachment-0001.sig>