systemd 255 Released With A "Blue Screen of Death" For Linux Systems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • williamthrilliam
    Junior Member
    • Jan 2009
    • 22

    #71
    You made it to The Verge. Congratulations! This is a big moment for phoronix and desktop linux.

    Comment

    • jacob
      Senior Member
      • Jul 2010
      • 2972

      #72
      Originally posted by ojsl1 View Post
      Wtf is wrong with the current black and white panic and oops screens, how is systemd-bsod an improvement other than just hurr durr colors equal better brand identity. Are distros going to start invoking systemd-bsod when unrecovable gpu or xorg freezes/lockups occur?
      Brand identity is IMPORTANT. Besides, there was plenty wrong with the old kernel panic dumps, chiefly that they are absolutely useless to anyone who is not intimately familiar with the kernel internals. Here, end users will get a hopefully intelligible error message and a QR code for more detailed info, and the register and stack dump of course remain available. It's a net improvement.

      Originally posted by ojsl1 View Post
      OT: Its funny how in my whole previous life of using windows it was fleetingly rare for gpu crashes to require a complete reboot - unlike on linux where its next to unheard of for gpus to recover from crashes.

      Other than all that the much bigger headache for linux newcomers is the issue of booting into blinking cursor and/or a black screen and the tens of reasons that could have caused it. People (other than me) arent going to spend ten minutes (not to mention hours) googling for why their system is stuck on boot when they can just quickly install windows again.
      Take this as a first step towards improving the overall user experience, including in relation to GPUs. Generally speaking GPU driver management is worse than on Windows in some ways and better in some ways too.

      Comment

      • Weasel
        Senior Member
        • Feb 2017
        • 4500

        #73
        Originally posted by Almindor View Post
        Ok that one goes in the book. And unlike the 640k one this one was actaually uttered by someone!
        The 640k was uttered by someone too. It was just taken out of context. He was referring to the software at the time (and Office in particular), where 640k was more than enough, and that's true.

        It's like saying today that 64 GB is more than enough, when talking to artists using Photoshop. And it is.

        Comment

        • zbyszek
          Junior Member
          • May 2015
          • 31

          #74
          Originally posted by LightBit View Post
          Can we see screenshot of it?
          Screenshot_fedora-rawhide_2023-12-08_09:38:44.png
          This is an example from a VM, produced by 'sudo logger -p EMERG …'.

          Comment

          • ssokolow
            Senior Member
            • Nov 2013
            • 5096

            #75
            Originally posted by rmfx View Post
            They couldn’t use an other name than this??
            Not only the name is stupid, not color modular, but also very bound to Windows.
            Hey, give blue a break. It's not the 1990s MIPS firmware's fault that Windows NT cribbed its look.

            Comment

            • F.Ultra
              Senior Member
              • Feb 2010
              • 2040

              #76
              Originally posted by user1 View Post

              Sorry, I meant slowdowns with website loading. Sometimes the whole website takes ages to load. Other times, if certain websites load quickly, some of their elements still take ages to load. And it's related to the Github issue in my previous comment. When the slowdown happens, I see the "Using degraded feature set" message in logs.

              Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification!

              Originally posted by Almindor View Post

              Ok that one goes in the book. And unlike the 640k one this one was actaually uttered by someone!

              Lol, a resolver can't slow network traffic <wipes tears>. Classic. Dude! Todays programs tend to requery domain names like 500 times a second coz they suck so much. Of course a bad resolver will slow traffic. Not only that, it can literally brick your system for seconds coz most of those crappy programs will block on it too!
              No a resolver cannot slow network traffic. It can ofc slow down / halt name resolving for obvious reasons but that is two completely different things. Why play loose with definitions?

              Comment

              • Almindor
                Senior Member
                • Jul 2008
                • 480

                #77
                Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
                ​No a resolver cannot slow network traffic. It can ofc slow down / halt name resolving for obvious reasons but that is two completely different things. Why play loose with definitions?
                Well if you want to be strict, then surely the process of resolving is part of the network traffic process? Especially if it you know needs to perform network traffic to get the answer

                Comment

                • sophisticles
                  Senior Member
                  • Dec 2015
                  • 2591

                  #78
                  Originally posted by jacob View Post

                  You know what the complete saying is?

                  Jack of all trades, master of none, is often better than master of one.
                  I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times

                  Comment

                  • gotar
                    Senior Member
                    • Dec 2021
                    • 249

                    #79
                    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

                    The problem with systemd is that it's both an init system and a service manager. An init system doesn't need most of what it offers while a service manager does.
                    What is the purpose of init system without service manager? Booting the machine ...and starting service manager?
                    Then your "init system" becames Linux EFI stub with some initrd tools (like dracut) and systemd is service manager.
                    The only part of systemd that can be called "init system" is systemd-boot and mkosi, which are absolutely optional and actually don't dominate the ecosystem (this is mostly grub2 and dracut domain).

                    And if you meant /sbin/init - without service managing part it becomes redundant. If I got service manager in place, running, then there's no purpose for any "init", my service manager can reap the orphans itself, so your /sbin/init becomes basically a noop and can be simply removed from the picture.

                    /sbin/init doesn't go in par with service manager, it's its subset.

                    You can either have /sbin/init stub with some peculiar tools standing aside, just to make the various services run (like SysV hell), but which cannot manage them fully (supervision, monitoring resources, handling cgroups), or you can have fully-fledged system-and-service manager.

                    And it just happens that users expect the system manager controlling entire environment, not just some bunch of software randomly running on their systems without any reasonable way to manage them.
                    Last edited by gotar; 09 December 2023, 08:04 AM. Reason: init *system* vs /sbin/init

                    Comment

                    • gotar
                      Senior Member
                      • Dec 2021
                      • 249

                      #80
                      Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
                      SO MANY features get rolled into this project. New keywords for service files even when there already existed a whole bagful.
                      Every non-trivial system requires this by definition. You can complain about "so many CSS keywords", "LibreCalc functions", "kernel modules" or "moving parts in car engine".

                      Honestly, almost no-one knows how to correctly write a systemd service file that does exactly what is wanted.
                      No-one incompetent. That is truism - almost no-one can stitch an open wound either. Did someone promised you that computers are easy? They are not. If you cannot learn them by yourself, there are appropriate schools. If you're not capable of doing this yourself, just hire professional.

                      ​There are 5 methods to do the same thing, but they differ slightly in behavior in some edge case, and it usually takes a discussion thread of like 5 experienced systemd users and several days of brainstorming to achieve a "final" consensus how some non-trivial service file should be written. WTF?

                      This is called "incompetence" or "ignorance". Instead of "5 systemd users" you simply need "one experienced sysadm".

                      I managed pretty well to live with cron and shell scripts under sysV. With systemd i can only hope google brings me to the right discussion thread for the type of service i need...
                      Are you a system user or service developer? As a user - this is not your job to handle systemd subtleties, let this be done by your software provider. As a developer - just upgrade your skills or hire professional.

                      Old-style engines were also easy to fix with a few tools. The always-increasing complexity is being called the "progress".

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X