Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Kernel Developers Fed Up With Ridiculous Bugs In Systemd

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Kiori View Post
    It would have been funnier if this had happenend when debian was chosing systemd vs upstart. so much for omg systemd is just perfect.
    Fanboys will never learn. Systemd holds no real advantage over sysvint and all its perceived advantages are either superfluous daemons that re-invent things better implemented somewhere or pure cosmetics like slightly faster boot times. Are those worth all the trouble we have to put up with and all the freedom we stand to lose? In my opinion - absolutely not. But fanboys will never learn.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
      Systemd holds no real advantage over sysvint
      Apart from, you know, being actually supported...

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
        Fanboys will never learn. Systemd holds no real advantage over sysvint and all its perceived advantages are either superfluous daemons that re-invent things better implemented somewhere or pure cosmetics like slightly faster boot times. Are those worth all the trouble we have to put up with and all the freedom we stand to lose? In my opinion - absolutely not. But fanboys will never learn.
        Speaking of fanboys..

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by PeterKraus View Post
          Apart from, you know, being actually supported...
          I prefer things that work to things that are supported, sorry.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Ericg View Post
            Speaking of fanboys..
            I'm listening. In case if you have something to say.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
              I'm listening. In case if you have something to say.
              So, let's start with some obvious ones. What does sysvinit do better over systemd? I know, burden of proof...
              First up, systemd provides a more sane and generic method of daemon startup to reduce boilerplate that was found in sysvinit. As a side effect, this also allows a bit of consistency when it comes to things like what the console actually says whenever a daemon is successfully started.

              Systemd works fine for thousands if not hundreds of thousand. It's good enough to be adopted by the currently most popular distributions (Ubuntu, CentOS, Fedora) along with the lesser used (Gentoo, Arch Linux come to mind).

              Even if systemd is a flop, what it does right now is more productive and consistent than what sysvinit was able to provide us. A replacement would look closer to systemd or upstart than it would to sysvinit.

              I personally think systemd is doing fine. If things go sour, the nature of open-source will have its way like it always does.

              EDIT: Also, it's generally not good to use something that's marked as deprecated, even if it does work.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by nslay View Post
                A tangent thought: /proc sure is great for scripting, but I'm still dumbfounded that native applications have to parse strings to get system information on Linux. Even the awful Windows API got it right here ... It's really awkward to see someone declare a character buffer or string, open a file, read the file into a buffer and then use <string> or <cstring> operations to get the information ... I mean, frankly, it's really stupid and the format of these files isn't always straightforward or even documented. Some of them are just space delimited numbers with no obvious meaning - I wouldn't even call that human-readable - at least a struct can have named members and comments.
                Everything in /proc is required to be documented. /sys/kernel/debug can have undocumented stuff.

                It isn't that difficult or even very slow to parse the files.

                From a developer point of view it is much nicer to have them in text. Imagine if it was done like the Windows API. The code would need to look for the size of the output struct and run it through a switch or if/else to figure out which of the many versions of /proc/pid/stat were requested. With the current system new data fields are added to the end and it is the responsibility of the code reading them to ignore fields it doesn't understand.

                For some kernel information there are netlink socket APIs to get the data in binary form.

                Comment


                • #28
                  LOL, I like the Linus' style.
                  The world will be a better place to live if people starts to say the things in the face.
                  I'm pretty bothered by the hypocrit diplomatic lie and false promise that fills the human relationships.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                    Fanboys will never learn. Systemd holds no real advantage over sysvint and all its perceived advantages are either superfluous daemons that re-invent things better implemented somewhere or pure cosmetics like slightly faster boot times. Are those worth all the trouble we have to put up with and all the freedom we stand to lose? In my opinion - absolutely not. But fanboys will never learn.
                    FWIW, Systemd has 10 times faster dhcp client at least.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by computerquip View Post
                      So, let's start with some obvious ones. What does sysvinit do better over systemd?
                      Sysvinit does what it's supposed to do: it runs daemon startup/shutdown scripts specified for the current runlevel and adopts orphaned processes. Nothing else. I don't think I need to prove that init does do its job any more than I need to prove that 2x2=4.

                      Originally posted by computerquip View Post
                      First up, systemd provides a more sane and generic method of daemon startup to reduce boilerplate that was found in sysvinit.
                      Daemon startup in sysvinit means calling startup script. What could be more sane and generic than that? Systemd does the same thing in a less transparent way.

                      Originally posted by computerquip View Post
                      Systemd works fine for thousands if not hundreds of thousand.
                      Arguably Windows works "fine" for hundreds of millions. Should I use Windows then? It all depends on your definition of "fine" and systemd certainly doesn't meet mine. It's a bloated, illogical, pervasive and unmaintainable monstrosity that happened only because Mr. Poettering wanted to prove that one could theoretically use a microscope as a hammer. What baffles me is how everyone rushed to throw away trusty hammers and replace them with broken microscopes.
                      Last edited by prodigy_; 04-03-2014, 04:40 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X