• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1923 hours ago

    Uh… Sounds like it’s not really system’s fault, your setup is just terrible.

    I don’t know his specific issue, but the general behavior of systemd going completely nuts when something is a bit ‘off’ in some fashion that is supremely confusing. Sure, there’s a ‘mistake’, but good luck figuring out what that mistake is. It’s just systemd code tends to be awfully picky in obscure ways.

    Then when someone comes along with a change to tolerate or at least provide a more informative error when some “mistake” has been made is frequently met with “no, there’s no sane world where a user should be in that position, so we aren’t going to help them out of that” or “that application does not comply with standard X”, where X is some standard the application developer would have no reason to know exists, and is just something the systemd guys latched onto.

    See the magical privilege escalation where a user beginning with a number got auto-privileges, and Pottering fought fixing it because “usernames should never begin with a number anyway”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      714 hours ago

      I love that mentality to development

      If it has a buffer overflow exploit that caused it to execute arbitrary code is his response that people shouldn’t be sending that much data into that port anyway so we’re not going to fix it?

      (I feel like this shouldn’t require a /s but I’m throwing it in anyway)