Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 15 Lovelock Alpha Arrives

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

  • Fedora 15 Lovelock Alpha Arrives

    Phoronix: Fedora 15 Lovelock Alpha Arrives

    Dennis Gilmore has announced the official release of Fedora 15 Alpha. This next Fedora release, which is codenamed "Lovelock", brings a number of new features to this leading Linux distribution, including the GNOME 3.0 desktop...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTE4Nw

  • #2
    Can't wait for that SystemD goodness; nothing will ever crash on me anymore... ever...

    (except the kernel)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
      Can't wait for that SystemD goodness;
      systemd, not SystemD

      Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
      nothing will ever crash on me anymore... ever...

      (except the kernel)
      ??

      I'm not sure if I understand. I think that your idea about how systemd works and what it does maybe incorrect. Fortunately, there are available videos from presentations

      http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/fosdem2011-video.html
      http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/lca2011-video.html

      Comment


      • #4
        The answer to your indirect question/doubt is alctualy in the first video you listed around 20:00.

        That makes we wonder if you even saw them (and remembered what was in them).

        So for example we have the seemingly notorious KDE 4 series and D-bus and D-bus craches. What happens is that D-bus brings down the entire system (from an end-user perspective). Haters better be aware that this is what caused the nasty crashes...

        But now we have systemd. systemd basically represents a collection of fake sockets that tracks processes with cgroups. Now D-bus crashes, systemd notices this, takes over with its fake D-bus socket, restarts D-bus, freezes up KDE whenever it reads out a sync, pass the socket back to the actual D-bus and everything resumes without the user even noticing.

        Self-healing

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
          The answer to your indirect question/doubt is alctualy in the first video you listed around 20:00.

          That makes we wonder if you even saw them (and remembered what was in them).

          So for example we have the seemingly notorious KDE 4 series and D-bus and D-bus craches. What happens is that D-bus brings down the entire system (from an end-user perspective). Haters better be aware that this is what caused the nasty crashes...

          But now we have systemd. systemd basically represents a collection of fake sockets that tracks processes with cgroups. Now D-bus crashes, systemd notices this, takes over with its fake D-bus socket, restarts D-bus, freezes up KDE whenever it reads out a sync, pass the socket back to the actual D-bus and everything resumes without the user even noticing.

          Self-healing
          Ok, actually yes in a certain sense it can work this way for dbus. I read your previous statement that systemd in some mysterious way stops applications from crashing, which of course is untrue.

          You should just write that systemd can start service again. This only works for systemd services activated by socket.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
            The answer to your indirect question/doubt is alctualy in the first video you listed around 20:00.

            That makes we wonder if you even saw them (and remembered what was in them).

            So for example we have the seemingly notorious KDE 4 series and D-bus and D-bus craches. What happens is that D-bus brings down the entire system (from an end-user perspective). Haters better be aware that this is what caused the nasty crashes...
            I have never seen D-bus crash on gnome so it's probably just the Qt D-bus bindings that are buggy.

            But now we have systemd. systemd basically represents a collection of fake sockets that tracks processes with cgroups. Now D-bus crashes, systemd notices this, takes over with its fake D-bus socket, restarts D-bus, freezes up KDE whenever it reads out a sync, pass the socket back to the actual D-bus and everything resumes without the user even noticing.

            Self-healing
            And because things usually crash for a reason (i.e. bugs) chances are it will crash again and before you know it you are stuck in an infinite loop of crashing-healing-crashing-healing...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by michal View Post
              This only works for systemd services activated by socket.
              Ok, it was not 100% true statement
              http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-ma...md.socket.html

              Services with Type=dbus are activated by dbus bus
              http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-ma...d.service.html
              (I did not write such service before, so I may be wrong here)

              (Of course there are other ways to activate service, but here we are talking only about those which are directly activated by other applications)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by michal View Post
                Ok, actually yes in a certain sense it can work this way for dbus. I read your previous statement that systemd in some mysterious way stops applications from crashing, which of course is untrue.
                Lol no But I meant the OS. Apps are not part of the OS (or at least not by definition).

                You should just write that systemd can start service again. This only works for systemd services activated by socket.
                Yes. But then again what isn't using IPC? Only apps you can restart yourself by clicking an icon If not then it's either somewhere in the kernel.

                This brings us to why the hell Linux can still nopt self-heal itself Even Windows does that nowadays (yes in kernel space).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post

                  This brings us to why the hell Linux can still nopt self-heal itself
                  Maybe that could be possible to write services for desktop things like a task bar or other foo app to restart them if they crashes. Maybe it is, maybe not - I do not know. But I doubt that to happen anytime soon - so far there are systemd services only for a few apps - less than 10% services for Fedora.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by michal View Post
                    Maybe that could be possible to write services for desktop things like a task bar or other foo app to restart them if they crashes. Maybe it is, maybe not - I do not know. But I doubt that to happen anytime soon - so far there are systemd services only for a few apps - less than 10% services for Fedora.
                    I meant the kernel. Crashing the graphics driver (you can gues where that is ) in Windows will simply restart the driver and the rest of NT6.x (which is what Vista and 7 is build upon) is modular with defined interfaces which also restart on crashing (unless you run into some very fundamental stuff).

                    Even better would be to scrap the entire idea of IPC and use mobile code instead:
                    http://users.student.lth.se/cs07fh9/...d-mobility.pdf

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I still don't get half the hype about systemd. minit can do everything it can, and that since years. It just people would rather write their own replacement than actually use useful code. The FOSS world is full of ego and that's something that's honestly and quickly needs healing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by monraaf View Post
                        I have never seen D-bus crash on gnome so it's probably just the Qt D-bus bindings that are buggy.
                        No, there were bugs in dbus which caused some applications to crash.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by susikala View Post
                          I still don't get half the hype about systemd. minit can do everything it can, and that since years. It just people would rather write their own replacement than actually use useful code. The FOSS world is full of ego and that's something that's honestly and quickly needs healing.
                          Maybe you should see some http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyMLi8QF6sw
                          minit looks more like upstart, which systemd tries to superpass.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by susikala View Post
                            minit can do everything it can, and that since years.
                            I looked at minit howto - AFAICS minit is just an ordinary init system with script dependencies. You should take a closer look at systemd features before posting such revelations

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                              No, there were bugs in dbus which caused some applications to crash.
                              Which Gnome didn't trigger as d-bus was well tested, but not with KDE4.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X