No announcement yet.

Using Udev Without Systemd Is Going To Become Harder

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by Teho View Post
    ...core os is just a term to reference the low level userspace (most of which is covered by systemd on distributions using systemd). No one ever calls kernel the "core os".

    You do realize that that very file uses the systemd's sd-id128 APIs?
    funny, i seen no one not related to systemd or ios to use it (embedded windows?, says google)

    you realize that that patch is to make udev report to systemd using systemd's API ?


    • #72
      Originally posted by erendorn View Post
      Are you really suggesting that the world would have been better if developers statically linked ssl libraries, or even mixed their code? and that it would be easier to fix?
      Hey, remember the time when the network stack was built in applications on windows, and not system wide? It sure was easier to fix the stack
      Wtf? Don't change my words! I was talking about API and lots of components. Wtf does that have to do with static linking? If you have many small parts, each with their own APIs, you limit yourself in what you can do. E.g. openssl has a bad API, and cannot easily be changed. Static linking or dynamic linking has nothing to do with the API. I'm also not suggesting that openssl should be included in the various projects, that's impossible.

      What people are suggesting is that everything should be modular. So that means adding loads more APIs, each with their own stability guarantees. Increases complexity. Openssl is just an example, don't put so much effort into misunderstanding me.


      • #73
        Originally posted by rob11311 View Post
        Look at this source - KDBUS Talk LWN article

        GKH is described as "involved".. you don't seem to have followed the rather unusual events and drama, WHICH have conflated a number of different issues, with various key developers. Linus in particular linked GKH and Kay...
        Ghh is responsible for kernel side of things and maintains kdbus kernel module, but a lot of work is being done in userspace too, most notably sdbus and compatibility layer for traditional dbus.

        Also few prograwmers really talk to dbus directly (me being bad example of relic that writes C tools and uses dbus C api), normal people use glib or similar (and these midleware are suppose to get ported to kdbks with zero changes to existing code).


        • #74
          Originally posted by tpruzina View Post
          What a lot of innacurate responses to things I never actually said or meant. With that out of the way:

          >I don't agree with some of the systemd developers have replied ("removing is ok" and the "being quick is good"). However, some systemd developers have disagreed and it seems it has not been merged.

          What exactly r u talking about? There is no context. What exactly 'has not been merged'???
          Try reading the article maybe? It talks about a patch…

          > it now uses the same build infrastructure and allows udev to use various common functions.

          So if my project uses cmake and openoffice uses cmake lets merge them together.
          Oh wait, my project also uses gcc and c library, perhaps I should merge them all together.
          That is bullshit argument, though, truthfully, I don't exactly remember what pros for merging it in were (besides the fact that systemd had funding and could throw some manpower into udev).
          Your changing my words into something ridiculous and making bullshit up. Kay maintained udev, both decided to merge the projects. Funding had shit all to do with it.

          Regarding the ridiculous: cmake and openoffice are totally different things. Same for gcc and the c library. udev and systemd, nope.

          > Regarding Linux always being about choice: It has never been about choice. You have the ability to tinker (GPL). Choice in itself? I prefer something which works.

          Lets distinguish between philosophy, implementation and legal crap, can we?
          From my PoV, only common denominator in linux boxes is linux kernel.

          For everything else, you have billions of permutations to choose from - like:
          c library
          init system
          system services
          various language interpreters
          alternatives to GNU stuff

          For example, some people disagree with GNU philosophy (myself included) and might opt to run fully featured linux desktop box without ever using GNU.
          There are alternatives to everything, bash, coreutils, grep, zip/bzip, grub, readline, sysutils, screen, tar (there are probably more GNU packages that I can't think of right now, but I can easily name you at least one replacement for any of the mentioned packages and most will be syntax/usage compatible).

          There is alway choice with linux (you are only limited by 'Linux' name and thus presumably use Linux kernel).
          So can you actually reply to the point I made various times? It is NOT about choice, you do _HAVE_ a choice. Pointing again and again that you have choices doesn't mean anything. And it seems you don't want to understand what I meant with GPL: freedom / free software. Who cares you want e.g. BSD, go for it. Freedom to change, that is completely different from choice.


          • #75
            Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
            Are you sure it isn't about Core OS ?
            Yes. systemd devs have been talking about the core os for a lot longer than Core OS has existed. That being said Core OS doesn't really include much more than the "Core OS" (including systemd of course).

            Originally posted by gens
            you realize that that patch is to make udev report to systemd using systemd's API ?
            Regardless it doesn't take too much brain power to figure out that udev shares code with systemd. You could start from the udevd.c file for example... I'm sorry if I have hard time taking you seriously when you are speaking against the word of the lead developer of udev.


            • #76
              Originally posted by rob11311 View Post
              Look at this source - KDBUS Talk LWN article

              GKH is described as "involved".. you don't seem to have followed the rather unusual events and drama, WHICH have conflated a number of different issues, with various key developers. Linus in particular linked GKH and Kay...
              They left the kernel side of things to GHK. The user space bits are systemd people. You were talking about that Linus would really review this. That means GHK, not Kay.

              I have followed everything, I've had these discussions many times before. Obviously GHK works together with Kay, but that's unrelated to kdbus (kernel side).


              • #77
                Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                You have the choice to implement an alternative userspace for kdbus andgive that back.
                Seriously, instead of hating Lennart all day (as if systemd was a one-man project) while your stupid OS compiles, just help OpenBSD to write reimplementations or ? if you can't program ? pick upgardening as a hobby.
                Something was lost in translation, I wasn't talking about kdbus kernel module which is pretty awesome.,


                • #78
                  Lennards are as essential to the GNU/Linux ecosystem as air and bread.


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by Lennart Poettering
                    On Sun, 01.06.14 09:10, Samuli Suominen (ssuominen at wrote:
                    > I'd really hate to be forced to fork (or carry huge patchset) unnecessarily
                    > (I'm not a systemd hater, I'm not a eudev lover, I'm simply working on what
                    > is provided to me by *you*, udev upstream)

                    Oh god. You know, if you come me like this as blame me that I would
                    "force" you to do something, then you just piss me off and make me
                    ignore you.
                    That's the attitude... this is how Poettering treated @ssuominen.

                    Originally posted by Creak View Post
                    I agree. Maybe "compatible" was more adequate than "modular". Basically, what I want to show is that instead of hating this guy, the energy could be transfered in a more productive way like, making Lennart's patch available, but yet compatible with non-systemd systems?

                    I don't know a lot about the inside of all these systems, but does the patch from Lennart makes udev completely and irreversibly tied up to systemd?
                    Have you ever heard this: "If it isn't broken, DON'T TOUCH IT!"? Poettering is the one breaking things here, forcing people to fix them for him...

                    Originally posted by bkor View Post
                    What a inaccuracies in one post. Kay isn't writing kdbus. Kdbus is written by Greg. Kdbus will now use other infrastructure not written by systemd people. Kdbus being reviewed is totally normal and is a good thing. You're pretending it is bad code being pushed without anyone looking. Nice usage of Fear there!
                    Read this: . From this, you can infer that Kay *WAS* writting (alongside Greg) KDBus, and it seems to be the case: .


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by asdfblah View Post

                      That's the attitude... this is how Poettering treated @ssuominen.
                      So what?
                      Gentooers had it coming they way they acted before?