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 tpruzina View Post
    My exact point was that it INIT system shouldn't be doing anything else and rest of the fucnctionality deserves separate project. So your counterargument about systemd failing at this is that systemd failing is failing at this.
    This isn't about separate functionality, that is another issue entirely. The question is whether the same functionality (starting services) should be allowed to be used in more than one situation. You are asserting, without basis, that we should put artificial barriers around what sort of services a generic service manager is allowed to manage. I see no reason to do that. Having a flexible, generic code-base that can be used in a wide variety of situations is a good thing, not a bad thing.

    Originally posted by tpruzina View Post
    Why would KDE even use any 'ancient bash startup script'. When X is started, you tell it to execute either WM directly (via ancient script like startx) or exec xdm, gdm, kdm which in turn execute WM.
    Uh, you do realize there are a lot of other programs and services that have to be started besides the WM, right? And many of these services depend on other services being started first. The route KDE has been taking up to this point is to use a bash script to start these services in the proper order. But this is slow, complicated, and brittle. systemD allows them to do it in a smaller, faster, more portable, and more flexible manner. It is basically the exact same thing that the system has to do when booting, only with the per-user services associated with the desktop environment rather than system-wide services.

    Originally posted by tpruzina View Post
    We are not living back in day of static libraries anymore and libraries can be built without propper linkage and still be linked properly most of the time.

    This is much easier than it used to be, nowadays packaging is lagely automated and fairly easy, but it still requires some manpower (redhat maintainers could attest to this, despite them having huge servers and automated scripts that do packaging and linkage checks).
    I have done a large amount of packaging, and I can tell you it is not that simple. Those issues I listed are not theoretical issues, they are real problems. Whether you think they should be an issue is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is they are a problem, and having a single package format will not change that.

    Originally posted by tpruzina View Post
    I would argue that by this logic there isn't a single distro in linux world, because very few distros bring their own stuff to the table.
    Everything is "binary compatible" assuming one platform (I'm talking at ABI level).
    No, my whole point is that they are not binary compatible. You think they theoretically should be, but in the real world they aren't.

    Grab a random binary from the latest version of Ubuntu, run it through alien, and try to install it on Red Hat. If what you are claiming is true, it should work just fine.

    But even with a standard package format, things in android are not always compatible. Try running a Samsung-specific apk on an HTC phone. Or an arm-specific apk on a x86 android device. Or a tegra-specific apk on a non-tegra device. It won't work, even with a shared package format.

    Originally posted by tpruzina View Post
    Now go watch "Why linux rox" and "why linux sucks" on youtube, it has all the arguments
    No, sorry. If you are going to make an argument, then make it. But I am not going to watch a 45 minute video by someone else to find out what you argument is.
    Last edited by TheBlackCat; 14 April 2014, 09:32 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
      This is simply wrong. You are operating under the mistake assumption that systemd is solely an init for daemons. It isn't, it is a generic system for handling services. This can include general system daemons, and up to this point largely has been restricted to that, but there is nothing in systemd's design that restricts it to that, and other software is considering using it for other things.

      For example KDE is planning on replacing the inefficient and ancient bash startup script and replacing it with systemd when run under wayland. This isn't bloat by systemd, it is just that systemd's architecture is flexible enough that it can be useful for other things besides simply starting and stopping daemons. So why try to enforce artificial limitations that prevent it from being used where it is helpful?
      Because you have now locked your software in with another software package you do not control. That's the issue here. It's not plug and play anymore; you can't replace Systemd with something else without re-coding your software. You have a dependency within your INIT, which lets face it, should be independent of everything else.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        You have a dependency within your INIT
        No, what you have is a dependency on a service manager. And that's because the DE developers explicitly want to use a service manager, because it performs the duties of starting and monitoring DE services better than their homegrown bash script.

        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        which lets face it, should be independent of everything else.
        Which holy scripture says that? Yes that just sounded very condescending, but the thing is, I often see arguments the likes of "X should be Y and Z and nothing else" as if it's written in stone or something. And explanations why it should be like that are often either missing or consist of vague, taken out of context references

        TheBlackCat is fully correct in that DEs also have services in need of starting and monitoring, just like the system itself does. Following your argumentation, there'd be one service manager for system-wide services and another manager written by the DE devs for their DE. That's inefficient on two parts - why have two managers when one can do both tasks (manage both system-wide and DE services), and having to write and support/maintain their own manager takes away dev resources that could be used for working on the DE itself.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gusar View Post
          That's inefficient on two parts - why have two managers when one can do both tasks (manage both system-wide and DE services), and having to write and support/maintain their own manager takes away dev resources that could be used for working on the DE itself.
          Why have 'ls' and 'grep' when the new, improved 'lsgrep' can do both?

          DEs are, by themselves, a horrible violation of traditional Unix design principles. Just look at all the crap KDE spews out if you run a KDE app over the LAN to a Gnome desktop, for example. No, KDE, I do not what you to forget about all the audio interfaces on the machine I'm running it from, just because you can't find them when not running a KDE desktop.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by movieman View Post
            Why have 'ls' and 'grep' when the new, improved 'lsgrep' can do both?
            Like busybox? It's already there since almost 20 years :-P

            Comment


            • Originally posted by movieman View Post
              Why have 'ls' and 'grep' when the new, improved 'lsgrep' can do both?
              *facepalm*

              That's gotta be among the crappiest arguments I've ever seen. Dafuq, guys, seriously?

              Comment


              • He is most definitely trolling us, if there was ever any doubt, now it must be clear to everyone.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by droste View Post
                  Like busybox? It's already there since almost 20 years :-P
                  With reduced features aimed for minimal size, so it can replace ls and grep only if you don't need or want all the features.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by movieman View Post
                    Why have 'ls' and 'grep' when the new, improved 'lsgrep' can do both?
                    ...really? Maybe because, I dunno, 'ls' has one purpose while 'grep' has an entirely different one? On the other hand, you might be considered more-or-less sane if you merged 'less' and 'more', and just used an option to choose the desired action.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                      Because you have now locked your software in with another software package you do not control. That's the issue here. It's not plug and play anymore; you can't replace Systemd with something else without re-coding your software. You have a dependency within your INIT, which lets face it, should be independent of everything else.
                      It's not plug and play anymore; you can't replace libjpeg with something else without re-coding your software.
                      It's not plug and play anymore; you can't replace alsa with something else without re-coding your software.
                      It's not plug and play anymore; you can't replace cups with something else without re-coding your software.
                      It's not plug and play anymore; you can't replace freetype with something else without re-coding your software.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X