Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Using Udev Without Systemd Is Going To Become Harder

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

  • #81
    Originally posted by gens View Post
    what the fuck are you talking about
    i am talking about diversity and configurability
    you are talking about embedded and.. what ? (bdw uclinux)
    it's like talking about running linux on a welding iron

    safety critical ?
    oh, had to google that (life critical, or just critical)
    i wouldn't run anything i didn't code
    and also BSD is way more stable, even thou linux has come far
    if i HAD to put my life in the hands of an os, it would be... idk unix or something from hp
    (bdw some companies you give your money and sometimes your life too still run netware, because it's stable)

    microkernel ? do you know what a microkernel is ?
    linux is a monolitic kernel (and hybrid kinda)

    subsystemd ? whats that
    oh subsystem

    linus accepts all patches that don't break other stuff
    if he was as narrow minded as someone else, linux would run only on 386

    and no i'm not talking about the choice to modify the code
    i am talking about the choice to run whatever you want, however you want and that it still works


    if you think linux is about "my way or fuck you", then you are just wrong
    give systemd a couple years and you may be right
    but don't call it linux then, call it CoreOS or GnomeOS please
    Ah, I'd no idea you were an adolescent. Pardon the post.

    Comment


    • #82
      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?
      Not better, but possibly easier. Modularity sounds great in theory, having lots of small well-tested components - until you realise that those components make up about 10% of the codebase, and that the remaining 90% is the bit that glues them all together. Like most things, it's a balancing act - far more complex than just "modular is good, monolithic is bad".

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
        So what?
        Gentooers had it coming they way they acted before?
        Yeah, let's happy generalize and convict all Gentoo users. Seriously, start thinking before posting at least sometimes, this is not only affecting Gentoo users, but all distributions that don't want to use systemd.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
          Not better, but possibly easier. Modularity sounds great in theory, having lots of small well-tested components - until you realise that those components make up about 10% of the codebase, and that the remaining 90% is the bit that glues them all together. Like most things, it's a balancing act - far more complex than just "modular is good, monolithic is bad".
          Only if you're designing it wrong. Designed right you end up in a situation where you have a proper separation of concerns and as a result maintenance and extension become trivial, even if the initial writing of it took more time, you're saving a lot more time in the long run.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
            Only if you're designing it wrong. Designed right you end up in a situation where you have a proper separation of concerns and as a result maintenance and extension become trivial, even if the initial writing of it took more time, you're saving a lot more time in the long run.
            Well, if you live in a perfect world, perhaps. But practically speaking, we don't. Modularity is a useful tool, but nothing more, and it's a hindrance as often as a help. All those little modules, all those separated concerns - they need to talk to each other, and that's a big piece of complexity right there. What happens if the requirements change, and one module needs extra information from another one? So you add that extra information to the interfaces? That's great, but then you find that someone else has provided a different implementation of those interfaces, and your changes have broken that implementation, and you don't have the ability to fix it. Now what?

            See, don't get me wrong - modularity is a useful tool. But all that extra structure that goes with it - that's extra complexity, and you pay the price for having it.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
              Yeah, let's happy generalize and convict all Gentoo users. Seriously, start thinking before posting at least sometimes, this is not only affecting Gentoo users, but all distributions that don't want to use systemd.
              Thanks. I was going to reply him something but decided not to. Futhermore, I have never behaved badly regarding systemd/udev, and eg. systemd developer Greg KH is also a Gentoo developer, so his generalization is actually quite funny.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by bkor View Post
                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.
                I was just proposing ways of adding ssl capabilities to an application in a non modular way. It's just that I don't see any (apart from merging the code). If you use an ssl library in a way that the library can be changed, then it's modular (and has an API).

                Then, yes, if there is no code reuse (by other projects), it can save a bit of complexity to do less modularity (but you'll reduce encapsulation/independence, difficult to say if it will actually reduce efforts). But if there is no code reuse (or you don't officially support it), you can keep the modularity, just with zero stability guarantee. You'll lose some optimizations, but still usually positive impact.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Previous news: The Linux Kernel Might Use FreeBSD's Capsicum Security Framework
                  - 1 Comment

                  Subsequent news: The First Alpha Is Out Of The Qt5 Moonlight Desktop
                  - 1 Comment

                  This one: Using Udev Without Systemd Is Going To Become Harder
                  - 86 Comments

                  Lennart - the source of your voice.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    udev is broken. not even my CH Pedals work anymore...unbelievable that such crap is accepted!

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by liam View Post
                      Ah, I'd no idea you were an adolescent. Pardon the post.
                      "only the one that grows up and stays a child, is a man"
                      (either Erich K?stner or Tin Ujević, don't know)

                      anyway, you are pardoned

                      @Arch; at least it keeps Phoronix going
                      Last edited by gens; 08 July 2014, 03:27 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X