BUS1 Is Working On A D-Bus Broker

[ssokolow]

Can you please link to the bugreport(s)?!
If this manage to irritate enough people sooner or later it will be fixed either by the systemd guys or someone else.

I think systemd have lots of benefits, but I am not a fan boy. I dislike that systemd (as a suite) is taking over more and more ,but on the other hand it is not that bad either.

It's already been fixed... it's just that systemd seems to be in a constant state of "you've tripped over a bug that was discovered recently enough for the fix to still be on its way back down to distro end users."

...so my issue is more about what that says about their development methodology and its appropriateness to PID 1 than about any specific set of bugs.

[pipe13]

It's already been fixed... it's just that systemd seems to be in a constant state of "you've tripped over a bug that was discovered recently enough for the fix to still be on its way back down to distro end users."

...so my issue is more about what that says about their development methodology and its appropriateness to PID 1 than about any specific set of bugs.

Okay, so it's really just another internets rant about a non-existent bug. That's a relief: we'd worried you'd really upset the apple cart there, for a minute.

/joke

[ldo17]

... it's just that systemd seems to be in a constant state of "you've tripped over a bug that was discovered recently enough for the fix to still be on its way back down to distro end users."

Is that the fault of systemd, or is that the fault of the distro maintainers?

[Duve]

Correct, this is a user-space daemon.

That is interesting, do you have any idea of how it is to work with D-bus?

[F.Ultra]

It's already been fixed... it's just that systemd seems to be in a constant state of "you've tripped over a bug that was discovered recently enough for the fix to still be on its way back down to distro end users."

...so my issue is more about what that says about their development methodology and its appropriateness to PID 1 than about any specific set of bugs.

So your main complaint is that it's actively maintained?

[tomegun]

That is interesting, do you have any idea of how it is to work with D-bus?

Sure.

[starshipeleven]

It's already been fixed... it's just that systemd seems to be in a constant state of "you've tripped over a bug that was discovered recently enough for the fix to still be on its way back down to distro end users."

...so my issue is more about what that says about their development methodology and its appropriateness to PID 1 than about any specific set of bugs.

What that says about their development methodology and its appropriateness to PID1?

Because most opensource projects do the same, Linux kernel included.

[ssokolow]

So your main complaint is that it's actively maintained?

My main complaint is that they developed the one userland component which systemd can't restart after a crash as if it were any normal process.

If they can't hold PID 1 to a higher standard of quality than the rest of their codebase, then they should take inspiration from microkernels and make it nothing more than the bare minimum it needs to perform PID1 tasks at the command of some helper that it can restart on crash.

[ssokolow]

Is that the fault of systemd, or is that the fault of the distro maintainers?

I blame systemd for the degree and frequency of bugs that distro maintainers have to keep up with. I wouldn't mind as much if they were papercut bugs, but something as central as PID 1 really should have been designed more defensively.

[Duve]

Sure.

Please, if you can elaborate.... I would like to hear the details.