systemd-homed ???

[axl]

[tld]

[axl]

[axl]

[shevy]

axl wrote:

> do vaccinations cause autism too? are contrails chemtrails? is corona made in a laboratory too? if it's a conspiracy... just tell me.

I think you are attempting to distract from the points. For example, what does any of this have to do with IBM Red Hat or
systemd? As for "conspiracy", it's quite simple: if there is a financial interest, companies tend to have a focus on revenue and
profit. Just look at The Qt Company enabling an apartheid system, with a 1 year penalty for bug fixes to KDE users since
2020 (aka you don't get code fixes and patches in qt if you are not a paying customer).

I am curious how this plays out for KDE in the long run, since they either have to accept that, or fork. But let's go back to the
topic at hand, because there is too much off-topic content. Anyway, now I went off-topic myself ... it was just meant as a
small, almost innocent exampe.

axl wrote:

> sometimes I like to drink beer. and I get chatty. but hijacking? really? can't hold your end in a conversation?
> make a bunch of claims... but it's me. ok... I must be good at this then

I think you discredited the comment here, aka you thinking that C code is trivial to read. I can read C code, I can write
C code too, but I really really hate C. Or perhaps hate is a too strong. C++ is more complex than C and you can use
C in C++, evidently - but C++ is nicer to use (for me at the least, compared to C; but I know that many others think
so as well). Just the simple cout << is sooooo much nicer than C insisting on printf(). Took me a long time to memorize
all the different format specifiers - I hate that! I also hate the syntax for pointers and dereferencing. It's just not elegant
nor logical ... and int* foo versus int *foo or int * foo. I hate having to look so closely to the syntax. Comes with a
bad eyesight soo ... but I never have such a problem with ruby or python code, for comparison. (Ruby's syntax is
evidently a bit more convoluted than python, but ruby also allows for more intrinsic elegance than python can,
e. g. by making () optional whereas python requires them and many other small differences).

To think that 500.000 lines of C code are trivial to read ... sorry man. Perhaps for you, but I don't think this is in
general the case. I much prefer ruby code and python code really, to both C and C++. (You can write bad code
in any language, granted, but if we compare people with the same skills, I much prefer ruby and python over
C really.)

I should state that I don't use nor need systemd. I am definitely in the group of systemd-critics, but primarily due to reasons
that aren't often mentioned. tld did, however had, cover some of the primary reasons what my problems are with systemd -
I do not trust IBM Red Hat in the slightest. This has a long story, already predating systemd; and it also does not have
much at all to do with CIA/NSA affiliation either. Commercial entities can never be fully trusted, it is just that way.

(If anyone cares, though, my biggest complaint is how some distributions decided to not give users a choice here in
regards to systemd. To me this is simply not acceptable. I don't want to allow random upstream developers to dictate
what I have to use. Granted, I am of course dependent on upstream code written by lots of other people, but most of
us are anyway; I just want to be in the driver seat. I did not abandon Microsoft Windows just to go back into the
simple peon setup. Choice and flexibility is really really important, and this is a much bigger question than merely
the question of systemd alone.)

As for systemd-homie, I never fully understood why it was added. Even after trying to make sense what Poettering
wrote, I still don't fully get it. My use cases don't really require it, nor systemd either. (To clarify: I don't use shell
scripts myself, so I don't even understand why I would need systemd. Ruby manages my whole setup from A
to Z.)

I assume that one goal for systemd-homie, aside from catering to weed users due to its name alone , is to probably
make it simpler for some folks to encrypt and decrypt stuff. I can not say whether this is a valid use case, since
I don't need it, but it could be. If we look objectively at systemd, and remember that I don't like it, I think one idea
was to simplify linux in some ways - people just typically boot into a GUI directly these days. (I still use init 3
and oldschool console login there; but if I want to, I can use autologin and have KDE5 plasma, usually on slackware,
without these fancy display managements or need to login. Most of the time I go the old way of just typing in
user + password though.)

I still don't really understand why people need systemd-homie though. I did read several articles but they don't
really explain why it is needed. I am not even sure if the folks who wrote these articles actually REALLY have
a use case, or just use it because it exists. It's really strange to me.

By the way, I read other comments in the thread too, such they want to make it "easy to migrate between OS" and
so forth, but I don't understand that either. I backup everything onto external HDDs anyway, and the ruby script
I use for this allows me to literally do everything I need to. And if I need encryption, I add it (if need be, I'd dig
into ruby-c too, but my use case just doesn't really require it, so I am confused why systemd-homie is really
needed.)

My personal opinion is that systemd has been written by IBM Red Hat mostly because they have different
use cases and goals, e. g. sync between a batch of computers at some facility where they make money,
so simplification here is better; and shell scripts make that part hard (see also puppet in ruby). The gripe,
then, is why this is really needed for oldschool linux folks. I just don't really understand the "official"
"arguments" given by Poettering etc.. - they don't make any sense to me at all. I don't necessarily disagree
that there ARE simplifications in THAT particular setup, e. g. it is probably simpler to fix things in one
place (e. g. the large systemd codebase), and then everyone else can assume things work as they
"should". But this is then more an issue of how much functionality is stored in one place, and who then
controls/maintains all the code. Many people don't understand the problem of that, thinking that it is
only an issue of size of code base, but a good comparison can be given with the google chromium
codebase. How many non-google guys maintain it? Of course there are external devs, but I think we
can all agree that most of this is controlled by Google devs. Even if the code is MIT style (I think,
or BSD), you sort of have a diminishing "return of investment" by casual linux users here. That part
worries me a LOT. If anyone remembers the old problem of XML support and specification in
MS office versus openoffice - when you have a large code base, it is rare to see non-corporations
maintain all of it for many years. People need to make a living, I can undertand that.

[Tony0945]

[axl]

[dmpogo]

[mv]

[Ant P.]

The other problem with printf is that, in having its output vary depending on the contents of the format string, it costs a whole runtime sub-language interpreter. iostreams *are* ugly but like a lot of the C++ stdlib they're a compile-time abstraction.

[Tony0945]

[GDH-gentoo]

[dmpogo]

[Naib]

Except assignments are to the left . Maybe that was their thinking in that you set cout to some string and equally shift left to act a bit like a teleprinter.
_________________
#define HelloWorld int
#define Int main()
#define Return printf
#define Print return
#include <stdio>
HelloWorld Int {
Return("Hello, world!\n");
Print 0;

[szatox]

[GDH-gentoo]

[mv]

[mv]