Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Kernel Developers Fed Up With Ridiculous Bugs In Systemd

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by chrisb View Post
    I don't think this has much to do with Linux configuration. The whole problem was caused by one developer taking an internal kernel parameter for enabling debugging, and using that parameter to also enable debugging in his user space project. His "you don't own the debug parameter" was ridiculous - it is clearly documented that the kernel debug parameter is for debugging the kernel:



    I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. Parsing the kernel parameter in user space, using it to enable debugging in another project, and then expecting the kernel developers to fix the problems that caused, shows a distinct lack of consideration. It's also technically dumb to pollute different namespaces - what if a kernel developer wants to enable kernel debug without systemd debug, or vice versa? Well, they can't do that, because someone thought it would be a good idea to use the same parameter to control them both.
    The whole problem was also a bit caused by the kernel crashing on a user space program outputting too much.
    It is also true that it's dumb to pollute different namespaces, but for that to happen, you need at least to pick a namespace, which is something neither systemd nor the kernel did.

    Comment


    • Broken by design: systemd

      Then again, there is this:
      http://ewontfix.com/14/

      ...jus' sayin'.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by scjet View Post
        Then again, there is this:
        http://ewontfix.com/14/

        ...jus' sayin'.
        Yes, an article devoid of concrete detail. An article that says systemd can't be restarted and then mentions how to restart systemd. An article that shows a minimal init, while completely ignoring the complexity and fragility of the scripts framework you have to put on top of that init to actually have it do something.

        So you'll have to be sayin' more than just pointing out that link, which I'm sure has been mentioned in this thread already.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by scjet View Post
          Then again, there is this:
          http://ewontfix.com/14/

          ...jus' sayin'.
          Putting something on a web page doesn't automatically make it true.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oleid View Post
            Putting something on a web page doesn't automatically make it true.
            Sure, unless of course, if the web-page was put up by one-sided "systemd-fanboys" heaping glorious, (but obviously misplaced) praise for systemd, then that would be "true" too,
            right !?

            -Well, then it goes "both" ways sunshine.

            jus' sayin'.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gusar View Post
              Yes, an article devoid of concrete detail. An article that says systemd can't be restarted and then mentions how to restart systemd. An article that shows a minimal init, while completely ignoring the complexity and fragility of the scripts framework you have to put on top of that init to actually have it do something.

              So you'll have to be sayin' more than just pointing out that link, which I'm sure has been mentioned in this thread already.
              "...ignoring the complexity and fragility of the scripts framework..." - that so-called foundation(of simple init scripts) has been in place, and has worked flawlessly for over 30 years, in the "real" unix/linux world.
              Your "systemd", has to learn to curb their arrogance and admit their mistakes, and then FIX they're buggy crap, or else.
              Cause nobody wants a potential "systemd" heartbleed, ...

              Systemd is simply a "tool" to make a "dev's" programming world easier to manage, and unfortunately "control", with their binary-non-portable bloberia
              -sadly their isn;t anything more about it, except the obvous UN-needed complexity of itself. -get it ?

              ,,, and sorry clyde, but that link is the first here, in this thread, -don't like it? then don't read it, and continue pretending it's all wrong.
              Last edited by scjet; 05-01-2014, 12:22 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by scjet View Post
                that so-called foundation(of simple init scripts) has been in place, and has worked flawlessly for over 30 years
                There are a lot of sysadmins who would take a big exception to that "flawlessly" claim.

                Originally posted by scjet View Post
                Your "systemd", has to learn to curb their arrogance and admit their mistakes, and then FIX they're buggy crap, or else.
                Or else you'll write another ranty comment on a forum?

                Originally posted by scjet View Post
                Systemd is simply a "tool" to make a "dev's" programming world easier to manage, and unfortunately "control", with their binary-non-portable bloberia
                -sadly their isn;t anything more about it, except the obvous UN-needed complexity of itself. -get it ?
                Yes, I get that you're making some vague unsubstantiated claims that might sound good to you, but are completely devoid of any substance. I'm surprised you didn't put a RedHat/NSA conspiracy theory in there while you were at it.

                Originally posted by scjet View Post
                ,,, and sorry clyde, but that link is the first here, in this thread, -don't like it? then don't read it, and continue pretending it's all wrong.
                And here you enter the WTF territory. There's no head or tail to this sentence, it makes no sense whatsoever. So... WTF??

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                  There are a lot of sysadmins who would take a big exception to that "flawlessly" claim.

                  1./ -> Or else you'll write another ranty comment on a forum?

                  2./ ->Yes, I get that you're making some vague unsubstantiated claims that might sound good to you, but are completely devoid of any substance. I'm surprised you didn't put a RedHat/NSA conspiracy theory in there while you were at it.

                  3./ ->And here you enter the WTF territory. There's no head or tail to this sentence, it makes no sense whatsoever. So... WTF??
                  ?
                  ---------------------------------------

                  (1./)- On the contrary, you're wrong, right now, there is a lot of sysadmins, who most evidently, don't even "care" about systenD'uih. To them. it's about "ADMISTERING", with full control, the machine simply. it was about "KISS", but now it's about control.
                  Future sysadmins will decide how viable/controllable systemd really is, if they even have a freekin' chioce ?!
                  Until then, as now, it's not so user-freindly is it?, in fact, it's NOT even "Linus" freindly right now. ?
                  BTW -you have no legitimate proof whatsover, regarding the maojority of what unix-sysadmins views on systmed are, as nor I,
                  but since you brought it up, I might as well counter with the same amount of legitamacy.
                  -grow-up man.

                  Systemd devs, WILL get over their ego's, and they(Kay, ... whoever) WILL work, (with Linus), to FIX their issues. I guess I said that too harshly before ?

                  (2./)- truth is, you need to get over yourself, and the fact that systemd is far from perferct, yet, if ever? Did I mention "RedHat/NSA conspiracy theory.." -NO, did I mention the "IBM/Windowization of Redhat" ? -NO, did I mention ....? -categorically NO>
                  in fact, you did, not me.

                  (3/) uhh ok, well wtf, here it is again, in case you purposely misread my link, the first time: http://ewontfix.com/14/

                  The truth is, systemd needs to be more "accountable" and fix their own buggy-crap,
                  and you sir, need to stop deep-throating the folks of systemd so much.
                  Be a little more "Open"-minded and fair, like I am.
                  Last edited by scjet; 05-01-2014, 01:20 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by scjet View Post
                    -grow-up man.
                    Originally posted by scjet View Post
                    - truth is, you need to get over yourself
                    Originally posted by scjet View Post
                    and you sir, need to stop deep-throating
                    Originally posted by scjet View Post
                    Be a little more "Open"-minded and fair, like I am.
                    Yeah...

                    I could write something more, but those quotes speak for themselves. You have nothing. Just rants, insults and ad-hominems. The last thing you have is "open-mindedness".
                    Last edited by Gusar; 05-01-2014, 01:37 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                      Yeah...

                      I could write something more, but those quotes speak for themselves. You have nothing. Just rants, insults and ad-hominems. The last thing you have is "open-mindedness".
                      Well, that's atleast better than "open-mindLESSness"
                      -did u hear me now ?
                      Last edited by scjet; 05-01-2014, 01:44 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by scjet View Post
                        Sure, unless of course, if the web-page was put up by one-sided "systemd-fanboys" heaping glorious, (but obviously misplaced) praise for systemd, then that would be "true" too,
                        right !?

                        -Well, then it goes "both" ways sunshine.

                        jus' sayin'.
                        1. I'm not your sunshine.

                        2. Sure, you always have to consider who is writing and if this person is in a position to say something sensible on the very topic.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by scjet View Post
                          "...ignoring the complexity and fragility of the scripts framework..." - that so-called foundation(of simple init scripts) has been in place, and has worked flawlessly for over 30 years, in the "real" unix/linux world.
                          Your "systemd", has to learn to curb their arrogance and admit their mistakes, and then FIX they're buggy crap, or else.
                          Cause nobody wants a potential "systemd" heartbleed, ...
                          My god, the shear ignorance displayed here is staggering.

                          Comment


                          • Seems to me systemd is being persecuted

                            All this hate because someone dares to come up with new boot code! I've been playing with systemd for the past week, it's been like a new toy to me to learn my way around. Since I mantain a private package for unlocking multiple encrypted disks, I figured why not install systemd, learn my way around it, and then port my package to work with it.

                            OK, here's my results: With systemd on the root volume and the older Upstart/initramfs-tools initrd, it works fine so long as there are no invalid but present entries in /etc/crypttab (not used by my package. With a systemd using version of Dracut instead, I can unlock all disks and boot, but not with my own code and a single passphrase call yet, nor have I gotten my custom Plymouth theme working in Dracut's initrd yet.

                            It's been an interesting hackfest, and I do expect to get my code working the systemd way, probably by having my script check for all devices present before calling the passphrase to unlock any of them, exiting non-zero if any have yet to appear so it can recycle as a Dracut hook. If I can't get the hooks to work, I will have to find out how to write a generator that would work like the cryptsetup/systemd generator but call the passphrase my way to unlock all the disks at once. I expect sucess, not having it yet means I haven't learned enough about systemd and dracut yet, it does NOT mean they suck!

                            I benchmarked a dracut/sustemd boot into a unencrypted test partition on an SSD at 13 seconds with a 4.5 GHZ AMD FX-8120. I think systemd has a lot of potential to be a very fast booter and surely the various new code bugs will be swatted one at a time as the code matures.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Luke
                              All this hate because someone dares to come up with new boot code!
                              Understatement of the year :P

                              If it were "new boot code", we'd have similar flamewars over the suckless init, upstart, s6 init, plan9 init, and others.

                              Comment


                              • Well there would certainly be some flamewars if every distro was switching to suckless init... But I don't see that happening anytime soon

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X