Ubuntu 15.04 Received Well By Linux Community 300
jones_supa writes: Canonical released Ubuntu 15.04 a couple of weeks ago, and it seems that this release has been a success. The community is mostly reporting a nice experience, which is important since this is the first Ubuntu release that uses systemd instead of upstart. At Slashdot, people have been very nervous about systemd, and last year it was even asked to say something nice about it. To be fair, Ubuntu 15.04 hasn't changed all that much. Some minor visual changes have been implemented, along with a couple of new features, but the operating system has remained pretty much the same. Most importantly it is stable, fast, and it lacks the usual problems accompanied by new releases.
Rock solid so far - really like it (Score:2)
I'm on Kubuntu 15.04, NUC with intel graphics. Everything just works including suspend right out of the gate. Love it.
Re: (Score:2)
Kubuntu 15.04 is a broken mess because of the jump to Plasma 5, which is nowhere near ready. Kate is the worst. Opening 2 files in Kate caused Dolphin to freeze until I looked up a hacky workaround. And then Kate still can't edit FTP files, which is a known bug for many months which there seem to be no plans to fix. Plasma crashes several times a day now too.
The SystemD marketing rolls on... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never seen so much evangelizing about a particular subsystem change in Linux before, which makes me think that unlike other past changes, this one needs it rather than having it's own benefits do the selling...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Right on the mark. Only something with major rot in it needs this kind of marketing.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be very hard to hide backdoors in SELinux. The only thing they could do there is making the configuration interface complicated enough that many people will make mistakes. And they have done that beautifully. Same way IPSec was sabotaged. Come to think of it, that strategy is at least in part what makes systemd highly problematic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
SystemD, (and to a lesser extent FirewallD) have their points... but as anything in IT, it is good to at least learn the basics of them in order to get around, just like one has to learn how to use SELinux and not just disable it completely.
I personally am on the fence... SystemD provides a lot of functionality, especially with just one command (systemctl). However, I will have a lot more faith in this new functionality once the code certification and auditing is complete.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The SystemD marketing rolls on... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The SystemD marketing rolls on... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Meh, in this case, systemd might be an improvement.
Remember that several years ago Ubuntu switched away from SysV init to Upstart, which was effectively their own version of systemd.
So really the change is that they've gone from crappy in-house systemd to crappy actual systemd.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
except, you know, for the part where upstart predates systemd by 4 years.
Red Hat will crush Linux competitors (Score:2)
Red Hat is operating right out of Microsoft's playbook.
Remember when Microsoft was buddy-buddy with Apple, and IBM?
Once Linux is completely dependent on Red Hat controlled technologies, Red Hat will always be two steps ahead of the competition, it will be seriously difficult for Linux users to use anything except Red Hat.
What happens when Red Hat decides there is no reason for more than one package management solution? Red Hat will say that users demanded one standardized package management, and systemd wil
Re: (Score:3)
Red Hat is operating right out of Microsoft's playbook.
Remember when Microsoft was buddy-buddy with Apple, and IBM?
Once Linux is completely dependent on Red Hat controlled technologies, Red Hat will always be two steps ahead of the competition, it will be seriously difficult for Linux users to use anything except Red Hat.
What happens when Red Hat decides there is no reason for more than one package management solution? Red Hat will say that users demanded one standardized package management, and systemd will only work if Red Hat's solution is installed. Wait for it.
to late. Linux Standard Base (LSB) [wikipedia.org] requires support for use of rpm (redhat package manager) they railroaded that through despite debian ubuntu and others protest.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen so much evangelizing about a particular subsystem change in Linux before, which makes me think that unlike other past changes, this one needs it rather than having it's own benefits do the selling...
Or, as Shakespeare put it, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
SystemD seems to be really nice, when I tested out Debian Jessie, it booted so much faster than what was there before. These kind of things leave a good first impression.
Re:The SystemD marketing rolls on... (Score:4, Interesting)
cf. "If vaccination is so good, then why do doctors have to tell me to get vaccinated?"
Re:The SystemD marketing rolls on... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never seen so much evangelizing about a particular subsystem change in Linux before, which makes me think that unlike other past changes, this one needs it rather than having it's own benefits do the selling...
The incessant whining about systemd in the last few years here on /. has been deafening. So if a major distribution then switches to systemd, and the world is not coming to an end, that's news for (this particular bunch of) nerds, no?
I realise that for some people here it is not welcome news, but news it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Theres an old saying, which Im going to modify for my own purposes.
Those who can, make distros. Those who cant, whine endlessly about what the distros are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In before Unity bashing (Score:4, Informative)
A friendly reminder that if you hate Unity, Ubuntu also supports KDE, Xfce, LXDE, Enlightenment, Cinnamon, GNOME Shell, MATE, and the CLI.
LTS (Score:5, Informative)
So far...close (Score:5, Interesting)
I installed in on my HP ProBook 6475b laptop the other day and have only run into some minor issues.
1. I opted for full disk encrypted LVM. It didn't ask for a separate Swap partition password, instead using the main one. Fine. However, when booting, I have to enter it twice -- once for the main partition, once for swap. [Bug reported and acknowledged]
2. It hangs on reboot. I have to boot twice every time to get it to get past the boot loader. I've tried "shut down", then letting it sit for 10 minutes. Next boot -- hang and I reboot and then it works.
3. My wifi doesn't come back after suspend. I think it has to do with the particular laptop firmware, because it does this with every distro I've tried. Everything else works, but the wifi never makes it out of suspend.
The rest works fine. Changing to the proprietary AMD video drivers was a snap, and it sped up video playback to what I would expect (no stuttering on HD).
Re: (Score:2)
" it sped up video playback to what I would expect (no stuttering on HD)."
How old is your hardware? I've been doing HD 1080p video on Pentium 4s for a LONG time, under Linux and Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
So have I, but it depends on the video drivers.
Under the FOSS drivers on both AMD and nVidia I can play the video fine, but if I move the mouse into the window, it lags.
With the proprietary drivers this doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it works fine for me using the keyboard function keys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I installed in on my HP ProBook 6475b laptop the other day and have only run into some minor issues.
Wifi not working after suspend on a laptop?
Crashing on reboot every 2nd time?
What you consider minor issues, I would consider deal breakers.
Re:So far...close (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice (Score:2)
$ nice bash
$
Happy now?
Beware updating if using KDE (Score:2)
A 14.10 system that my kid had an elaborate KDE desktop setup on, we upgraded to 15.04, and it totally lost his desktop arrangement. This had originally been Xubuntu, then with KDE installed, so not straight Kubuntu, and we were able to revert to using his old Xfce setup for now, which came through the upgrade okay. But it really was a bad experience losing his work with KDE that way. KDE is just the barest desktop now, which is frankly ugly and it seems it has lost features as well as his prior configurati
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree. Plasma 5 is not quite done yet, it's lost a ton of abilities and there's no easy way to bring "plasma 4" plasmoids to it without a full rewrite. It's quite bleak really, I had to migrate to another desktop as well. And this is coming from someone who used KDE4 from the start after updating from 3. 3 to 4 added new toys and abilities to the table, but 4 to 5 feels like KDE4 all undone.
I fear the day KDE4 libraries required to run Krusader are totally gone. I can't find a replacement with
I installed systemd and my computer didn't explode (Score:2)
I am loving it, but KDE4 lovers, beware. (Score:4, Interesting)
After installing I have two main highlights. Excuse the verbosity, but since it's apropos, I really want to share my two cents and hear what other people thinks.
1) The shipped Plasma 5.3 is complete butt. Massive loss of functionality, completely broke my workflow. You might remember me defending KDE4 at every chance, and that's because it wasn't as bad as this by 4.3. Missing icons; lost of "old" systray icons; Icon-only task manager lost all options and unity launcher abilities; Klipper is half-baked and doesn't do a lot of things it did before (despite keyboard bindings showing those actions); kwin refuses to save per-window settings (works from control center, but not from window menu); the Breeze theme is bugged and doesn't show (instead Oxygen does, for whatever reason, despite zapping my settings entirely, and there's no matching GTK theme, so all consistency gets broken); dumps files on .config, making it super noisy; lots of actions that were able to get hotkeys don't accept hotkeys (despite the GUI being there, it refuses to save); several lost plasmoids (not even a simple network monitor now) and other surviving ones lost several options; and konsole refuses to obey the option to show "konsole - " on titlebar, making window matching by title never work. Kwin is still excellent, but it suffers being part of a desktop in such a miserable state and Konsole is still my favorite terminal. (I am open to suggestions just in case)
It doesn't even attempt to port old settings properly, and it's far too early to deploy. And this time there wasn't even the excuse to make it "for developers". It's really, really half-baked and I hope the missing stuff comes back eventually. It's only usable if you stick to the defaults and don't bother customizing it too much, and if you don't have habits or must-have plasmoids from KDE4.
2) Everything else worked really well. systemd works pretty well and I already got to tune it up. Very fast reboot and shutdown. Not seeing why the hate, it works for me.
Mod me down if you want, and I am aware anecdotes aren't data, but it works and I was able to migrate all my custom things easily. The only defect I found is that it likes to start disk checks more often than it should, like it does a main disk check once every 10 reboots. Doesn't take long so it's not a real problem, but it bothers me it's not doing every 30 mounts as I had it set as.
Otherwise, my system feels almost more responsive than before, and I am pretty sure it's not placebo effect. I mostly notice it with loading small apps and doing management tasks, but it's definitely a little bit faster. A few exotic bugs with my hardware got fixed and it's all now working great.
Anyway, I had to use Unity as a temporary desktop until I figure out some solution to my KDE problems and the good things and updates prevent me from rolling back. Two days later I got used to it and I am doing my usual computer routine with minor differences.
Gotta say, it's improved greatly since last time I used it. Having the menus in the window titlebar (saves space and doesn't require traveling to the top as in the OSX-like menu, best of both worlds), minimize-on-click, ability to adjust titlebar size and other minor fixes make it...*gasp* rather usable. I miss the window automation from kwin, but managed to replicate the missing window management features with some hackery and obscure Compiz features, so I only remember I am using another desktop when the windows appear in crazy places. Only took me a day to get used to the previously annoying "close button at left" business, but otherwise it feels usable for everyday work. Compared to its original incarnation it's quite the improvement. I'd even dare calling it "good enough", not the best, but just "good enough". The titlebar menus and the Launcher API abilities are pretty appealing features though.
A disclaimer, though, I always had a taskbar at the left even in the early 90s, so I find it "natural", but other people might be annoyed by the taskba
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
15.04 ships with KDE Plasma 5.2. In order to get 5.3 and future KDE updates, you will need to add the backports ppa repository:
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:kubuntu-ppa/backports
sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
Historic 3.18.3 (and nasty btrfs-zero-log gotchas) (Score:3)
Vivid Vervet ships with 3.18.3 rather than a modern 3.18 such as 3.18.12, which seems unconscionable.
In particular, there's a known regression where BTRFS fails to clear it's logs and the system become unbootable. This gotcha seems to take around two weeks to manifest, at which point the kernel will lock. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/... [kernel.org]
If the upgrade path is anything like (Score:2)
Ubuntu maybe, but Kubuntu on the other hand... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the latter is the cause of all the graphic problems I've been having. If I use the fglrx graphic driver (for AMD/ATI), I cannot sleep anymore (it wakes up to a black screen) and I don't have ctrl-alt-F consoles anymore. If I use the xserver-xorg-video-ati driver, I cannot unlock the screen (it loops back to sddm). Which makes having a laptop rather useless.
And there are plenty of other issues: opened windows are lost between logins (or moved to random places, and always to the 1st desktop), all opened konsoles are lost, kate doesn't reopen files, some login screens are all white. Or all black. The date on the clock is too big and doesn't fit ! And one thing that ails me is that your preferences are not kept between KDE4 and 5. You have to spend an hour or way more to go through all the options to try and get the desktop the way you want it again.
Re:Systemd and Gnome3 == no thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Systemd and Gnome3 == no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure the entire point of the article was that a good systemd flamewar is good for the hit count.
Re:Systemd and Gnome3 == no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'article' is an editorial presented as something to be taken as representative of the community at large. My impression is that Canonical is losing mindshare quickly to Mint on the desktop, that Canonical really doesn't care that much about desktop anyway as they pin their business hopes and dreams on servers and embedded (where it also is failing to get much traction business wise).
Note that none of this has to do with the parents referenced points: Gnome 3 (which is largely defined by Gnome Shell, which Ubuntu doesn't even use by default) and systemd (I'm sympathetic, but not sure it's making much of a difference either way in the desktop distribution selection right now).
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft. I don't even used systems that don't come with systemd and Gnome 3 by default.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok... The article should be "Ubuntu 15.04 is well received by users who do not fall on the autism spectrum."
Ubuntu has been the consumer level Linux. If Systemd or Gnome versions is that big of a deal, you probably should pick a different distribution.
Re:Systemd and Gnome3 == no thanks (Score:4, Informative)
>As far as I can tell, there is no root account I could log into directly
Seriously?
$ sudo passwd
$ sudo passwd -u root
There, now you can log into root directly and have all the security issues you want. Thanks for playing the "I don't know how to use linux" game
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Everybody knows it's:
$ sudo passwd # to give root a password so you can log in as root
and
$ sudo su - # to log in as root
Re: (Score:2)
But why?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
Re: (Score:2)
sudo -i
This gives a root shell
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Systemd and Gnome3 == no thanks (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, I have seen far too many people who want to run as root/admin because it's more convenient.
And I have seen far too many people staring at a screen with that "oh, shit, what do I do now?" look because they just royally fsck'd their system.
In fact, I've known several admins who I subsequently came to realize were mostly faking it after several instances of completely hosing a system because they just thought it was easier to stay logged in as root/admin "just in case".
Same with all of the crap software on Windows which says "oh, just disable UAC or this software to work". or "this software needs to run as root/admin". Yeah, sorry, but no. If you're software insists I disable sane security on my system, your software sucks, and you were too damned lazy to write better code. Hell, I saw one thing years ago which said "the admin user should have a blank password for this software to work" ... and it didn't get installed.
The problem is people get into that period where they think "I'm a big boy admin now, I don't need safeguards because I'm that good". Those people are generally dangerous and reckless fools.
Re:Systemd and Gnome3 == no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
I always tell new folk around here that there are three stages of competency in System Administration.
There is the newbie, that is afraid to do much because they don't know what they can do.
There are the old farts, that don't do much because they know what they can do.
And then there are the really dangerous ones in between, who do too much because they think they know what they can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It "works", but sudo bash doesn't run bash with the login option.
Use sudo su -
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Im pretty sure that ubuntu uses dash, not bash.
You can use bash, but things may behave abnormally.
Re:sudo bash (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
After reading the whole thread above I realized that 2015 won't be the Desktop Linux year either.
The proper practice for Average Joe is point-n-grunt. Ubuntu tries to make that happen and they've been doing a good job so far.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's because some people take such things way too seriously. I would suggest that you try each one and compare the resulting environment variable values, and then choose whichever best suits your purpose. And to trolls who find 'sudo su -' shocking, exactly which resulting difference are you concerned about? I'm curious.
Re:Mint 15 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep; absolutely. Just as good. I think it wasn't there when I learned my trick.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong, genius. See which one runs /root/.bash_profile and which one doesn't. See which one gets PATH set to root's path and which one doesn't. Neither of yours does.
sudo -i is probably the command you are reaching for. Very similar to sudo su -. Whichever one you are comfortable with. They both do a true root login.
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're basically saying is that by default, there is no root account to log into directly? Thanks for spending your (surely very valuable) time verifying this trivial aspect of that post, even though it was irrelevant to the poster's overall point.
No, thats not what hes saying. "sudo passwd -u root" requests elevated rights to reset the password for the root account, which is by default completely random. The account does already exist, as it cant not exist on a linux box (afaik).
Ubuntu is just designed to prevent you from using it, as sudo and gksudo are the preferred methods of gaining root privileges.
Re: Systemd and Gnome3 == no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But I do try to make damned sure I double check my directory I'm in, as well as the command before I hit enter.
I've blown stuff up before, but mostly as other users...likely that I wasn't being as careful when in as those users as I was when I'm wielding root around.
Re: Systemd and Gnome3 == no thanks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could just as easily trash your box with a mis-typed sudo command.
Yep, and it's so easy too. You can have the exact idea of what you want to do, but a typo sneaks in anyway. The example I always tell people is when trying to type /bin/rm -r /Data/
and they use the right-shift to capitalize the D, it's so easy to miss and press enter. Then your command is /bin/rm -r / (even typing that in this textbox is giving me pause). Even just /bin/rm -r /home/Bob or /bin/rm -r /usr/local/Foo could cause significant pain with this style of mistyping.
So I tell people that whenev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The concern is the same concern that says "Never run a web browser with admin privileges". Doing a particular task with root privileges is fine; doing everything by default with root is just asking for a nasty accident or exploit.
Re:Systemd and Gnome3 == no thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
It follows the same path that OS X and Solaris 11 do, with the root user disabled by default, with the first user created having sudo access to root. A quick change of root's password can enable this if needed.
All and all, this is a good thing. There are a lot of security audit checklists that are starting to require root not be able to be logged on directly, so shipping an OS that has this locked down is not unusual.
For personal use, there isn't anything wrong with unlocking root and using that with su or just logging directly in. However, in business/enterprise settings, it does make sense to have a user stage, even if it is just having different RSA keys in root's authorized_hosts file that belongs to each individual user. I like unlocking root locally, so I can log in with that in single user mode, but having remote root access completely disabled.
Re:Systemd and Gnome3 == no thanks (Score:4, Informative)
1. build quality of 14.xx was utter crap. It crashed more than windows.
2. Unity had some privacy issues with sending user search data to paying partners automaticly(amazon).
3. Canonical doesn't like to give back upstream. Before you say anything, there are many companies that do wonderful things for the kernel, GNU, and related bits and pieces to make the magic happen. The two biggest contributors being Intel and Red Hat, but linux has a lot of very large corporate heavy hitters world wide contributing great things. After not giving back, the CEO and founder Mark Shuttleworth talks a lot of shit about the people who are actually doing most of the real work. MIR/Wayland is the latest fiasco. instead of contributing to wayland, they decided to make their own graphics server, which ultimately will only be used by them. The supposed cause of wayland not being advanced enough turned out to be bogus, as RH will likely ship fedora with wayland default long before Canonical does a MIR default Ubuntu. Oh yeah. Speaking of Red Hat, not only do they make a rock solid distro, they contribute back, and oh, they still manage to turn a profit, something Canonical seems unable to do.
4. previous versions of Unity where dog slow, but they've seemed to have gotten better.
For the non-technical, I recommend Mint, which was forked from Ubuntu, and contains most of the good n00b friendly stuff from ubuntu. It goes down easy and it "Just works". The best part is I can "OEM Install" it, so I can put it as the default OS on computers I fix up and give away, and not have to worry about pirated copies of windows, or the non-techies getting all confuzzled.
Re: (Score:2)
To the extent that Ubuntu provides a stable enough base for distros like Mint to base off of - giving users the confidence that Ubuntu-targeted apps will work on Mint as well, Ubuntu's done its job admirably. If only by making it possible for other distros to install on UEFI based machines (with or without secure boot - plenty of distros are still only just getting there).
Mir is problematic, and if it introduces enough incompatibility to Ubuntu packages, that could force other distros to re-fork off of som
Re: (Score:2)
To the extent that Ubuntu provides a stable enough base for distros like Mint to base off of - giving users the confidence that Ubuntu-targeted apps will work on Mint as well, Ubuntu's done its job admirably.
which is far more debian's doing than Ubuntu. Debian are the real people who make an operating system out of parts, and do most of the heavy lifting of stiching it all together
Mir is problematic, and if it introduces enough incompatibility to Ubuntu packages, that could force other distros to re-fork off of something else (or continue on based on a pre-Mir base). Hopefully, Wayland will become viable long enough before Mir does that the two efforts can ultimately merge
Like most other failed needless canonical projects, bazar and upstart, its going to be abandoned, and Ubuntu will eventually run wayland. Which is what Canonical could have done in the first place, perhaps contributed to the development of wayland, which could have helped reduce the amount of time it takes to get it in release conditi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Linux noob, but I recently wiped my Ubuntu installation in favor of Linux Mint beacuse whatever the default environment of Ubuntu is (Unity?) looked and felt like OSX.
I couldn't figure out how to do damn near anything, requiring me to google terminal commands to do basic functions because the GUI was so obfuscated.
Cinnamon on Mint so far has been quite user-friendly. Have only used the terminal when it seemed easier than going through the GUI, not because I *couldn't* go through the GUI. And it doesn'
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, there is no root account I could log into directly
Yeah, it should come with a default password such as "admin" as well as a SSH server enabled by default so that I can just ssh root@myIPAddress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your post actually comes off very much like a hipster. "They're all idiots, unlike me..."
Ubuntu has made very significant, almost Metro-level failures by forcing their existing userbase to bend-over backwards to support an untapped userbase while compromising work-producing functionality. It's like when Nintendo released the Wii and pissed on all the hardcore gamers that made them a powerful company in the first place... they hurt their current base in pursuit of a new, casual
Re: (Score:2)
The way to get Linux into the desktop space isn't by drawing individual users in. It is how IBM's PC became the standard -- take over business, then personal stuff follows.
The trick is to get businesses to embrace a desktop distribution, by having the OS be able to be managed and policies set by Active Directory GPOs to being able to be audited/updated with existing management tools, to being able to be images and said images updated and maintained so reimaging a desktop is as simple as a PXE boot.
Trying t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And that's exactly why Linux will never take over the desktop space. Every time a distro is poised to do it, the linux userbase turns on it for one reason or another.
I actually rooted for Linux early on (no pun intended). But it didn't take long for me to realize that the Linux community was Linux's own worst enemy. MS and Apple are nothing next to the damage done by the Linux's own users every time they get into another fucking childish squabble and produce yet another one of thousands of confusing forks.
They get off on being outsiders and being different. So anything that threatens to take their precious OS mainstream in any way is seen as a threat. MS and Apple aren'
Re:Linux fans will always hate Ubuntu now (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that being outsiders is the goal, it's that being popular isn't the goal. If a change will make things better for grandma and not affect me, then fine. If it'll make things better for grandma but affects my workflow negatively, then to hell with grandma, let her use Windows or Mac.
(Personally, systemd doesn't affect my workflow so I'll let others argue about it... but if you start talking about something like hiding configuration options and advanced features, I'll be objecting.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
noobs deserve freedom too.
Also, I recommend mint for noobs. Much easier, less fail.
Re: (Score:3)
Mint is not just for noobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Many of those not liking systemd are in the higher competence class and/or run things like Debian on servers
Except for, you know, the RedHat and Debian developers who included systemd?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the whole 5 people on the technical committee that voted it in? Or the less than 10 people that maintain it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to think that anyone who thinks the complaints are overblown are part of some systemd fanclub.
Im not a full-time linux admin, Im just an observer noting that Red Hat and Debian retain their customer base despite the complaints that systemd is ruining the world, and we havent heard widespread reports of systemd induced system failures. That kind of makes me think that the complaints are vastly overstated and that the drama is unnecessary.
If things really are that bad with systemd, I would have expe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the (almost exclusive) emotional appeal that anti-systemd people tend to use I wouldn't place them in the "higher competence class". Wannabes and script kiddies is a better classification.
There are a lot to criticize in systemd (as in all subsystems) but "it doesn't follow a mythological philosophy" isn't one of those. Nor is the commonly repeated _erroneous_ claims that is popular.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice inversion. The emotional appeals come from the pro-systemd people, valid technical arguments on that side are nowhere to be found.
Re: (Score:2)
That tired old lie again...
Making a distro is not something a single person can do. And if you were not intent on spreading lies, you would acknowledge that as it is rather obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, a lot of distros are made by a single person. My mid-'00s favorite MEPIS, for example, was a one person project at the time.
Re: (Score:3)
So you have created a customized for for yourself? In what way does that qualify as a "distro"? Oh, right, it does not.
Re: (Score:3)