Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Upstart Now Available In Debian Unstable

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by Bernard Swiss View Post
    I'm probably speaking beyond my competence, here, but here goes:
    I'm also incompetent, but nevertheless I've been successfully managing my own LFS installation since 1999, and I wholeheartedly agree to every word that you've said.

    Upstart developers not having a messianic stance to have everyone in the world use their product is also a plus.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by LightBit View Post
      Unix-like OS-es never had problem spawning many processes and socket activation doesn't belong to init. If it's so simple, reimplement it in one month or even better make it POSIX.
      Wow. First systemd is bashed for being too complex, and now "UNIX" is immune to any complexity. This keeps getting better and better. What makes "UNIX" magic? Nothing. It is a now-dead 70s OS implementation(for a reason)!

      One of the reasons Linux is getting its ass kicked is the abysmal kernel support for stuff that desktop user cares about; A kernel layer and init that just dont fuck up. The only way to keep it managable is keeping it fucking simple and enable a sane level of debugging. Systemd does that. There is no need to spawn shit about UNIX or POSIX compliance. users dont care.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
        The only way to keep it managable is keeping it fucking simple and enable a sane level of debugging. Systemd does that.
        And just to show how it is done. Canonicals skunkwork shit is nowhere near this level of achievement. Because they dont care unless it benefits Canonical. The same goes for the kernel.
        https://plus.google.com/108087225644...ts/3AprGbCTfpS

        Userland is stil uncharted land. Now Canonical starts blabbering about user session management in Upstart. Well maybe those guys should help fix the kernel layer first. THEY CHOSE NOT TO BECAUSE THEY DONT CARE. Now they want a piece of user land following their session stuff while the systemd guys have been holding back for at least 1 year because no hard systemd deps could be accepted by Canonical. Waiting one year on Canonical, and now they are on the verge to add user land deps on Upstart. How ridiculous!
        Last edited by funkSTAR; 12-01-2012, 07:23 AM.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
          Wow. First systemd is bashed for being too complex, and now "UNIX" is immune to any complexity. This keeps getting better and better. What makes "UNIX" magic? Nothing. It is a now-dead 70s OS implementation(for a reason)!
          So if you put everything into one process, like COMMAND.COM, it becomes simpler?
          fork() is cheap and I said unix-like, not AT&T Bell Labs UNIX.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
            And just to show how it is done. Canonicals skunkwork shit is nowhere near this level of achievement. Because they dont care unless it benefits Canonical. The same goes for the kernel.
            https://plus.google.com/108087225644...ts/3AprGbCTfpS
            Same as Red Hat's systemd.


            Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
            Userland is stil uncharted land. Now Canonical starts blabbering about user session management in Upstart. Well maybe those guys should help fix the kernel layer first. THEY CHOSE NOT TO BECAUSE THEY DONT CARE.
            Same as systemd does't care about POSIX.


            Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
            Now they want a piece of user land following their session stuff while the systemd guys have been holding back for at least 1 year because no hard systemd deps could be accepted by Canonical. Waiting one year on Canonical, and now they are on the verge to add user land deps on Upstart. How ridiculous!
            Great for sysvinit, because no one can add hard deps to userland.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by LightBit View Post
              So if you put everything into one process, like COMMAND.COM, it becomes simpler?
              systemd package contains the code for many different programs (including udev). The init daemon (/usr/lib/systemd/systemd) for version 196 is 888 kB size.

              When everything is compiled you get these binaries:

              hostnamectl
              journalctl
              localectl
              loginctl
              systemctl
              systemd-analyze
              systemd-ask-password
              systemd-cat
              systemd-cgls
              systemd-cgtop
              systemd-coredumpctl
              systemd-delta
              systemd-detect-virt
              systemd-inhibit
              systemd-machine-id-setup
              systemd-notify
              systemd-nspawn
              systemd-stdio-bridge
              systemd-tmpfiles
              systemd-tty-ask-password-agent
              timedatectl
              udevadm
              udevd

              Which are normally located in the /usr/bin/ directory. So you see, systemd is not like COMMAND.COM

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                Same as systemd does't care about POSIX.
                systemd is a system and service manager for Linux, not for POSIX operating systems. If other UNIX-like operating systems want systemd, the need to port cgroups (which is in Linux since 2007).

                If you don't like it... you know... don't use it.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by siban View Post
                  systemd package contains the code for many different programs (including udev).
                  The init daemon (/usr/lib/systemd/systemd) for version 196 is 888 kB size.
                  Is this supposed to be small?!
                  init should be less than 10kB statically linked to some bloat free library.

                  Originally posted by siban View Post
                  When everything is compiled you get these binaries:

                  hostnamectl
                  journalctl
                  localectl
                  loginctl
                  systemctl
                  systemd-analyze
                  systemd-ask-password
                  systemd-cat
                  systemd-cgls
                  systemd-cgtop
                  systemd-coredumpctl
                  systemd-delta
                  systemd-detect-virt
                  systemd-inhibit
                  systemd-machine-id-setup
                  systemd-notify
                  systemd-nspawn
                  systemd-stdio-bridge
                  systemd-tmpfiles
                  systemd-tty-ask-password-agent
                  timedatectl
                  udevadm
                  udevd

                  Which are normally located in the /usr/bin/ directory. So you see, systemd is not like COMMAND.COM
                  See what is inside core (pid 1): http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/.../tree/src/core

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by siban View Post
                    systemd package contains the code for many different programs (including udev). The init daemon (/usr/lib/systemd/systemd) for version 196 is 888 kB size.
                    ...
                    So you see, systemd is not like COMMAND.COM
                    888 kb !

                    You're making my, and his, point for us. That is _huge_. That's 850kb of code, all unnecessary, there to increase the chance of bugs disrupting the only task init should do.

                    My sysvinit is ~32kb, and that is a bit too big too.


                    So yes, that is exactly like command.com despite systemd having some commands split off.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by siban View Post
                      systemd is a system and service manager for Linux, not for POSIX operating systems. If other UNIX-like operating systems want systemd, the need to port cgroups (which is in Linux since 2007).
                      I don't know if any other UNIX-like operating system wants systemd. Maybe FreeBSD?
                      It' actually great that systemd isn't portable.

                      Originally posted by siban View Post
                      If you don't like it... you know... don't use it.
                      No systemd, no Gnome.
                      No systemd, no udev.
                      ...
                      No systemd, no Linux.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X