Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Users/Developers Threatening Fork Of Debian GNU/Linux

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by jrch2k8
    they can fork it just fine, the problem is no anti-systemd troll have the technical skills to differentiate and init system from a hard drive, how do you expect them to maintain the biggest distro ever and who will be brave enough to depend on such fork beyond the 3 unskilled ass holes making demands(that btw never even worked as maintainers of anything) and the 20 phoronix anti-systemd trolls?
    since you like to insult people,
    why don't you tell me how an "init" system works

    what i found was that systemd proponents don't really know how systemd works internally
    if you care to dispute me just tell me some simple thing like how does systemd (the init part) decide what process to run next
    a simple question


    or you could stop insulting people
    some of us "anti-systemd trolls" do know these things
    while i found many systemd fanboys don't even know what cgroups are (beyond "kernel feature"), that is a basic requirement when talking about how systemd works



    @whoever posted the link to forkfedora
    check out the slackware rc script for sendmail
    and that sendmail .service file does not handle reloading it, while the script does

    edit: also to whoever implied that an init has to be in shell scripts to be UNIX-y
    no, it has to only be simple
    so openRC is unix-y, since it follows the KISS principle
    Last edited by gens; 20 October 2014, 02:13 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      I don't really get all the systemd hatred.

      systemd has absorbed many smaller projects that have been neglected over the years, like consolekit. Many people have the irrational notion that Gnome is now dependent on systemd. This is not the case though! Just that Gnome depends on logind which is currently supplied by systemd-logind. Of course you are free to use other init system with Gnome, just provide a logind replacement. This is what BSD's are doing..

      To those who worry about things being PID1: Why?
      Ok so you move all things to PID2. Now PID2 is the critical process, all you have done is move complexity for no real reason. Why are you not using Minix or other microkernel if you follow this philosophy?

      I concede maybe binary logs some people don't like. But in practice using journald is quite nice, it provides many functions that would otherwise need some complicated script to implement.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by gens View Post
        since you like to insult people,
        why don't you tell me how an "init" system works

        what i found was that systemd proponents don't really know how systemd works internally
        if you care to dispute me just tell me some simple thing like how does systemd (the init part) decide what process to run next
        a simple question


        or you could stop insulting people
        some of us "anti-systemd trolls" do know these things
        while i found many systemd fanboys don't even know what cgroups are (beyond "kernel feature"), that is a basic requirement when talking about how systemd works



        @whoever posted the link to forkfedora
        check out the slackware rc script for sendmail
        and that sendmail .service file does not handle reloading it, while the script does

        edit: also to whoever implied that an init has to be in shell scripts to be UNIX-y
        no, it has to only be simple
        so openRC is unix-y, since it follows the KISS principle
        1.) https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...ing_unit_files <-- archwiki have it pretty clear, if you have doubts about the code handling it ,post the code section you troubled with
        2.) https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documenta...ps/cgroups.txt <-- useful information for global CGgroups understanding before tejun took maintenance and here you have http://www.linux.com/news/featured-b...roups-redesign the tejun refactor later on and here some background for namespaces http://vincent.bernat.im/en/blog/201...isolation.html, is not related to systemd namespaces per se but the theory is basically the same.
        3.) systemd doesn't require an explicit restart or stop or force reload,etc implementation, in non-systemd this options need to be explicit because all services share the same PID namespace and can produce race conditions or zombie process if you just kill it(apache was famous for this) but in systemd cgroups and namespaces deal with cleanly since the service is resources isolated and its PID(parent and child) virtual table reside in its own namespace(similar to abstract linux socket) so is basically race free to let the kernel handling the cleaning, some more detail from lennart http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/changing-roots.html(he mentions other stuff about chroot and containers but the part about unique contexts in the second paragraph is related to the topic at hand)
        4.) systemd can handle automatic restart too btw, is just a simple line and it will restart the X service anytime it goes down and additionally you have instanced ondemand services for the same service (see LXC on systemd guide or nspawn for a better idea)
        5.) systemd follow the KISS principle, every module in systemd is extremely focused on 1 task and 1 task alone including the init module(is a bit bigger since it require lots of syscalls boilerplate code) and if you remove the syscalls code you will see the logic is pretty simply and often stupid but elegant, the fact that all modules reside in 1 big git repository doesn't make it 1 big executable(is a lot easier to develop this way and modularise on Makefiles)

        Comment


        • #64
          about the insult part is not an insult if it true, is not my fault this guys announced publicly they have no idea what they are talking about and are being assholes to the debian guys, they did that all by themselves as the troll of uselessd fork, if you have ever touched C code on linux and read his plan the only option you have left is to laugh because the final result will be so amazingly insecure that even he won't use it on his personal PC and the BSD community have very picky people on security that will never allow it because additionally will not provide any advantage over their own init system

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
            1.) https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...ing_unit_files <-- archwiki have it pretty clear, if you have doubts about the code handling it ,post the code section you troubled with
            2.) https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documenta...ps/cgroups.txt <-- useful information for global CGgroups understanding before tejun took maintenance and here you have http://www.linux.com/news/featured-b...roups-redesign the tejun refactor later on and here some background for namespaces http://vincent.bernat.im/en/blog/201...isolation.html, is not related to systemd namespaces per se but the theory is basically the same.
            3.) systemd doesn't require an explicit restart or stop or force reload,etc implementation, in non-systemd this options need to be explicit because all services share the same PID namespace and can produce race conditions or zombie process if you just kill it(apache was famous for this) but in systemd cgroups and namespaces deal with cleanly since the service is resources isolated and its PID(parent and child) virtual table reside in its own namespace(similar to abstract linux socket) so is basically race free to let the kernel handling the cleaning, some more detail from lennart http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/changing-roots.html(he mentions other stuff about chroot and containers but the part about unique contexts in the second paragraph is related to the topic at hand)
            4.) systemd can handle automatic restart too btw, is just a simple line and it will restart the X service anytime it goes down and additionally you have instanced ondemand services for the same service (see LXC on systemd guide or nspawn for a better idea)
            5.) systemd follow the KISS principle, every module in systemd is extremely focused on 1 task and 1 task alone including the init module(is a bit bigger since it require lots of syscalls boilerplate code) and if you remove the syscalls code you will see the logic is pretty simply and often stupid but elegant, the fact that all modules reside in 1 big git repository doesn't make it 1 big executable(is a lot easier to develop this way and modularise on Makefiles)
            Think most people that toll HATE here simply are clueless or are people stuck back in the 70's 80, or 90s. With todays massive scale of deployment and consolidation and virtualization you need things like systemd. They have one issue they lay blame on something that is new oh well this changed so it has to be the problem. They definitely dont see the positives of something. Obviously they dont care a bout bringing up 100's or 1000's of containers or virutal machines kvms. Im guessing they all run microsoft laptops too or wonder if they struggle moving between wireless zones where systemd would automatically ensure they stay connected or they go though stopping and restarting their networking.

            I still find it funny people claim all this on a distro that hasnt even had systemd as the default the current stable is not running systemd and being debian they might still be using a version 2-3-4 years old, either way could be a ton of other things maybe within the distro itself or hardware or something, oddly ive had less stability issues on Arch than any other distro so they must be doing something completely wrong or im doing something right

            Comment


            • #66
              Fork Debian because of SystemD.......I never heard something that stupid in my entire life.

              FFS you retards go join up with PClinuxOS and improve that distro. No systemD there.

              You couldn't fill a VW bus with the people that hate SystemD, and have legitimate programming skills. How the F are you going to maintain a Debian spinoff?

              Anti SystemD provides the rest of us with great entertainment.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by aigarius View Post
                This is pure bull**** - Ians proposal has nothing to do with that troll group. It is pretty clear to most Debian developers that it is a bug for software to depend on being started by any particular init system. What Ian is proposing is having the severity of that bug being determined as if all users were affected by such bugs, instead of just users of non-default init system.
                And more specifically, it's an argument over who actually does the work. There are a lot of people demanding the to be able to choose between different init systems, but not many people volunteering to make it work.

                Comment


                • #68
                  This systemd fiasco just keeps getting getting better and better.

                  Sitting here on my perfect Unix workstation(FreeBSD 10) watching the systemd train wreck unfold over the past year has been the gift that keeps on giving.

                  You would think even the 15 year old Slashdot kiddies that make up 'teh Linux community' would have had the foresight to never let another Miguel de Icaza type clown trash their precious little OS.

                  Yet here were are once again with the next clown Lennart Poettering making Linux into the laughingstock of the computing once again with his Grand Retarded Vision.

                  Systemd - it's funny because it's not happening to me.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by BeardedGNUFreak View Post
                    This systemd fiasco just keeps getting getting better and better.

                    Sitting here on my perfect Unix workstation(FreeBSD 10) watching the systemd train wreck unfold over the past year has been the gift that keeps on giving.

                    You would think even the 15 year old Slashdot kiddies that make up 'teh Linux community' would have had the foresight to never let another Miguel de Icaza type clown trash their precious little OS.

                    Yet here were are once again with the next clown Lennart Poettering making Linux into the laughingstock of the computing once again with his Grand Retarded Vision.

                    Systemd - it's funny because it's not happening to me.
                    next time use english and btw how good is OpenGL 3.3+, OpenCL, Accelerated Video, WebGL and modern games for you, ohh wait you use freeBSD sorry my mistake

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
                      next time use english and btw how good is OpenGL 3.3+, OpenCL, Accelerated Video, WebGL and modern games for you, ohh wait you use freeBSD sorry my mistake
                      FreeBSD 10:

                      OpenGL 4.4 - check.
                      Accelerated video - check.
                      WebGL - check.

                      Modern games?

                      PS4, Wii U, Vita, 3DS - check.

                      Oh...you mean the handful of random ports Windows game developers sometime crap out for the Linux kiddies? LOL...

                      Stick to making BSOD jokes like the rest of the 15 year old Linux kiddies.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X