Redhat goes CLOSED SOURCE?
www.youtube.com
This is a MAJOR development with Redhat NO LONGER giving public access to the base RHEL source code. Support My Work-----------------------------------------...

Potentially this means that Fedora and CentOS stream do not get timely updates implemented in RHEL.

Canonical must be throwing a party, and I bet SUSE is not hating it either

  • vegivampEnglish
    923·
    1 year ago

    It was until they shipped systemd. Bloody mess.

    • pahakala@lemmy.worldEnglish
      355·
      1 year ago

      systemd is one of the best things that has happened with linux. Instead of random shell scripts that work differently on each distro, now you have a single ini conf file for your service that configures automatic restarts, sandboxing and activation in a easy to use way.

        • Wr4ith@lemmy.worldEnglish
          152·
          1 year ago

          I mean a core issue is that it doesn’t adhere to the unix principle of do one thing and do it well. Aside from that it essentially creates a middle layer where things can happen without you really knowing it’s happening. If you haven’t I’d suggest running a couple of different init systems to see what I mean.

          I’m ambivalent, I like systemd because it’s convenient, but I also like openrc because it’s simple.

        • sarsaparilyptus@lemmy.fmhy.mlEnglish
          84·
          1 year ago

          I don’t like systemd. Reasons:

          • broad scope and lots of dependencies are more or less the exact opposite design philosophy of *nix

          • putting too many eggs in one basket intrinsically increases the attack vector and also decreases stability

          • bloated

          Most importantly:

          • Gives Red Hat i.e. IBM too much influence over Linux
          • bane_killgrind@lemmy.mlEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            A specific design philosophy that is adhered to means the software has greater interoperability, reliability, and maintainability. When you are criticising something that adheres to a design philosophy, communicate how it’s adhering to that philosophy to it’s own detriment.

        • eltimablo@kbin.social
          1·
          1 year ago

          They see all the other stuff that gets packaged under the systemd name and assume it’s non-optional. While many distributions do, annoyingly, ship the auxiliary packages like resolved by default, they’re not required if you just want to use the init system, and honestly they kind of strike me as an attempt to supplement or replace some of the incumbent components of your average distro.

          Systemd-resolved can suck my whole grundle, though.

    • RangerHere@programming.devEnglish
      9·
      1 year ago

      If you don’t mind me asking, why do you not like systemd? I like it a lot and in my humble opinion it makes life really easy.

    • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.mlEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      This literally feels like the geek equivalent of culture wars stoked to divide people just for the sake of it

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.orgEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Anyone who thinks systemd is a mess has obviously never struggled with the failings of its predecessor. Systemd is a major improvement.

    • NikkiNikkiNikki@kbin.social
      24·
      1 year ago

      APT is the mess, I’ve never had more issues with broken packages and unbreakable dependency cycles than with APT

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        1·
        1 year ago

        This is why I always use aptitude to manage my packages, and always review all planned actions (other than simple upgrades) before proceeding.

      • FreeBooteR69@kbin.social
        11·
        1 year ago

        Yeah i’ve had problems with both Mint and Pop with broken packages. Easy to fix with synaptic package manager, but annoying.