I was looking into Hyperbola Linux, when I came across this post. In this post it is outlined why Hyperbola Linux is switching to a BSD base. A bold move, but I hope it works out for the team.

However, I am curious about the four points they outlined as reasons for switching away from the Linux kernel. Is the Linux kernel really careening down a path of instability and binary blobs, or is this just a case of the Linux kernel’s development not fitting with Hyperbola’s design goals?

    • dancingvoles
      5·
      4 years ago

      Someone should fork Rust and rebrand it as Stainless just to get past the licensing issues.

        • dancingvoles
          5·
          4 years ago

          You are completely correct insofar as it’s not necessary on its own merits, but certain purists find it a consistent talking point and basically all that has to be done to satisfy them AFAIK is to actually just fork the code so the trademark claims can be left to one side. Everybody can be aware that Stainless, or whatever name, is just Rust with trademarks stripped. Then they can recommend Stainless – or whatever name – instead of forking everything to get away from Rust.

  • trokhymchuk
    81·
    4 years ago

    Every year there are news about new ‘super-duper-new-OS’ and nothing change. Linux is huge, it has so many programs/drivers so you cannot 'just replace it ’

      • trokhymchuk
        1·
        4 years ago

        Super-duper-new-OS is about HyperbolaBSD. Hyperbola ain’t even independent distro, it is based on Arch

          • trokhymchuk
            1·
            4 years ago

            Yeah, instead of modifying Linux kernel they take pointless (on desktop, Hyperbola is (was?) desktop-oriented distro) OpenBSD kernel.

    • dancingvoles
      4·
      4 years ago

      But that Arch dev said nothing about including proprietary firmware to make your wifi chip work out of the box. That has nothing to do with systemd. The issue is that system v was released in 1983 and it’s archaic and out of date. Systemd is not proprietary. People hate it because they got used to system v and hate that this replacement supplanted their favored way of doing things, which sucked and was awful.

      There’s no virtue in spending hours writing and troubleshooting custom init scripts just because it’s less advanced and requires more work.

      Linux isn’t getting “bloated.” Process supervision and service dependency management isn’t “bloat.” These are necessary and valuable features. People are just put out that how it used to be isn’t how it is now and are spiralling into conspiracy theorizing because all the major distros moved on and now they’re in the minority.

    • zorkmids_for_nothing
      82·
      4 years ago

      I’ve carried a passionate hatred for systemd (and pulseaudio, and anything else that Lennard Poetering has worked in basically) since the beginning. But I do have to say that it’s kinda growing on me. The journaling system is still aweful, but the unit system is pretty useful. It fixes a lot of problems inherent in all the other init systems such as creating dependencies on network mounts.

      I think, as they did with pulseaudio, they introduced it too soon when it was still unstable and buggy. And they really should have made the logging system plaintext. Like… really. Journaling is a huge mess.

  • ajz
    43·
    3 years ago

    deleted by creator

    • dancingvoles
      8·
      4 years ago

      As time goes by more and more “issues” will most likely pop-up and the other major Linux distributions will possibly regret the integration and adoption of systemd into their projects

      People have been predicting this literally since it was released and no major issues have cropped up that I have ever heard of, except for technical nitpicks that don’t really amount to anything (ie, the hardcoded DNS issue in the optional DNS resolver). I’m still waiting to hear about a single attack that actually exploited systemd as a vector. Some bad bugs have cropped up over the years, yes. Bad bugs have cropped up in all system-critical software over the years. And usually when people point at a longstanding “bug” and go “z0mg they don’t care about security” it’s usually because they’re overlooking valid considerations about real-world use and are literally just nitpicking because it’s not abstractly perfect.

      And their rationale for example disliking having a hardcoded DNS server is that that’s only valuable for embedded. So what? Now init software should only serve unixsheikh’s use cases because… no reason?

      From a technical perspective I don’t believe there is anything wrong with systemd as an init system.

      That’s because there’s nothing wrong with it and it’s the best init system and that’s why everybody uses it. Everything else is just conspiracy theorizing to be frank. If people want to displace systemd they need to write something better. Not something that has one or two features like parallel starting, like actually do everything systemd does and do it better.

      A lot of the supposed “security” issues are really just nonsense. For example they cite a bug with how systemd handles invalid usernames leading to root escalation. They ignore that in order to exploit this bug you already need root privileges.

      They conflate fragmentation with freedom. A fragmented ecosystem isn’t necessarily free (UNIX was non-free and horribly fragmented for a long time), and a more cohesive ecosystem isn’t necessarily unfree (almost everybody was standardized on SysVInit for a long time and there was no wailing about the death of freedom). Interoperability is valuable and not a bad thing. Standardizing certain aspects of Linux systems improves interoperability between systems.

      If you didn’t admin Linux systems before the switchover I can imagine not getting how fucking direly something like systemd was needed however.