Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systemd 197 Brings "Quite Some Cool New Stuff"

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
    That's got to be the wrongest argument, since Systemd brings multi-seat, and thus UNIX' server-client computing to the table.

    So that means that Systemd and PulseAudio (routing audio), are bringing graphical multimedia terminals, ran on a single server computer, to life on Linux.

    How is that against the UNIX philosophy as it makes Linux more UNIX-like, by fixing what's definately broken in terms of client-server computing?
    It doesn't make Linux more UNIX-like:
    Systemd (core) does too much. I think Systemd (core) should only start and watch daemons and there should be eventd for dbus, time (cron, at), socket ... activation.
    Systemd's logger has binary format.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by LightBit View Post
      It doesn't make Linux more UNIX-like:
      Systemd (core) does too much. I think Systemd (core) should only start and watch daemons and there should be eventd for dbus, time (cron, at), socket ... activation.
      Systemd's logger has binary format.
      Here's a recent interview where Poettering himself describes systemd as complying with the UNIX philosophy.

      https://fosdem.org/2013/interviews/2...rt-poettering/

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Ericg View Post
        Complexity: Valid concern, partially defeated by systemd's modular nature (think Linux kernel modules.)
        Bugs: Valid concern...partially defeated by modular nature.
        Choice: Valid concern...partially defeated by modular nature.
        Remember, we're not even talking about the modular parts of systemd here through, just the really core parts that run in pid 1. Pid 1 is unfortunately really system-critical - if it crashes, Linux immediately halts with a panic, wherreas it can usually continue limping along for a while if a kernel driver falls over. Last time I looked you actually needed to patch the kernel in order to be able to attach a debugger to it too.

        Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
        Yes. The ugly patches, the bug reports, the compability issues, the bikeshedding, the forksters and flamers all belong to the distros desiring crazy shit. Not the generic upstream.
        Except, of course, that systemd isn't generic at all - it's designed by one distro, Fedora, for their distro-specific needs and Red Hat are the ones who shoved it into the generic upstream udev which every distro relies. You're basically claiming that, by complaining about upstream foisting distro-specific crap onto them, other distros are themselves trying to bend the "generic" upstream to their own needs. I cannot comprehend what would cause you to make such a bizarre and idiotic argument.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
          Here's a recent interview where Poettering himself describes systemd as complying with the UNIX philosophy.

          https://fosdem.org/2013/interviews/2...rt-poettering/
          He is biased. And it does comply with some parts.
          Anyway, thanks for the link.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
            I wasn't talking about "working", but "ease of deploying".
            So what exactly makes it hard to port GTK apps?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by makomk View Post
              Except, of course, that systemd isn't generic at all - it's designed by one distro, Fedora, for their distro-specific needs...
              Ehh... systemd is collaborative project between various distributions including Fedora, openSUSE, Arch Linux, Mageia, Tizen, Mer and various others. It's definetly not designed by one distribution or one company. It has quite a few people developing it too as mentioned in the interview:

              Depends how you count. 15 people have commit access (from a number of backgrounds: Debian folks, community folks, Arch Linux folks, Red Hat folks, even one Canonical guy!). 373 people have contributed patches so far. The biggest part of core development is done by 3 people or so, but there’s a group of 10 people who regularly contribute major new components too. We have at least 5 people now who get paid for upstream systemd work.
              The configarion files that systemd uses combined ideas from various distributions and didn't just use the ones that Fedora used before for example.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                He is biased. And it does comply with some parts.
                Everybody is biased including you and me, deal with it.
                Last edited by finalzone; 01-11-2013, 01:20 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                  He is biased.
                  That doesn't mean he's wrong.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                    Everybody is biased including you and me, deal with it.
                    In this case I'm (and probably you) less biased then he, because he wrote systemd.


                    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                    That doesn't mean he's wrong.
                    That doesn't mean he's right, either.

                    I agree that it complies with "everything is a file", but this is just a part of Unix philosophy.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Teho View Post
                      Ehh... systemd is collaborative project between various distributions including Fedora, openSUSE, Arch Linux, Mageia, Tizen, Mer and various others. It's definetly not designed by one distribution or one company.
                      And when Arch Linux first introduced it, users found they couldn't actually shut their systems down after the initial systemd migration because, since Fedora requires you to boot from an install CD to do any kind of major upgrade, the systemd developers didn't bother to include any way of upgrading existing init systems for distros that didn't work that way.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by makomk View Post
                        And when Arch Linux first introduced it, users found they couldn't actually shut their systems down after the initial systemd migration because, since Fedora requires you to boot from an install CD to do any kind of major upgrade, the systemd developers didn't bother to include any way of upgrading existing init systems for distros that didn't work that way.
                        So it was obviously overlooked. This is called a bug. If we're going to bash new software because they have bugs, well... That's just silly...

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X