>"dude systemd is botnet"

>>57041577

Yesss.

Next thread, pl0x.

File: 1475283026205.jpg (71KB, 659x553px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 659x553px

>>57041577

even if it isn't it violates Unix philosophy

>>57041936

shill/10

>>57041947
No one uses FreeBSD

File: 1475280638289.jpg (29KB, 462x461px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 462x461px

>>57041960

>>57041947
Who cares? Linux is not Unix

>>57041936
You dirty dog!

File: Albert_Fish[1].jpg (48KB, 535x462px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 535x462px

>>57041577
>Albert Fish

>>57041947
The init system does not have to be designed as a filter.
Instead it is a bunch of smaller applications which work together updated from a single repository, very much like the unix system.
What it offers is a much easier way to manage your system.

>>57041936

>encypted vpn

>>57041947
>muh 1970's mainframe

>>57041984

>You didn't check 14 MB of src so it must be clean.
>Hiding exploits as honest mistakes doesn't exist
>No such one or two line exploits in all that code has been found 'till now so it's clean.

>>57042085

>Calling systemd an """"init"""" system.

Wew lad.

>>57042228
>Wew lad.
Yeah great evidence.

>>57042519

An init system, like the name implies, only has to initialize your system.

>What it offers is a much easier way to manage your system.

That is NOT what an init system is.

>>57042600
>That is NOT what an init system is.
Let me check
[x] initialize your system.
[x] does more

Sorry buddy, your blogs are not convincing me

>systemd is an init system used in most Linux distributions to bootstrap the user space and manage all processes subsequently, instead of the UNIX System V or Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) init systems. [wikipedia]

>>57042630

It assimilates your entire system. Of course it also inits your system because it does every fucking thing. It's a linux distro on its own.

>>57042669
>It assimilates your entire system.
Wrong
>It's a linux distro on its own.
Wrong again

how to test for nsa presence: say "systemd sucks balls" and see if anyone disagrees. i'm pretty sure they have to defend it and get the last word

>>57042694
Dude I'm paid by the NSA XD

>>57041577
Hello CIA!

>>57042678

It only needs a package manager and we're set.

>>57042747
If systemd is bad, why not point out something that is actually wrong with it?
There is nothing in this thread that even hints at what is wrong with it.

>botnet
It is free software. If it is insecure, then that is unintentional.
>it assimilates your entire system
The entire init system maybe, but not everything.
>it is a distro
It really isn't.
It does not distribute software, it does not configure packages it does not do anything do anything that people usually consider the job of a distro.
The kernel or a DE is not a distro either.

Are you saying there is nothing wrong with systemd?

>>57042964

you can just search "why is sytemd bad" and find a huge number of legitimate complaints. there are entire websites about why systemd is bad.

>>57043026
Obviously not.
Otherwise you would have done so and pasted at least one of their points here.

>>57043049

We don't need to paste Google in here when you can just go to Google and check it out.

>>57042519

init systems aren't supposed to handle all the processes that systemd does. systemd goes above and beyond just initializing your OS. Some people understandably do not want this level of pervasiveness.

if you guys had an ounce of subtlety and tact, you probably could have made your systemd botnet work without arousing too much suspicion

>>57043318

This.

Like force feeding a new ""init"" system to ALL major Linux distros in a few years time (including the glacier Debian) wouldn't be suspicious.

Maybe it's just a huge distraction from something more subtle that we're all missing.