Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systemd Continues Getting Bigger, Almost At 550k Lines Of Code

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by movieman View Post
    And this kind of attitude is precisely the reason so many people are p-ed off with systemd.
    What's wrong with that attitude? If you want people to do something for you, you either have to persuade them (money, arguments, ...) or you can force them (by law, violence, ...).

    So what do you suggest; name some good reasons why people should spend money and time on developing the software you want? Why don't you spend money and time on washing my car or driving me to work? I'd be really "p-ed off" if you don't.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by MartinN View Post
      And in unrelated news, Linux is 50-100 million lines of code. I'm sure there was a point somewhere in here.
      You obviously aren't a coder. More lines equals more bugs, more complexity,

      Here's what you systemd fellas are looking for, I'll say it:
      Systemd is turning into a bloated buggy mess. An OS on top of an OS. Thank god grub2 will soon replace the Linux kernel and systemd both.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by slojam View Post
        You obviously aren't a coder. More lines equals more bugs, more complexity,
        Not necessarily. Personally I like to write my little pet projects rather verbosely so that it's easier to debug and follow, and so if I don't look at it for months I can go back and pick it right up. Systemd devs could be the same way

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by slojam View Post
          You obviously aren't a coder. More lines equals more bugs, more complexity,

          Here's what you systemd fellas are looking for, I'll say it:
          Systemd is turning into a bloated buggy mess. An OS on top of an OS. Thank god grub2 will soon replace the Linux kernel and systemd both.
          But in this case that doesn't need to be the case. If the answer to what I asked is correct (that the functionality is not being replicated with new code, but systemd is just putting projects like dbus or dhcp under its umbrella, and its current code is being adapted to work with systemd), then a big percentage of those "new lines" are, in fact, old and tested lines that until now belonged to an independent project, but now have been moved into it. Those lines were already running in nearly all linux systems, but the development now has been moved from an independent project to the umbrella of systemd.

          Or am I misunderstanding this?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by slojam View Post
            You obviously aren't a coder. More lines equals more bugs, more complexity,
            Agreed. They should have stopped after they got it printing "hello world".

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by rastersoft View Post
              But in this case that doesn't need to be the case. If the answer to what I asked is correct (that the functionality is not being replicated with new code, but systemd is just putting projects like dbus or dhcp under its umbrella, and its current code is being adapted to work with systemd), then a big percentage of those "new lines" are, in fact, old and tested lines that until now belonged to an independent project, but now have been moved into it. Those lines were already running in nearly all linux systems, but the development now has been moved from an independent project to the umbrella of systemd.

              Or am I misunderstanding this?
              You're correct, systemd basically absorbed udev and some other projects, although they have written some of their own replacement utilities like journald, their chron replacement, and such. Basically though Linux is moving towards a more BSDish development style where the basic OS is developed all in one tree.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rastersoft View Post
                But then... I don't understand where is the problem about systemd...
                The problem is with packaging and branding. If the component parts were not all part of one massive systemd source tree, and instead just part of the Systemd Project, nobody would care. Their versioning scheme doesn't help, either.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by slojam View Post
                  You obviously aren't a coder. More lines equals more bugs, more complexity,
                  No, because several lines could be much much easier and understandable than one overcomplicated line.
                  In fact, optimization often tries to unroll a complex operation into several simple ones.

                  What you probably wanted to say is - more complex lines equals more bugs. But this is also not true, because
                  if complex lines are documentated, and code is kept clean, and periodical tests are made - then they are not "complex" anymore.

                  So more documented lines are more welcome than less undocumented lines.
                  The amount of lines itself plays no role, as long as they are maintained.
                  And because systemd just has a habit of getting a lot of awfully scattered, half-broken stuff and integrate it into one working, well polished system,
                  the amount of lines, bugs and complexity is actually reduced.

                  Originally posted by slojam View Post
                  Here's what you systemd fellas are looking for, I'll say it:
                  Systemd is turning into a bloated buggy mess. An OS on top of an OS. Thank god grub2 will soon replace the Linux kernel and systemd both.
                  Here is what is actually happening:
                  Systemd is turning a bloated, half-broken, fractured, buggy mess into one well integrated, functional, bug-less mechanism.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by slojam View Post
                    Thank god grub2 will soon replace the Linux kernel and systemd both.
                    There is at least a rationale for some of that - grub2 can load boot files from a filesystem in lvm2 inside a raid-5 volume. It practically requires an operating system to accomplish that, and it's kinda handy on such a system. If only it had the real slick stuff that grub4dos has - CD emulation, ramdisks in grub, etc.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      For me it isn't actually about technical issues at all if I should run systemd or not.
                      For me the core question is: Should I put a collection of software at the very core of my systems that is maintained and developed with people like Kay Sievers and Lennart Poettering as heads of the project, with their very poor track record of blaming bugs on others, being zealots about their project, ..., to the point that the head developer of the most important open source project in the world, Linus Torvalds, tells them to fuck of until they get their shit together.

                      The clear answer from me is: No, until you get your shit together I will not put systemd on my systems or systems that I am responsible for. systemd might be a good project, but the developers simply are narcissists who think that they are always right and everybody else is wrong. Nope, not on my systems. Replace Sievers and Poettering and I may think about using systemd.

                      This of course sounds like hate, but in reality it is a trust issue, simple as that. I don't trust them, I don't use their software. Many of you argue the same way about Microsoft or Apple, I don't see why it shouldn't be valid here.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X