>Mounting efivarfs read/write by default can lead to accidental deletion of the EFI variables. It was already reported on Arch Linux forums, that running 'rm -rf' over a directory structure with mounted efivarfs did actually "hard-brick" some MSI notebook.
Lennart, being the massive faggot he is, thinks it's a non-issue and comparable to having /dev/sda access, despite the fact that wiping /dev/sda won't render your motherboard completely inoperable.
Once again systemd confirmed for more Unix than Unix.
>If you aim the gun at your foot and pull the trigger, it's UNIX's job to ensure reliable delivery of the bullet to where you aimed the gun (in this case, Mr. Foot).
>Unix was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.
What part of this bug report claims systemd is bricking laptops and not users being careless?
>>Mounting efivarfs read/write by default can lead to accidental deletion of the EFI variables.
That would be true however the user mounted efivarfs rw. Has nothing to do with systemd.
Lennart Poettering has marked every single issue ever reported by any user of his software as a non-issue that he will not fix.
This guy invented the term "works on my machine". His "I can do no wrong" attitude towards software development makes #/g/sicp and installgentoo.net look humble and open-minded in comparison.
pic related is the epitome of poettering and all of his projects
>running 'rm -rf' over a directory structure with mounted efivarfs did actually "hard-brick" some MSI notebook.
A user error in other words.
What does this have to do with systemd?
Are you one of those retards who want rm -rf to fail on / by default?
>Once again systemd confirmed for more Unix than Unix
Under no circumstances should trashing a filesystem RENDER HARDWARE DESTROYED!
>my motherboard is unable to boot after systemd automounted a critical EFI partition containing files unable to be reinstalled without having hardware flashing access to the motherboard
Uefi by a long shot. At least systemd has technical merit, a moderate pattern of success, and an ability to fix problems in its implementations.
Uefi is a clusterfuck of Microsoft me-too-isms and retarded indians and Koreans pretending to be OS designers.
>guys, I have a great idea!
>let's make the motherboard mfgs known for their incompetence write an operating system that runs cryptographically signed driver blobs before booting the actual user-facing OS!
Just more genius from Microsoft as usual.
>if you mount the device where the firmware is stored and then do the equivalent of rm -rf to that device then the device firmware will be wiped out
>this is somehow a systemd problem
Of course the people complaining about this use arch
>that running 'rm -rf' over a directory structure with mounted efivarfs did actually "hard-brick" some MSI notebook.
In other breaking news, Systemd will break grub if you run rm -rf /boot/grub.
>People complaining that systemd obeys the fstab specifications that interrupts normal startup if a filesystem is missing and nofail isn't set
>People complain that systemd doesn't stop them from deleting EFI files
>People complain that systemd replaces a vast amount of unmaintained hacked together amateur software with a neat and consistent single vendor base like BSD
Lenny Pottery doesn't care about your shitty ricer distro.
If it doesn't affect Redhat's big money corporate customers it doesn't matter to him.
If a corporate sysadmin goes around rm -rf ing random filesystems he doesn't understand and bricks some hardware it's safe to say he deserves to be fired.
I've reviewed these issues and determined that they don't actually exist.
I'm closing this thread and marking it as WON'T FIX. Feel free to re-open it so I can close it again later
I fucking hate systemd like any other sane person, but jezus christ uefi is like handing a kid your gameboy with pokemon blue and expecting him not to overwrite your save. Just use fucking bios.
To be fair, it's not yet in general knowledge that this sort of thing could happen.
Most linux users have in some part of their life nuked an installation with rm -rf / on the living system and considered it harmless as all the data hsa been backed up.
Now all tutorials need extra don't do this -paragraph.
Actually I'm pretty sure uefi was more Intel's doing than microsoft, but ok
>Mounting efivarfs read/write
This is stupid, but is that a default action from systemd, or do you actually have to change fstab for that to happen by default?
>It was already reported on Arch Linux forums, that running 'rm -rf' over a directory structure with mounted efivarfs did actually "hard-brick" some MSI notebook.
>running rm -rf on an efi partition
OH GOD THE SYSTEM DOESN'T STOP ME FROM EXECUTING PERFECTLY CORRECT COMMANDS THAT WOULD REMOVE SOMETHING I'M TELLING IT TO REMOVE
Arch users in a nutshell everyone.
it's writable by default
but it's under /sys, in general you shouldn't be fucking around under /sys, there's plenty to fuck up in there
only root can write to it, as you'd expect
you can also set it to mount as read only, if you can't trust yourself not to go around erasing shit under /sys
>MSI ships hardware with no way of restoring the firmware
>But it's systemd's fault because POETTERING IS AN ASSHOLE
>Most linux users have in some part of their life nuked an installation with rm -rf / on the living system
No, they haven't because that would be a pretty retarded thing to do
There is no circumstance under which you need to do that
true, they're not very good at it.
especially when it comes to following specifications.
while i agree acpi is a mess but good lord that's what you're getting paid for.
manufacturers disregarding acpi standards is one of the reasons why battery life sucks donkey kong on loonatix
i agree about them not caring about the init system but they do care about their package manager and the WM/DE. just look at all of those people memeing apt-get as soon as someone mentions linux of jacking off to how sleek unity, kde or gnome can look. sit a normie in front of KDE and he will most likely love it. people used to play around with themes in windows aswell back in xp.
window manager and desktop environment are different things
Usability is the main concern and that's obviously all in the DE
No normie has ever cared about the packet manager. There just has to be a normal-friendly gui frontend for it (probably by just surfacing gui applications and resolving dependencies in the background)
they are related however. and X is not very stable or secure at all.
you can only make a unified frontend for GNU/Linux package management if everyone uses the same package manager.
I'm no fan of systemd, but this is more an EFI problem than a systemd problem.
EFI is a shitshow. Nobody ever does a proper standard EFI setup. MSI have this efi brick. HP won't let you dual boot anything with Windows.
I miss the old MBR BIOS. It was so fucking magnificent compared to this EFI wank.
Post Your Fucking Face When Hitlering is the one behind all the shilling on /g/
>when wayland is finished, gnu dmd the standard init and guix the standard package manager. and then it would probably be the year of the GNU desktop.
When will binary compatibilty be a thing?
Can Adobe port Photoshop easily (to make an obvious example) ?
Until then no Linux on the desktop.
>Can Adobe port Photoshop easily (to make an obvious example) ?
It won't happen.
Adobe is shit at doing stuff properly on the software side.
Microsoft had spent millions of dollars on Adobe so they make sure their creative suites work properly on Windows.
It was just an example.
I meant that porting a big professional applications shouldn't be a pain in the arse.
Could be AutoCad instead of Photoshop, but it's the same problem.
How is it possible for an operating system to brick a motherboard? Isn't the firmware safetly tucked away in EEPROMs?
It's been a thing for ages. Static link your own libc and don't depend on rewriting GPL kernel interfaces and you're good to go. X11 and libgl both have it as well so you can interact with a GUI too.
What you don't get is to take advantage of the GPL interfaces in the kernel and userspace, since those have the luxury of being easy to modify and thus expect consumers to be easy to adapt. It's GPL after all.
What you could do is release LGPL desktop and driver plugins for your software so it can interact with userspace, but still be modifiable by packagers and maintainers. But people like adobe have no interest in cooperating with the community of any platform, especially one whose users are on average significantly more technically competent.
Linus forgets that programs like alpha centauri still work just fine. He's bemoaning userspace and how they obviously aren't as smart and forward thinking as him, and how packagers have rules about their packages.
This has nothing at all to do with vendors, since they'll release their own package or repo or installer with no regard to the maintainers. If the vendors want to deal with maintainers, they should release interface libraries that interact with GPL on its own and can be rewritten for each distribution.
Dude, it doesn't matter whose fault it is.
The point was that getting binaries to run on Linux is a pain in the ass.
That's why companies like Adobe or Autodesk don't touch Linux with a 10 foot pole.
Do you think they don't want the marketshare?
Lennart is a giant cunt but so are the people at MSI it seems. Maybe he should go to work with them so he can. . . you know...
protip: Premium desktop motherboards got dual bios / bios failsafe measures.
Normal desktop motherboards and laptop BIOS (even ROG, Sager, etc), got no protection.
So yeah, this is FUBAR.
But hell, who the hell would even use systemd in the first place anyway?