[OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
65 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Canek Peláez Valdés
This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want
your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it.

iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big
Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd.
The gist of it can be resumed in two lines:

"I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and
laptop both run it."

I post it here because several times in the last discussions about
systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd.
I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in
this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will
continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do
so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really*
like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits:

• "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days
more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the
situation."

• "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
reality."

• "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy."

• " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text,
not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the
best of taste, but hey, details..[.]"

• (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are
digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of
software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either."

• "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed
painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like
they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody
feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues
that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to
actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise
that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same
kind of mouth-time."

It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.

[1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Stefan G. Weichinger-3
Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:

> This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want
> your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it.
>
> iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big
> Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd.
> The gist of it can be resumed in two lines:
>
> "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and
> laptop both run it."
>
> I post it here because several times in the last discussions about
> systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd.
> I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in
> this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will
> continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do
> so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really*
> like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits:
>
> • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days
> more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the
> situation."
>
> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
> reality."
>
> • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy."
>
> • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text,
> not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the
> best of taste, but hey, details..[.]"
>
> • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are
> digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of
> software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either."
>
> • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed
> painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like
> they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody
> feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues
> that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to
> actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise
> that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same
> kind of mouth-time."
>
> It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.
>
> [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd

thanks for the pointer ;-)

S


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Volker Armin Hemmann
In reply to this post by Canek Peláez Valdés
Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:

> This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want
> your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it.
>
> iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big
> Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd.
> The gist of it can be resumed in two lines:
>
> "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and
> laptop both run it."
>
> I post it here because several times in the last discussions about
> systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd.
> I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in
> this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will
> continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do
> so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really*
> like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits:
>
> • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days
> more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the
> situation."
>
> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
> reality."
>
> • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy."
>
> • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text,
> not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the
> best of taste, but hey, details..[.]"
>
> • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are
> digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of
> software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either."
>
> • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed
> painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like
> they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody
> feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues
> that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to
> actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise
> that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same
> kind of mouth-time."
>
> It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.
>
> [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd

Now you use this to advertise for systemd?

Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Joseph-77
On 09/17/14 20:36, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.
>>
>> [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd
>
>Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>
>Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.

I'll second it.
I tried systemd and did not like it at all.

--
Joseph

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Canek Peláez Valdés
In reply to this post by Volker Armin Hemmann
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>
> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.

So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
happily.

So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.

Thanks for the laugh.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Volker Armin Hemmann
Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:

> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>
>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
> happily.
>
> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>
> Thanks for the laugh.
>
> Regards.

you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.

Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.

And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
it. Because history loves repetition.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

James-2
In reply to this post by Canek Peláez Valdés
Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko <at> gmail.com> writes:


> This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want
> your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it.

I think this is very much "on Topic".

> iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big
> Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd.
> The gist of it can be resumed in two lines:

> "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and
> laptop both run it."

Here I diagree. I think Linux's position is, hey it's a BIG tent;
can't we call get along? Kum_by_yah oh lord, Kum_by_yall......

Linus admits he rarely codes and does not have the skills he use to...

> I post it here because several times in the last discussions about
> systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd.
> I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in
> this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will
> continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do
> so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really*
> like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits:
>
> • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days
> more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the
> situation."
>
> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
> reality."
>
> • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy."
>
> • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text,
> not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the
> best of taste, but hey, details..[.]"
>
> • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are
> digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of
> software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either."

Really? This is idiotic. Anything that breaks down a "fault tolerant"
system, has to be removed, or the system is no long "fault tolerant"
(pist, it a mathematical thing, no a linux/unix concept. Linus
sounds like an *idiot* here. It's not the first time, nor could anyone
in his shoes not sound like an idiot on something as fundamental as
what cgroups hopes to eventually accomplish. By the way, just for the
record, I like the "theory" behind systemd. It's going to take SYSTEMD
A LONG TIME to MATURE and become ROBUST.

cgroups are mature, flexible, robust, well-understood and this is
absolutely no reason in hell that folks should ever be force to pick
one of the other. If/when "linx" make that decision, it will be just
as catastropic as the day Sun Microsystem consolidated ownership
of most unix source licenses in a effort (conspiracy) that SCO
unix tried to finish by kill the BSD efforts. That was when most
folks on the internet migrated to Linux. I think Linux is trying
to prevent another (reverse) watershed moment.

If folks have the choice, then they will stay with Linux. If forced
many will leave. The entire affair is AVOIDABLE. systemd, in all
it's glory should never force anyone to choose. Choice is the greatest
asset of all open source. Many would say, it is the only asset of
the open source movement.


> • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed
> painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like
> they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody
> feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues
> that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to
> actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise
> that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same
> kind of mouth-time."

Retarded comparision of vi vs emac and antoher application. systemd
vs the traditional cgroups is an the lowest level of the kernel.
Think aobut it by going to 'make menuconfig' in your local source dir.
Look at the myriad of low level choices we have. Why the hell is
systemd so special that it cannot stand up to other solutions and
competition?


> It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.

I agree. He sound more idiodic than Obama and his "red line". We
all know how that turned out.

CHOICE is EVERYTHING!

My decision to run a lightweight desktop (lxde, lxqt) and have
a mesos/spark cluser across several machines is my choice.
Others like KDE becoming the cluster. CHOICE. Exclude cgroups
and it will split the community, imho. That said, we all already
split across windows, mac, androi, linux, bsd, etc etc so
it really does not matter at all, imho.

But comparing fights over editors and applications to fundamentally
preventing cgroups, is beyond idiotic, it imbicilic, imho.


Please dont get me wrong, I look very forward to systemd, when I
choose to test/use it. I totally reject  the idea of being
force to use systemd; and for sure, systemd is quite whimiscal on
many current issues, if you believe what you read. I file bug 517428
on Ftrace. I requested something that is not easy.
Ftrace/trace-cmd/kernelshark. Why? Because this is the exact sort of tool
combination
that will explicitly allow one to collect data on performance and reliabling
of systemd vs cgroups  situations. When we get this (these) ebuilds
we will all be able to test identical system, except for systemd vs cgroups.

NOBODY is talking about the performance penaly for systemd, because
the tools for such measurements, are not being put out to the user
communities, imho. Please if I wrong, point me to the fair studies
where systemd outperforms a well tuned cgroup system? Please point
me to the tools so I can take 2 identical system, except for systemd
and cgroups and compare with a wide variety of tests? Published data?

Linus should make a clear, leadership statement that there will
always be a path for folks to use another mechanism besides systemd
in the linux kernel;  This does not have to be a systemd vs cgroups
discussion, but it being presented this way. A  clear statement
of multiplicity will put this issue to rest once and for all. By not stating
clearly was is obvious, many technically astute folks are looking for
options. Surely a fork is emminent and it will most likely be
the best thing to happen to linux, as the entire kernel development
process has become tainted by those with billions of dollars.

Linus is a wussy, at best!

> [1]
http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd


hth,
Jaems




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Canek Peláez Valdés
In reply to this post by Volker Armin Hemmann
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>>
>>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
>> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
>> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
>> happily.
>>
>> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>>
>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>
>> Regards.
>
> you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
> is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.
>
> Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.
>
> And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
> it. Because history loves repetition.

Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability
of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not
happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it.

What are you willing to bet?

Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Rich Freeman
In reply to this post by James-2
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:28 PM, James <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Linus should make a clear, leadership statement that there will
> always be a path for folks to use another mechanism besides systemd
> in the linux kernel;  This does not have to be a systemd vs cgroups
> discussion, but it being presented this way. A  clear statement
> of multiplicity will put this issue to rest once and for all. By not stating
> clearly was is obvious, many technically astute folks are looking for
> options. Surely a fork is emminent and it will most likely be
> the best thing to happen to linux, as the entire kernel development
> process has become tainted by those with billions of dollars.

Uh, the only thing the Linux kernel does is spawn a single process as
PID 1 and offer a VERY STABLE system call interface for that and
future processes to make requests.  Nobody is going to break sysvinit
if that happens to be the thing you tell Linux to execute as PID 1.

Whether anybody else actually supports sysvinit is a different matter.
I'm sure it will be around in Gentoo for a long time, and those with
official Gentoo support contracts will get the same care they are used
to.  :)

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Volker Armin Hemmann
In reply to this post by Canek Peláez Valdés
Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:

> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>>>
>>>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>>> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
>>> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
>>> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
>>> happily.
>>>
>>> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>> you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
>> is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.
>>
>> Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.
>>
>> And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
>> it. Because history loves repetition.
> Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability
> of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not
> happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it.
>
> What are you willing to bet?
>
> Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy.
>
> Regards.

I am not betting anything.

But I want you to think about something:

devfs was the best thing since sliced bread.
As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced.

hal was the best thing since sliced bread.
As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned.

*kit?
The same.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Mark David Dumlao-3
In reply to this post by Volker Armin Hemmann


On Sep 18, 2014 2:37 AM, "Volker Armin Hemmann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> > This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want
> > your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it.
> >
> > iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big
> > Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd.
> > The gist of it can be resumed in two lines:
> >
> > "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and
> > laptop both run it."
> >
> > I post it here because several times in the last discussions about
> > systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd.
> > I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in
> > this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will
> > continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do
> > so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really*
> > like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits:
> >
> > • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days
> > more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the
> > situation."
> >
> > • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
> > thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
> > pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
> > it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
> > applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
> > a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
> > think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
> > reality."
> >
> > • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy."
> >
> > • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text,
> > not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the
> > best of taste, but hey, details..[.]"
> >
> > • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are
> > digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of
> > software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either."
> >
> > • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed
> > painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like
> > they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody
> > feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues
> > that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to
> > actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise
> > that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same
> > kind of mouth-time."
> >
> > It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.
> >
> > [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd
>
> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>
> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>

Oh give it a rest volker. its been obvious for years on this list that when it really came down to it, many systemd "critics" (and i airquote that because the amount of critical thinking is imaginary) were almost entirely devoid of technical arguments when or even background knowledge, to the point of embarassing themselves on the amount of "unix" knowledge they purport to know.

theres been a terrible history of being blatantly ignorant about what a software does and yet running the mouth about why its wrong, as if you had a better idea on how to coordinate hundreds of disparate develeoper projects on how to run their own ships. blatantly refusing to give a crap what an "init thingy" is, or showing a hilarious understanding of what fhs is supposed to do or solve, to downright manufacturing what the /usr split was supposed to be about, or denying that boot up race conditions were a thing... the list goes on and it only betrays the haters' biases.

fact of the matter is running to Linus' latest flame on udev or systemd or fhs etc has been a standard go-to for haters t bring up for years past... and now that Linus is like "well its okay blablabla" now the systemd peeps are desperate?

no, you are. go read yourself some fucking man pages, maybe youll learn a little unix.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Canek Peláez Valdés
In reply to this post by Volker Armin Hemmann
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>>>>
>>>>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>>>> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
>>>> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
>>>> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
>>>> happily.
>>>>
>>>> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>> you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
>>> is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.
>>>
>>> Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.
>>>
>>> And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
>>> it. Because history loves repetition.
>> Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability
>> of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not
>> happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it.
>>
>> What are you willing to bet?
>>
>> Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy.
>>
>> Regards.
>
> I am not betting anything.

I figured it.

> But I want you to think about something:
>
> devfs was the best thing since sliced bread.
> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced.
>
> hal was the best thing since sliced bread.
> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned.
>
> *kit?
> The same.

Yeah. So it happened with XFree86, aRts, esd, gnome-vfs, DCOP,
sendmail, and it will happen again with dbus (I'm willing to bet it
will be replaced, at least in Linux, with kdbus). And, BTW, it's
happening with SysV being replaced in Linux with systemd.

It happens all the time. It's a good thing. And it happened for *VERY*
different reasons in each case. Also, the transition has been
sometimes somewhat difficult (HAL comes to mind), but most of the
times really easy: we used devfs when I switched to Gentoo more than
10 years ago, and I don't remember being difficult the switch to udev.
XFree86 => X.org was also basically trivial.

Of course systemd can be replaced; if something cooler gets written,
we'll switch to it. But given the team behind systemd, and the design
it has, it's gonna be very difficult.

Using Linus words, you are making excuses. You can compare systemd to
HAL, but doing so only shows that you don't know the code, the design,
and the history behind both projects.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

James-2
In reply to this post by Rich Freeman
Rich Freeman <rich0 <at> gentoo.org> writes:


> Uh, the only thing the Linux kernel does is spawn a single process as
> PID 1 and offer a VERY STABLE system call interface for that and
> future processes to make requests.  Nobody is going to break sysvinit
> if that happens to be the thing you tell Linux to execute as PID 1.

OK, where are your performance studies on how wonderful systemd is?
Simple (2) identical system except for systemd only on one. Run a
wide variety of tests, publish the data.

Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?



> Whether anybody else actually supports sysvinit is a different matter.
> I'm sure it will be around in Gentoo for a long time, and those with
> official Gentoo support contracts will get the same care they are used
> to.  :)

I'm not sure if this is a threat, a promise or are you just trash talkin
with me now?

Besides, there is another thing you are not considering. The world of
embedded linux >> user linux. So, the embedded designers are all
wonderfully in line with systemd?  Have you been to any of those
forums? They live by cgroups, because a few folks showed them how
to minimize embedded systems with age old state diagrams. Have you
offered them the systemd or highway plan yet?


It's not me, Rich, it lots of other technically astute folks that
are not happy. I just want choice. I hope systemd is wildly successful,
but I'm old school, so you and others are going to have to "show me".



James




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Mick-10
In reply to this post by Canek Peláez Valdés
On Wednesday 17 Sep 2014 22:03:14 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Yeah. So it happened with XFree86, aRts, esd, gnome-vfs, DCOP,
> sendmail,

Aheam!  Excuse me, but there's nothing wrong with sendmail!  :-p

--
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc (484 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Mark David Dumlao-3
In reply to this post by James-2


On Sep 18, 2014 5:19 AM, "James" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman <rich0 <at> gentoo.org> writes:
>
>
> > Uh, the only thing the Linux kernel does is spawn a single process as
> > PID 1 and offer a VERY STABLE system call interface for that and
> > future processes to make requests.  Nobody is going to break sysvinit
> > if that happens to be the thing you tell Linux to execute as PID 1.
>
> OK, where are your performance studies on how wonderful systemd is?
> Simple (2) identical system except for systemd only on one. Run a
> wide variety of tests, publish the data.
>
> Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?
>

The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of work on publicly available data is

"do it yourself, youre not paying my bills you entitled ____".
(paraphrased from "code talks")

>
>
> > Whether anybody else actually supports sysvinit is a different matter.
> > I'm sure it will be around in Gentoo for a long time, and those with
> > official Gentoo support contracts will get the same care they are used
> > to.  :)
>
> I'm not sure if this is a threat, a promise or are you just trash talkin
> with me now?
>
> Besides, there is another thing you are not considering. The world of
> embedded linux >> user linux. So, the embedded designers are all
> wonderfully in line with systemd?  Have you been to any of those
> forums? They live by cgroups, because a few folks showed them how
> to minimize embedded systems with age old state diagrams. Have you
> offered them the systemd or highway plan yet?

last i checked, systemd uses cgroups - its a central part of the service management bits. so what the frack are you on about?

>
> It's not me, Rich, it lots of other technically astute folks that
> are not happy. I just want choice. I hope systemd is wildly successful,
> but I'm old school, so you and others are going to have to "show me".
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

James-2
Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:


> > Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?
> The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of
> work on publicly available data is

I'm sorry, I must have missed your link to the published data?
Sure it exist and I have just missed it?


James




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Mark David Dumlao-3


On Sep 18, 2014 5:36 AM, "James" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> > > Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?
> > The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of
> > work on publicly available data is
>
> I'm sorry, I must have missed your link to the published data?
> Sure it exist and I have just missed it?
>
>

Make it yourself you entitled dickwad. this is what you get for being polite to idiots.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

James-2
In reply to this post by Mark David Dumlao-3
Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:


> > Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?

> The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of
> work on publicly available data

Ah, here is some of the tesing you are referring to?

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-March/017570.html

Surely there is more? Please explian your position
with published data and comments, as I am listening to you!

comparitivly,
James





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Mark David Dumlao-3
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:46 AM, James <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:


> > Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?

> The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of
> work on publicly available data

Ah, here is some of the tesing you are referring to?

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-March/017570.html

Surely there is more? Please explian your position
with published data and comments, as I am listening to you!

My position is that you're an idiot and a troll.

The code is out there. Freely available. Both systemd and sysvinit. If you wanted to measure both, you could, literally, in the time it took since you first posted in this thread till now you could have measured several times and left mean comments about whichever system you hated the most.

You're the only one in this thread that's imposing on everyone to produce anything. You're the only one in this thread that SHOULD be producing anything. That's how open source works and that's how it's supposed to work. We're not your unpaid researchers.

--
This email is:    [ ] actionable   [ ] fyi        [ ] social
Response needed:  [ ] yes          [ ] up to you  [ ] no
Time-sensitive:   [ ] immediate    [ ] soon       [ ] none
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd

Volker Armin Hemmann
In reply to this post by Canek Peláez Valdés
Am 17.09.2014 um 23:03 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:

> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>>>>> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
>>>>> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
>>>>> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
>>>>> happily.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>> you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
>>>> is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.
>>>>
>>>> Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.
>>>>
>>>> And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
>>>> it. Because history loves repetition.
>>> Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability
>>> of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not
>>> happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it.
>>>
>>> What are you willing to bet?
>>>
>>> Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>> I am not betting anything.
> I figured it.
>
>> But I want you to think about something:
>>
>> devfs was the best thing since sliced bread.
>> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced.
>>
>> hal was the best thing since sliced bread.
>> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned.
>>
>> *kit?
>> The same.
> Yeah. So it happened with XFree86, aRts, esd, gnome-vfs, DCOP,
> sendmail, and it will happen again with dbus (I'm willing to bet it
> will be replaced, at least in Linux, with kdbus). And, BTW, it's
> happening with SysV being replaced in Linux with systemd.
>
> It happens all the time. It's a good thing. And it happened for *VERY*
> different reasons in each case. Also, the transition has been
> sometimes somewhat difficult (HAL comes to mind), but most of the
> times really easy: we used devfs when I switched to Gentoo more than
> 10 years ago, and I don't remember being difficult the switch to udev.
> XFree86 => X.org was also basically trivial.
>
> Of course systemd can be replaced; if something cooler gets written,
> we'll switch to it. But given the team behind systemd, and the design
> it has, it's gonna be very difficult.
>
> Using Linus words, you are making excuses. You can compare systemd to
> HAL, but doing so only shows that you don't know the code, the design,
> and the history behind both projects.
>
> Regards.

there was no breakage with xfree-to-xorg. True. But hal, yes. No upower
breakage. *kit breakage. The list is too long to ignore.

Arts was not something whole systems depended upon. And whatever
gnome-thingy you depend upon, you are fucked, because those guys are
infected with the same mindset. As soon as the bugs are ironed out and
everybody is using it: abandom it for something else.

That has nothing to do with 'improvement', or 'development' it is just
stupid.

AFAIR dcop was replaced, because of the freedesktop-gnome guys. Not
because anything was wrong with it. And look where it got us. No
improvement at all.

1234