Why do Linux nerds claim that systemd makes their OS more unsecure than secure? Why would so many distros adopt it if it was unsecure? What's the alternative if it's so unsecure?
>>106708450That's not the argument, the argument is that they hate the white men that wrote it. Unironically.
>>106708450If you don't do a thing, you can't have the security issues caused by doing a thing. The less you do, the more secure you are. It's the Unix philosophy. :^)
>>106708450Link to one (1) person claiming that.
>>106708450Honestly.I just don't like it.Security? nah never heard of it.I prioritize freedom.
Okay, I'm gonna assume OP is a faggot but not a troll.>Why do Linux nerds claim that systemd makes their OS more unsecure than secure?Complexity. It has nothing to do with the Unix philosophy or whatever, it just has so many features and entities inside that it approaches the X.org levels. Which, to my knowledge, has spaghetti for source code and is practically impossible to refactor. Sneaking a backdoor or two in in such state is piece of cake.>Why would so many distros adopt it if it was unsecure?Because, despite the aforementioned drawback, it is basically a "just works" solution, and it it quite easier to work with (NOT with its source code, mind you).>What's the alternative if it's so unsecure?OpenRC, runit, S6, and many more.
bros really getting emotional about a free software
>>106708450It's not that it's insecure. Well, it is. But systemd was adopted when it was an init system, a service manager, and a couple of other things that worked well together. These days it's I think over a million lines of code, that's far from reasonable in what's usually a very small program, no other program does what systemd does, in no other OS.The size and overreach is what should worry you the most, a bigger program is more likely to have bugs, security vulnerabilities, a program that does more is more likely to do worse, have bigger points of failure. Poettering is personally responsible for this as he designs systemd based on his personal opinion and the necessities of enterprise linux (not you), some bugs and trashy behavior that would not even exist in non-systemd systems are not fixed simply because it's "intended".Meanwhile it has the biggest Linux company vouching for it, admitting to pushing it everywhere they can to unify Linux into one project that they can fully control, and you get the ignorance of people claiming there are no alternatives. There are. Even systemd-likes that do more than init and service management, but that don't go as far as handling the bootloader or touching the user's $HOME.
>>106708620Can confirm, am faggot, and not troll.
>>106708450it’s only less secure in the sense that it has a WAY larger attack surface than it shouldthe real reason people hate it is because it just keeps growing and taking on more responsibilities than it should. it has grown like a cancer both in size and scope as well as use and has been forced on everyone without a choice unless they go out of their way to use one of the last few remaining distros that deliberately avoid it like artix or void. it violates the unix philosophy in an operating system designed around modularity and customization and pottering is a faggot so it is extremely easy to hateif you want to get schizo, part of the reason people say it is insecure is because the way in which it has systematically spread lends credence to the idea that it has intentional security vulnerabilities built in by a malicious third party, i.e the us government
