Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Musl Libc 1.0 Is Going To Be Released Real Soon

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caligula View Post
    The reddit threads revealed lots of gaps in the articles argumentation.
    The reddit threads revealed that a lot people did not understand what he was talking about.

    There have been many critical articles about systemd. In my opinion his have been some of the better ones. Feel free to post links to more insightsful critics against systemd if you disagree with me in that.

    Quote Originally Posted by caligula View Post
    People in general believe systemd is much better than he thinks. So maybe he's wrong.
    People in general "lack knowledge", so maybe people in general are wrong?

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caligula View Post
    How do we know this libc of their is any good?
    Maybe we could ask phoronix to run some tests?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibidem View Post
    Remember that this is from someone who is very much a perfectionist.
    Rich's take seems to be that it's not suitable for there to be any possibility for anything less than a kernel or hardware bug to crash the core system components (such as init and the libc).
    That is a good thing, and is exactly what I would expect from a developer of such core components.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ncopa View Post
    (He could have worded himself a bit better by saying "systemd makes it impossible to reliable upgrade without rebooting" since people who do lack knowledge defines 'impossible' different)
    If he would have said that it would be better, but he didn't. And the reality is that systemd upgrades actually work without reboots so it's merely a theoretical problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ncopa View Post
    I do find it very interesting that you can not openly criticize or disagree with how things in systemd is engineered nowdays. If you do - even if you have valid points - people will make others believe that you "lack knowledge", true or not.
    I'm totally OK with people criticizing systemd. But in reality you will always find the "hardcore" fans who will fight anyone saying bad things about "their" product.
    In my opinion this is a huge case of bikeshedding. Few people actually have valid technical points, but everyone wants to be in there and has to say something.
    For me the init system should Just Work(tm) and I don't care too much about how this is done. And it gives me nothing that the init does not crash but everything else is still crashing. If I have a headless server which I'm connecting to via SSH it doesn't help me if sshd crashes but the init keeps running. The connection is lost. Same with desktops. As soon as the X server crashes all my applications I was using are gone and all unsaved work is gone. It didn't help me that the init sytem still runs in both cases

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droste View Post
    And the reality is that systemd upgrades actually work without reboots so it's merely a theoretical problem.
    Of course there is no need to handle errors correctly when there are no errors to handle - but what happens if you run out of memory or similar? The entire point with his rant was that you should expect more than "works almost always" from a pid 1.

    I still don't see how addressing a theoretical problem - before it actually hit anyone in real life - qualifies for "lack of knowledge" or "ignoring the knowledge".

    Quote Originally Posted by droste View Post
    I'm totally OK with people criticizing systemd. But in reality you will always find the "hardcore" fans who will fight anyone saying bad things about "their" product.
    In my opinion this is a huge case of bikeshedding. Few people actually have valid technical points, but everyone wants to be in there and has to say something.
    Exactly. My point is that he is one of the few that actually have valid technical points - still someone claimed he lacks knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by droste View Post
    For me the init system should Just Work(tm) and I don't care too much about how this is done.
    Good for you. There are some people who does care if errors are handled properly so disks (and other things) are shut down clean or not.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ncopa View Post
    Maybe we could ask phoronix to run some tests?
    I would be totally okay with this. First to see if a number of programs even compile with it, then to test their performance if they succeed (and/or their errors afterward).

    It could be beneficial for both readers and the developers who probably don't go out and try compiling every program under the sun on their library and would like to hear feedback on outlying programs that fail to compile (or run badly after compiling)

    But Micheal probably won't because he wouldn't be able to automate it with PTS:P

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •