Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systemd 199 Has Its Own D-Bus Client Library

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

  • #71
    Originally posted by frign View Post
    Jack is in Kernel, because there are extensions to the ALSA-implementation for Jack support (especially in regards to timers, esp. HRTs)
    No, Jack is NOT in the kernel. Sure it uses timers, so what? ~ that still does NOT make it apart of the kernel by any stretch of the imagination. It is no more apart of the linux kernel, than it is of XNU kernel (MacOSX) or NTOSkernel (Windows).

    Jack is a user-space daemon, on all platforms. end of story.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
      While many have bad things to say about Poettering, there is no denying the fact he is one of the most notable opensource developers currently. Not THE most notable, just one very prominent figure.

      I think the work he does is valuable; systemd was severely needed, and he delivered very well.
      Back that up please. And not with circular rhetoric. That is you can say it's "severely needed" because you SAY it's "severly needed'. I don't think that even Lennart would make such a statement. Lennart writes code. But his logic and reasoning are often based on his own motives and desires. Lennart isn't interested in making things necessarily "better"... he's much more interested in just... well... making things.... That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think if you can understand that, you won't necessarily want to crucify Lennart when your distro craps out (and it will, I promise) when you use his stuff (pre fixing by the overall community as a whole).

      Just because I person can spew forth a LOT of code and create massive scope creeping projects doesn't mean he's "most notable"... unless you mean notable going both ways (positive and negative). The guy can throw code like nobody's business.. that doesn't mean it's always a good thing.

      Since we're making baseless claims... here's mine. I wager that 90% of the problems that distributions will face over the next 2-3 years (things that affect the end user and their ability to have a functioning system without a ton of workaround and glueware) will be attributable directly and/or indirectly to systemd. In fact, I'll go over the top and say that the reputation of Linux will be damaged greatly over the next 2-3 years due to systemd and modifications made to support it's implementation. And that damage won't make people run to Ubuntu, etc.. it will make them run to either closed source systems with Linux at the core (which btw, is one of the end goals that systemd creates btw), or they run away from Linux entirely... and in all fairness that's unfair... but that's what I see happening (and it's already beginning).

      I'm not saying that an overhaul of init wasn't a good idea... but I think you can figure out what I am saying... In the next 2-3 years either Lennart will become the savior of the world (which I think is VERY unlikely) or we'll all curse the day that systemd (note: the pains of poorly designed software can be fixed and will be fixed over time) was created. It will be interesting...

      I'm sort of waiting for Linus to speak up... and he will when his Linux distro of choice stops working well....

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
        ...PulseAudio itself is constantly at 0%...
        For a long time I'm wondering what's wrong with my setup. Google didn't help.

        This is with a emu10k1 card (SB Live! 5.1 Dell OEM [SB0228]).

        I'm happy for any help with this.

        Comment


        • #74
          Great read!

          Originally posted by cjcox View Post
          Back that up please. And not with circular rhetoric. That is you can say it's "severely needed" because you SAY it's "severly needed'. I don't think that even Lennart would make such a statement. Lennart writes code. But his logic and reasoning are often based on his own motives and desires. Lennart isn't interested in making things necessarily "better"... he's much more interested in just... well... making things.... That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think if you can understand that, you won't necessarily want to crucify Lennart when your distro craps out (and it will, I promise) when you use his stuff (pre fixing by the overall community as a whole).

          Just because I person can spew forth a LOT of code and create massive scope creeping projects doesn't mean he's "most notable"... unless you mean notable going both ways (positive and negative). The guy can throw code like nobody's business.. that doesn't mean it's always a good thing.

          Since we're making baseless claims... here's mine. I wager that 90% of the problems that distributions will face over the next 2-3 years (things that affect the end user and their ability to have a functioning system without a ton of workaround and glueware) will be attributable directly and/or indirectly to systemd. In fact, I'll go over the top and say that the reputation of Linux will be damaged greatly over the next 2-3 years due to systemd and modifications made to support it's implementation. And that damage won't make people run to Ubuntu, etc.. it will make them run to either closed source systems with Linux at the core (which btw, is one of the end goals that systemd creates btw), or they run away from Linux entirely... and in all fairness that's unfair... but that's what I see happening (and it's already beginning).

          I'm not saying that an overhaul of init wasn't a good idea... but I think you can figure out what I am saying... In the next 2-3 years either Lennart will become the savior of the world (which I think is VERY unlikely) or we'll all curse the day that systemd (note: the pains of poorly designed software can be fixed and will be fixed over time) was created. It will be interesting...

          I'm sort of waiting for Linus to speak up... and he will when his Linux distro of choice stops working well....
          I couldn't have put it better!
          The day will come where will realise how important sucklessness and smartness is in software. When Lennart Poettering is so good at puking code, he should start working on the Kernel and stop trying to reinvent the wheel with bloated user-space-"solutions" attempting to fix problems which could be solved more efficiently or aren't even existent, but I guess this would blow his scope, because you actually have to take care of making your code work once you enter Kernel-space.
          Same with systemd: It generally is a collection of tools already existent and very efficient with OpenRC and others. When systemd-zombies attempt to push you to the wall stating the feature-richness of systemd, then they do it in attempt of F.U.D. without knowing these features have been existent in the current
          solutions _for years_!

          I am glad to read I am not the only one opposing this guy and his agenda so harshly.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by ninez View Post
            No, Jack is NOT in the kernel. Sure it uses timers, so what? ~ that still does NOT make it apart of the kernel by any stretch of the imagination. It is no more apart of the linux kernel, than it is of XNU kernel (MacOSX) or NTOSkernel (Windows).

            Jack is a user-space daemon, on all platforms. end of story.
            There is more to Jack than the Daemon (jackd), smartass. It is part of the Kernel, because there is active support for its user-space-implementation. It is as if you were stating udev wasn't part of the Kernel only because it is just the user-space tool to manage the /dev-FS (which is explicitly right, but implicitly wrong).
            This stands in sharp contrast to PulseAudio, which is not endorsed by the Kernel; that makes me feel warm inside .

            Comment


            • #76
              Except that what LP fans call "Features" Is actually little more than bloatware. Literally, in just about every case where a "feature" is touted it is usually completely unnecessary for almost everyone. It seems like systemd wants to do 100% that 0.1% of the userbase needs.

              Its an extreme case of trying to cover edge cases at the expense of the majority cases.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by frign View Post
                I couldn't have put it better!
                The day will come where will realise how important sucklessness and smartness is in software. When Lennart Poettering is so good at puking code, he should start working on the Kernel and stop trying to reinvent the wheel with bloated user-space-"solutions" attempting to fix problems which could be solved more efficiently or aren't even existent, but I guess this would blow his scope, because you actually have to take care of making your code work once you enter Kernel-space.
                Same with systemd: It generally is a collection of tools already existent and very efficient with OpenRC and others. When systemd-zombies attempt to push you to the wall stating the feature-richness of systemd, then they do it in attempt of F.U.D. without knowing these features have been existent in the current
                solutions _for years_!

                I am glad to read I am not the only one opposing this guy and his agenda so harshly.
                Its not that we "Systemd zombies" dont know these features didnt exist already in other programs, systemd just made them easier to use and more consistent / streamline.

                Socket activation of services? Xinetd. But its still service activation...why shouldnt the init manager do that? Why add yet another piece of the puzzle when the fundamental goal of that piece is already covered by init?

                Resource management? Technically that was handled by nice levels...but nice levels are fundamentally broken in the modern age of mutli-process programs. See my apache example above.

                Poweroff, suspend, hibernate, restart, boot? All of that was handled by a combination of init, kernel and acpid. Seriously, we had a tiny little daemon that was barely maintained and who's only goal was broadcast "POWER_BUTTON_PUSH" "SUSPEND_PUSH" "LID_CLOSE" "LID_OPEN" why not just let the kernel or init handle it and be done? You could also argue that it was PM-Utils job to handle suspend, but that was only the case because of broken hardware--especially video. Now drivers have been fixed, suspend is less of an issue and it can go back to being the kernel and inits job. (Why init? because you gotta make sure services come back up cleanly)

                ^Addendum to that, in a non-systemd world if you run Gnome, KDE, XFCE and have acpid running on the system, you'll get double events. One of the nice things about DBUS is PM-inhibitors. 1 process gets the job of handling ACPI events, thus preventing double-events.

                general logging in / logging out? Traditionally handled by ConsoleKit and PolicyKit and before that, i guess...bash? Not sure, I wasnt around in the FOSS community back then lol. This is where the break between the systemd component, and the systemd umbrella name is made. Logging in / logging out isnt actually handled by systemd, its handled by logind. Gracefully user-switching, graceful TTY spawning, mutli-seat if you need it.

                Hostname and timezone? That was mostly about just consolidating all the distros random BS changes. Theres no reason Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch and Gentoo all needed different places to set their hostname

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                  Except that what LP fans call "Features" Is actually little more than bloatware. Literally, in just about every case where a "feature" is touted it is usually completely unnecessary for almost everyone. It seems like systemd wants to do 100% that 0.1% of the userbase needs.

                  Its an extreme case of trying to cover edge cases at the expense of the majority cases.
                  Systemd has the same goal as the kernel: To be scaleable in all directions. To be able to be used on a router to a smartphone to a desktop to a supercomputer. If you want the features they are there, if you don't then you just pass a compile time flag to ./configure and it doesnt compile what you dont want. Watch Lennarts talk from linux.conf.au I think it was called "Systemd: two years later"

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by frign View Post
                    When Lennart Poettering is so good at puking code, he should start working on the Kernel and stop trying to reinvent the wheel with bloated user-space-"solutions" attempting to fix problems which could be solved more efficiently or aren't even existent, but I guess this would blow his scope, because you actually have to take care of making your code work once you enter Kernel-space.
                    You do understand that those kernel features don't really mean anything if they aren't actually used by the userspace? systemd exposes and takes use of many of the modern kernel features like namespaces, seccomp, cgroups and soon kdbus. To my understanding one the problems with PulseAudio was that it didn't try to workaround problems in the kernel (ALSA drivers reporting false timing information) and therefore the drivers were fixed. Now it's pretty much the same with systemd; if they need something from the kernel they request it to be added or write it themselves (kdbus, firmware loading...).

                    I hope you do also understand that Lennart wrote PulseAudio when he was still a stundent on his freetime. It however was widely adopted by free software community... because you know maybe because it was actually needed? It's nowadays used by pretty much every single desktop Linux distribution and also mobile and IVI platforms like Maemo, MeeGo, Tizen, webOS, Ubuntu Touch...

                    Originally posted by frign View Post
                    Same with systemd: It generally is a collection of tools already existent and very efficient with OpenRC and others. When systemd-zombies attempt to push you to the wall stating the feature-richness of systemd, then they do it in attempt of F.U.D. without knowing these features have been existent in the current solutions _for years_!
                    You couldn't do worse job at advertising OpenRC. Do you honestly think that projects like MeeGo, Tizen, Fedora, openSUSE, Red Hat, Arch Linux, GENEVI Alliance and embedded industry at large had adopted systemd if they didn't have very good reason to do so? Sure systemd takes best from launchd, Solaris SMF and Upstart but the point is that the end result is better than anything of the past projects could do.

                    Originally posted by frign View Post
                    I am glad to read I am not the only one opposing this guy and his agenda so harshly.
                    You seriously got to be fucking kidding me. The anti-Lennart hate is essentially a meme, the guy has gotten death threaths, there has been petions wishing him to stop developing software, his wikipedia pages have been vandalized, some people seem to think that his projects are worth critizing just because they were written by him...

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by cjcox View Post
                      I'm sort of waiting for Linus to speak up... and he will when his Linux distro of choice stops working well....
                      Q: What's your view on systemd? [...]

                      Linus Torvalds: I actually like a lot of what systemd does. My personal biggest issue with systemd is: the people involved seem to think that change is good for it's own sake. I've seen Lennart Poettering, for example, talking about how something is bad because it's something that has been done for thirty years, and old is by definition bad. Which makes no sense at all to me because I'm saying if it's been working for thirty years, it's clearly doing something right. This is my standpoint while some of the systemd people have the exact opposite, which is saying ``If it's been working that way for thirty years, it's about time we changed it.'' That mentality makes me very nervous. They seem to sometimes make changes for the sake of changes and worry less about what people are used to. That's probably why systemd has generated so much negative feedback, because it takes people out of their comfort zones and doesn't feel bad about that at all. At the same time I think, a lot of what it does is interesting. So I'm a bit nervous about the development model and willingness to break things, which I think is a huge mistake, but I do think that it's showing a lot of promise.

                      http://bambuser.com/v/3084584

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X