Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Users/Developers Threatening Fork Of Debian GNU/Linux

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

  • non native so my english can be hard to understand sometimes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bearded_linux_admin View Post
      I was under the distinct impression that the systemd project and most of its' principal developers worked for Redhat? So not so much their own time, as it is pushing a direction that is profitable in some way for RedHat.
      well systemd is a community project and many contributors are non-redhat, so far i think lennart and kay siever work for redhat but not sure how many other contributors are from redhat.

      Greg kh works for linux foundation and i think there are contributors from many embedded business too and some big firms(i think samsung) but anyway check their git history and check their mails

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
        was talking about disk access too
        yea, i missed that when reading the first time so i expanded my reply
        your english is fine

        it all does not matter much anyway in this case
        these are mostly files well under 100kB and there aren't that many of them so even the worst case scenario wouldn't be really noticeable

        CFQ vs deadline has bigger influence then that
        (CFQ is still needed for a couple desktop things concerning operations on the hard drive running in background)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by gens View Post
          yea, i missed that when reading the first time so i expanded my reply
          your english is fine

          it all does not matter much anyway in this case
          these are mostly files well under 100kB and there aren't that many of them so even the worst case scenario wouldn't be really noticeable

          CFQ vs deadline has bigger influence then that
          (CFQ is still needed for a couple desktop things concerning operations on the hard drive running in background)
          yeap is true, too light job to even matter to the overall process in either system

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ceage View Post
            The ironic part of this conflict is that those gentlemen who like to present themselves as legitimate followers of the `School of True Unix Paradigms & Ideas' are in fact actively contributing to bringing discredit to functioning, still up-to-date Unix design practices. Their heads are brimming with catchy one-liners about system design and that's pretty much the only excuse they need to stop using said body part. As soon as they get in danger of leaving their superficial manner of thinking about software, they resort to parroting some other gentleman, who, once upon a time on IRC or Usenet, inaugurated them into the ways of good software design by reciting the holy words:

            ``Programs should do one thing well. Now be on your way, Son. Spread the word, so that humankind may henceforth live in harmony with one another.''

            It has to be one of the most abused phrases in the history of computing. If I were the sentimental type, I'd have developed an aversion against it by now, despite the fact that I consider it to be useful, simply because some people will never grow tired of rattling it out again and again and again, without even making the slightest effort to fill it with meaning.

            I'm claiming that anybody can make each and every single software system in existence simultaneously comply with and violate that requirement in the blink of an eye without even touching a single line of code. Provided they first pull their heads out of whichever opinion leader's rear end it might be sticking in. Apart from that, nothing more than a mere mental hack is needed. After all, Unix is, according to its designers, one big development environment and hacking is what Unix people do, right? Right. The hack works like this:

            Step 1: Come up with a definition of ``one thing''.

            ... and that's it. Now, I've applied this hack to my systemd's /sbin/init just recently and guess what: it worked! All of a sudden systemd's /sbin/init managed the run time state of my system. There you have it. It's doing only one thing and it's doing it pretty damn well, I consider. Halle-friggin-lujah! This hack even works when applied to the whole Microsoft Windows operating system. It's only a matter of definition. Damn. Now, don't y'all dare get ideas and cheat on poor Misses Linux now, fellas!

            Wait a second. Let's not be quite so hasty. Let's rather take a moment and remind ourselves of what the actual definition of a computer program is: ``A program is a sequence of individual steps.'' Wait, what? A sequence? As in ``More than one thing''? There's an oddity. Is that supposed to mean, by any chance, that the phrase ``Programs should do one thing well'' is, strictly speaking, a contradiction in terms? Bingo! A contradiction is exactly what this is. So, how could the original Unix designers, smart as they are, not have realized that? Well, I believe they did. Indeed, it should be pretty safe to assume those guys knew exactly that a simplifying catch phrase summarizing a whole OS design for the purpose of communication is not meant to be taken quite so literally. Maybe the intent was to convey a certain approach to tackling problems. Yes, now that I've come to think about it, I'm quite certain that I once read something along those lines in a book called `The Unix Programming Environment' by Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike. Maybe, and I might be taking a leap here, *maybe* the real difficulty is not in writing programs that do one thing. Maybe it's in coming up with a definition of what the heck ``one thing'' is supposed to mean in practical terms: what is a logical, manageable unit of functionality that has to be implemented to solve a given problem? Is my description of the problem even meaningful? *Maybe* the answers to those questions vary depending on the context I work in, and maybe the context itself keeps changing slowly but steadily since even before the 1970s.

            Yes, Unix philosophy can be helpful in guiding a designer onto the right path when devising a new system. What systemd opponents fail to acknowledge is that those guidelines don't compensate for a lack of careful interpretation, adaptation and good thinking in general. However, those gentlemen are most likely not interested in solving problems in the first place. Their biggest worry, it seems, is their emotional attachment to their habits. Habits which necessitate maintaining a simplistic view of computing out of pure self-interest. If at least they were sincere enough to admit that.
            Your entire reply was literally perfect and I thank you for that.

            I just don't get this argument of "UNIX Philosophy". I mean, I get it on a very, very simple level. But there are many easy arguments against it. For example, UNIX wasn't developed at a time when computer hardware was nearly as advanced as it is today. Back in the day I don't think there was even a fraction of the dependency on binary blobs and the like to make graphics and wireless cards work. Would the fathers of UNIX hate that we absolutely require this today? Probably. But that doesn't mean that's a bad thing.

            I just think it's important to note that if people are so anti-systemd, they don't have to use it. Pissed off at Debian for adopting it? Cool -- don't use Debian anymore. Or with 0 manpower fork a project of over 10,000 packages and expect it to parallel main line Debian.

            Perhaps my definition of being realistic and pragmatic is different than systemd's opposition but it really comes down to a bunch of people getting bent out of shape over something that they don't have to use. Linux isn't Windows or Apple where you're stuck with what the vendor decides. The great thing about Open Source is choice and I think most who are against systemd are completely missing that point.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bearded_linux_admin View Post
              I was under the distinct impression that the systemd project and most of its' principal developers worked for Redhat? So not so much their own time, as it is pushing a direction that is profitable in some way for RedHat.
              The systemd team is made up of more than just RedHat developers. So at the worst, RedHat can force systemd on RedHat products. The fact that it's being willingly adopted by other distros speaks volumes in my opinion.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jmcknight View Post
                The systemd team is made up of more than just RedHat developers. So at the worst, RedHat can force systemd on RedHat products. The fact that it's being willingly adopted by other distros speaks volumes in my opinion.
                i wouldn't quite say it was willingly
                debian had a great cabal
                one of arch's main devs is afaik a systemd dev, and he dropped it unto arch suddenly (as another great cabal)
                ubuntu just followed debian

                i also wouldn't quite say volumes
                take the example of knoppix, that actually advanced the linux desktop by a lot
                there wasn't much opposition to it's ideas, that were actually good (despite being a bit hacky)

                problem is that "redhat" became through the years a synonym for doing things (mostly) right due to having a lot of talented people working on it
                but systemd is a fedora thing,
                and in my opinion it is even more of a gnome thing then a fedora thing
                Last edited by gens; 21 October 2014, 03:45 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                  man you just dumb as shit
                  Wow, I'm too tired of reading such language in every single post of yours. Congrats, you're the first non-troll to go in my ignore list

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gens View Post
                    i wouldn't quite say it was willingly
                    debian had a great cabal
                    one of arch's main devs is afaik a systemd dev, and he dropped it unto arch suddenly (as another great cabal)
                    ubuntu just followed debian
                    Well, Suse did it. That says very little on "is it a good community project", but it cannot be that bad for server management if both Suse and RHEL bet on it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                      Well, Suse did it. That says very little on "is it a good community project", but it cannot be that bad for server management if both Suse and RHEL bet on it.
                      well, once you get used to it and learn/apply the advanced features you will see sysadmins crying of happiness, just the DDOS protections and the advanced security is enough to drop anything else and never look back. <-- have a bit of a learning curve(or de learning curve).

                      if you are a developer once you discover the API side of systemd and realise how many hacks and white hairs you will save yourself you will run naked crying in the highway and start hugging and kissing people(is that much better).

                      and i guess that is the main issue with systemd, the coolest features are for developers, security experts(no attack surface is not a real thing, i explained in another thread, that is just a PR term for "well, i guess it can be broken eventually somehow maybe" used by microsoft to justify their insecure garbage with "experts"), sysadmins, embedded(omg here is a blessing) and the super high density virtualisation crowd but for the regular user/sysadmin maybe is not as exciting beyond easier configuration and super fast boots and because of it they somehow interpret that all the modules in systemd are meant to be used by them or are duplicated when those are for the specific area i mentioned and they are in the package(s) just for standard deploy but always disabled

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X