Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
Russ Allbery contributed earlier: The reason why you're not seeing a lot of constructive engagement with those points here is that most of us are exhausted with this conversation and tired of repeating ourselves. Yes, if it is really like that, I understand. But I'm also glad that this conversation reached me. At this point, for better or worse, we're in the we're going to do this and see how it goes phase of the discussion. And I hope it works well in the end, because I like the simplicity of systemd.. People like me usually do not have enough time to explore the bowels of the operating system so I literally depend on the debian developers to find the best way. It's not exactly a comfortable feeling (no offense meant) but I guess it just works like that. None of us can know it all :-). Thanks everybody for your comments, I'll be watching on. Jan On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Jan Gloser jan.renra.glo...@gmail.com writes: 1) I think some valid questions have been raised to which I have not seen ANY satisfactory answer that no doubt a person who truly understands the subject (unlike me) should be able to give. (though I might have missed some) Everything that's been raised in this thread apart from Oracle's alleged SMF patent trolling was already raised and discussed in the giant Technical Committee bug of doom. The reason why you're not seeing a lot of constructive engagement with those points here is that most of us are exhausted with this conversation and tired of repeating ourselves. People have a natural tendency to claim that they could be persuaded if someone would just engage in the discussion that *they* want to have, as opposed to the hundreds of discussions we've previously had, but the reality is that just about everyone made up their mind a long time ago and are unlikely to be persuaded by the perfectly-phrased counter-argument. At this point, for better or worse, we're in the we're going to do this and see how it goes phase of the discussion. The Oracle patent trolling is new, at least to me, but Debian also has a project-wide policy, already applied in many similar cases, of ignoring things like that in the absence of considerably more evidence of legal risk than we have to date. (And that legal risk, if it exists, would not be discussed in public, due to the pathologies of patent law in at least the United States and possibly elsewhere.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87y4zs3fyc@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:19:54PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: previously on this list The Wanderer contributed: I was explicitly referring to the point in the future when maintainers do stop providing traditional init scripts. This likely won't happen that fast, no, but I do think it's likely that it will happen - whether days after the jessie release or decades, or more likely something in between. You know that's what Arch Linux devs said two months before banishing init scripts to AUR where it wasn't even gpg signed. Arch isn't Debian. -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140410095350.ga18...@grep.be
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
previously on this list Jan Gloser contributed: Kev, the systemd design document says it all about the lack of design with statements showing a clear lack of understanding. I would be ashamed to call it a design document. I would also like to ask something the people who dislike systemd (as there seem to be more). I am not very proficient with such internals of debian, but you say things like systemd breaks things and systemd has no unified design and sytemd is possibly a security risk. But can you give some easily reproducible examples or setups, code samples, cucumber scenarios, whatever, that could clearly demonstrate how systemd breaks anything? As systemd tries to do so much it is pointless as you simply get side tracked when your arguments succeed or ironically get called trolls by real trolls. I will just say this OpenBSDs /sbin/init.c is 1448 lines long Systemds rediculously placed /usr/lib/systemd/systemd.c doesn't exist but rather there is a directory with many files and just cgroup.c is nearly 1000 lines long. So good luck evaluating all of that for your next linux based system when quite clearly the devs don't know even pid1 like the back of their hand due to having a segfault rather than die in it. pid1 being potentially larger than your daemon would be quite laughable too. As even well audited code tends to have a bug per 1000 lines, is having this much code permanently resident supposedly for all of Linux never mind unix ecosystems that have served each other so well a good design especially when linux is moving onto smaller and smaller devices? Are the benefits worth it? Is it self managing and open to competition. It is difficult to get a good design from a bad design. Evolving /sbin/init simple functionality in the past resulted in migration of code into the kernel and not the other way around. Such a fundamental game changer with so much clouding the core functionality in terms of pulling in so much really shouldn't be decided by a 50/50 decision. Companies often require 75% or more for game changing decisions. scenario, why not just migrate to Gentoo or BSD? Gentoo means you have to build otherwise I would for the few things I need linux for. Sabayon has moved to systemd and my system would have broken recently because of systemd if I was using it. I use OpenBSD wherever possible. Things are often tested on debian or *buntu and the base is well tested and hence my usage for offline development. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd ___ I have no idea why RTFM is used so aggressively on LINUX mailing lists because whilst 'apropos' is traditionally the most powerful command on Unix-like systems it's 'modern' replacement 'apropos' on Linux is a tool to help psychopaths learn to control their anger. (Kevin Chadwick) ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/216266.53700...@smtp120.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
previously on this list The Wanderer contributed: I was explicitly referring to the point in the future when maintainers do stop providing traditional init scripts. This likely won't happen that fast, no, but I do think it's likely that it will happen - whether days after the jessie release or decades, or more likely something in between. You know that's what Arch Linux devs said two months before banishing init scripts to AUR where it wasn't even gpg signed. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd ___ I have no idea why RTFM is used so aggressively on LINUX mailing lists because whilst 'apropos' is traditionally the most powerful command on Unix-like systems it's 'modern' replacement 'apropos' on Linux is a tool to help psychopaths learn to control their anger. (Kevin Chadwick) ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/695583.53700...@smtp120.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On Mar 30, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: See above: I'm unsure Debian Developers have yet a clear view of what should / must be supported, and what's going to happen in this regard. At least, it's not clear to me. I believe that it is pretty much obvious myself: http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=systemd-sysv+upstart+openrcshow_installed=onwant_legend=onwant_ticks=onfrom_date=2014-01-01to_date=hlght_date=date_fmt=%25Y-%25mbeenhere=1 -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 03/30/2014 01:17 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 03/30/2014 02:51 AM, Jan Gloser wrote: Otherwise if you just personally disagree with the design of systemd and can't describe such a scenario, why not just migrate to Gentoo or BSD? This has been said a 100 times... There's no need to migrate away. systemd is not (and will not be) mandatory in Debian in the foreseeable future. Your can continue to use sysv-rc (or OpenRC, file-rc, Upstart...) if you like. The TC decision is *only* about the *default* init system. In past discussions, one of the apparently largest things I've seen cited as a benefit of switching to systemd has been that it's much more cost-effective in terms of developer/maintainer time and effort to maintain systemd unit files than to maintain traditional init scripts. If it's been decided to continue to require package maintainers to provide traditional init scripts as well as systemd unit files - e.g. for Debian's non-Linux ports - then that benefit would be lost. If it hasn't, then I think it's entirely foreseeable that package maintainers will at some point stop providing traditional init scripts. At that point, unless a means of producing init scripts from unit files (which, last I heard, had been judged impossible) has been found, the amount of work required to continue to run sysvinit would be far more than the terminology of changing the default implies. To be doing more than changing the default here is not necessarily a bad thing, but we shouldn't be pretending that changing the default is all that's happening, unless choosing something other than the default really is - and, barring another project-wide decision, is expected to indefinitely continue to be - as simple as installing one set of packages rather than another. - -- The Wanderer Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTOAfCAAoJEASpNY00KDJrsokP/3CHawcLrnZ9S3RcyOmzIBxP NRbQ+bjxDGlojjaN8eqRjFvfMG5K6g73WOCmDektjL/zUh6y2YTL12H8LFE7sRdE /e2rKnXt+OELKedJf/KERAk/d/ei9E8ZBb/iDiMuUvTgcFvO2Ll+Dq9PmveBJ4+C Lz1dM/MBjDkJUXHAgRnbIT6btIQwfunD7iR1PrtPsYG5oUtB6b9RsN6b8Z4ky1Yi kbEZC9nXKjrt2WEj6s4VUZkVd84xEym3302BeeXtToWv/86j/GbXvTKI+9mxi/Is jxvlxzjInJbIvP17CyMrkzwqoD2HEoUDU+iAM9VlBskaEI+ygNOaI0liiw6L9FyT 6cfYk74YJ8IEGjotKwpzIamSv8WA1YQl6YYD9LgL7bvPS1ubW2rIKx1zpOlpoTPx 0FwBXji4mxrCWB//maLiUYrI6yh+FGE0srhrS7Om7aNrj/2rsf8M5N5L2xXO7rVH Gyu35ct1wCxlp1V8VWAFStEYYxs0MKE+0wumUROlRMh9ghu7NNVjeMxCql61SLz4 ZFOCeY+ppj2BvYWm5DRVnv0Ww5dfKHyh7PnZUZ8qu3pDGywzaFyWJOakb5R1O4I5 WBRU3PuaxukK5xOx8t8Fy/vXkvSANLvfEgIUyh5lzW2c0Vy4L8CL2VV0R6BOYqT9 /gesSs527WT6pET3tFL4 =O6Cx -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/533807c2.1020...@fastmail.fm
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On 03/30/2014 08:02 PM, The Wanderer wrote: If it's been decided to continue to require package maintainers to provide traditional init scripts as well as systemd unit files - e.g. for Debian's non-Linux ports - then that benefit would be lost. This, also, has also been discussed. The consensus is that we shouldn't *force* anyone to provide / design anything but systemd support, however, everyone should also accept patches by those who care about non-linux ports or $alternative-init-system. If it hasn't, then I think it's entirely foreseeable that package maintainers will at some point stop providing traditional init scripts. They should absolutely *not* remove init scripts that are working. If someone does, I would advise to first politely ask him to revert the regression. And probably asking the TC to force the maintainer to do so if he refuses would be a good idea. Now, not providing an init script for a *new* package is something different. I would expect to soon see patches being sent to the BTS by non-linux port supporters, or people willing to use the package without systemd. Though what I wrote above is only what has been *discussed*, there was no formal decision of what must happen. I dislike this gray area. :( At that point, unless a means of producing init scripts from unit files (which, last I heard, had been judged impossible) has been found, the amount of work required to continue to run sysvinit would be far more than the terminology of changing the default implies. I don't agree. We currently, at this point, have 100% full support for sysv-rc LSB-header scripts. I don't see it going away that fast. To be doing more than changing the default here is not necessarily a bad thing, but we shouldn't be pretending that changing the default is all that's happening We haven't set into the stones of the Debian Policy Manual what init system *must* be supported by packages. Obviously, systemd being the default, it must be supported, but probably, through sysv-rc script is a way to support it. Not supporting sysv-rc is of course a bug, but of which severity? Wishlist? Release critical? We've been fighting on which init system should be the default, but I think those questions are even more important, and I don't have an answer to them. unless choosing something other than the default really is - and, barring another project-wide decision, is expected to indefinitely continue to be - as simple as installing one set of packages rather than another. See above: I'm unsure Debian Developers have yet a clear view of what should / must be supported, and what's going to happen in this regard. At least, it's not clear to me. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/533830df.4010...@debian.org
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 03/30/2014 10:57 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 03/30/2014 08:02 PM, The Wanderer wrote: If it's been decided to continue to require package maintainers to provide traditional init scripts as well as systemd unit files - e.g. for Debian's non-Linux ports - then that benefit would be lost. snip If it hasn't, then I think it's entirely foreseeable that package maintainers will at some point stop providing traditional init scripts. They should absolutely *not* remove init scripts that are working. If someone does, I would advise to first politely ask him to revert the regression. And probably asking the TC to force the maintainer to do so if he refuses would be a good idea. What about an init script that used to work, but has stopped working, due to e.g. a change in the rest of the package or a change in the surrounding system? Obviously if someone comes up with a fix to get it working again, the same maintainers who don't maintain traditional init scripts should accept patches from others would apply. If no such fix is forthcoming, however, I can easily see a maintainer deciding to drop the nonworking init script. At that point, unless a means of producing init scripts from unit files (which, last I heard, had been judged impossible) has been found, the amount of work required to continue to run sysvinit would be far more than the terminology of changing the default implies. I don't agree. We currently, at this point, have 100% full support for sysv-rc LSB-header scripts. I don't see it going away that fast. I was explicitly referring to the point in the future when maintainers do stop providing traditional init scripts. This likely won't happen that fast, no, but I do think it's likely that it will happen - whether days after the jessie release or decades, or more likely something in between. My point, insofar as I had one, was more about what terminology is appropriate to use in discussing this than anything else. (I don't think I see anything to disagree with in the rest of what you said.) - -- The Wanderer Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTOEI4AAoJEASpNY00KDJrr7QP/39Qf0IUZbTlQ7V7+AM8GXQd +mrTK9UPF8zxr0CnLZb5rcP796S37lw6fIp9sbpjnOXJHXvBz+jDbI/ACq1jb7ri dSLMpoGyhS6H9662rlwD3WAuUgoeObp0Zyg+IgQsNXRxGgXWxOk5U2LMaEhdUMA0 OYeyGrFTstKoivT9u8mUYcyUbKpCn7Qgwao9DNaO35zvLgHdRsfD5JbCKArQOtWo cxejI4rDGnbfY29mei/Egb090ZGdLp+0JWfji9lDF25xGBBlV3AuLfM+3Xf32Tql W39b9BWjSD4EeL3hjMj3p+RpxOPiFGC9j9brlUgzN6ch+5H+fMtEdjvANBH0/A5d iBYZzAdf5OY8s+4+Ryd/Vhghj2RVg0er8ssTdpL9f2hwHfNdWaotTbSZyKvVjuHA ihj3J7oii0y7daNrpcmEvi32fhSopLnwzu1v2RCpeZWcQOWOjeKWxsQmH/0R4PSg SwP3PCp/6C/GVOnAYz8o0mB68tCw/eBjkq2buwqKotDS3S3B75C1e67VcYOxwW29 dvhgEsPJlXgUXKRmyCa2BqTvvtIz/9ojF/bH1eRzQ8a4fNPQUZ9tgadFlMZzMth5 SAGweaCoVaARGiphOUORgyoSBmM27HCQ77QgxVddi1VyqRWeaojzCOAR2ej1sxRX PRefLzcSICn/dMMlbFgm =DM69 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53384238.3060...@fastmail.fm
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:31:44 -0500, Kevin Toppins kevin.topp...@gmail.com wrote: You think I'm retarded or a troll. You are an obnoxious censored who decided to disrupt an entire project just because the project took a decision you don't like. That's rather childish and selfish. Greetings Marc, who doesn't like systemd, but will live with the decision. -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1wtnsh-00036v...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
Now that systemd has wrecked all kinds of previously working stuff, and many are beginning to realize the *impossibility* of getting systemd to work *with* linux - I think this might have some effect this time around. Hello everybody, I've been watching this discussion, quite curious what would come up and now that I have read some responses I would like to say that 1) I think some valid questions have been raised to which I have not seen ANY satisfactory answer that no doubt a person who truly understands the subject (unlike me) should be able to give. (though I might have missed some) 2) The responses with more or less subtle aggression and comments about the FORMAT of the original message greatly disquiet me as a user and client of the debian OS. Of course some formatting can help you better read the message but I was able to read it, I understand it as much as my education permits and I believe I possess only average intelligence, so I can't imagine why asterisks should be a problem for the OS guys. I believe focusing on such unimportant things is only the sign of ego standing in the way of clear reasoning. I would also like to ask something the people who dislike systemd (as there seem to be more). I am not very proficient with such internals of debian, but you say things like systemd breaks things and systemd has no unified design and sytemd is possibly a security risk. But can you give some easily reproducible examples or setups, code samples, cucumber scenarios, whatever, that could clearly demonstrate how systemd breaks anything? Otherwise it's very hard for me to judge anything if I can't play around with it and truly see for myself that it's so EVIL. Otherwise if you just personally disagree with the design of systemd and can't describe such a scenario, why not just migrate to Gentoo or BSD? Cheers, Jan On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.ukwrote: previously on this list Brett Parker contributed: Maybe you should do some more investigation, get some better clue of what you're talking about, and come back with a better, more thought out, set of arguments that actually have merit. Right, by arguing on the basis of the definition of Linux rather than the meaning of his arguments, or as often is the case on this subject dividing and conquering or ignoring the valid points and changing the subject to the 100th *needed* functionality that every system apparently should have by default but actually turns out to already exist but optionally installed and actually means little or just gets in the way of better implementations. There is another reason why Unix consisting of parts that do one thing well is so valuable and that is because arguing over the best way of doing it can't be polluted or crap forced in the back door with the good. Your response is actually closer to trolling. Why is it the the word troll gets so abused. Naming people trolls when they are not is worse than trolling in my opinion. I really haven't the time right now to look over the links having took a break from work to watch a footy match but assuming I didn't miss the sarcasm then if Thorsten Glazer sees even an ounce of merit then I can almost guarantee he is not trolling. p.s. systemd being a bad design for an OS which aims to be so cross platform is simply obvious to me on many levels, at the very least it calls for extra oil/work/code depending on the scenario to meet that aim and with little/no *real/truly beneficial* reason. Still maybe it will be the death of Linux on the desktop atleast for techies and I wouldn't mind to be honest as without grsecurity the linux *kernel* actually has less security features than Windows or even FreeBSD now and FreeBSD was trailing behind for a long time. The userland security is much better than windows but with the exception of apt repos being the only well used thing that springs to mind (which is a valuable security feature) this was basically inherited from good designers. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/815696.92264...@smtp145.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
El Sat, 29 de Mar 2014 a las 11:51 AM, Jan Gloser jan.renra.glo...@gmail.com escribió: Now that systemd has wrecked all kinds of previously working stuff, and many are beginning to realize the *impossibility* of getting systemd to work *with* linux - I think this might have some effect this time around. Hello everybody, I've been watching this discussion, quite curious what would come up and now that I have read some responses I would like to say that [snip] I would also like to ask something the people who dislike systemd (as there seem to be more). I am not very proficient with such internals of debian, but you say things like systemd breaks things and systemd has no unified design and sytemd is possibly a security risk. But can you give some easily reproducible examples or setups, code samples, cucumber scenarios, whatever, that could clearly demonstrate how systemd breaks anything? Otherwise it's very hard for me to judge anything if I can't play around with it and truly see for myself that it's so EVIL. Otherwise if you just personally disagree with the design of systemd and can't describe such a scenario, why not just migrate to Gentoo or BSD? systemd lacks the immense extensibility of Upstart. One example of this is udev integration. Upstart integrates with udev through an out of process (not PID1) bridge which emits events. This integration could have easily been done outside of Upstart's source tree, or with any other device event daemon (e.g. FreeBSD's devd, which listens to /dev for device events and reacts to them). This extensibility: keeps PID1 small and minimal, so that unneeded bridges can easily be disable on more streamlined and specific setups; rips away licensing restrictions and contributor agreements; allows for disagreements and difficulties with upstream to be avoided; and finally increases portability of the init system. Cheers, -- Cameron Norman
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
Jan Gloser jan.renra.glo...@gmail.com writes: 1) I think some valid questions have been raised to which I have not seen ANY satisfactory answer that no doubt a person who truly understands the subject (unlike me) should be able to give. (though I might have missed some) Everything that's been raised in this thread apart from Oracle's alleged SMF patent trolling was already raised and discussed in the giant Technical Committee bug of doom. The reason why you're not seeing a lot of constructive engagement with those points here is that most of us are exhausted with this conversation and tired of repeating ourselves. People have a natural tendency to claim that they could be persuaded if someone would just engage in the discussion that *they* want to have, as opposed to the hundreds of discussions we've previously had, but the reality is that just about everyone made up their mind a long time ago and are unlikely to be persuaded by the perfectly-phrased counter-argument. At this point, for better or worse, we're in the we're going to do this and see how it goes phase of the discussion. The Oracle patent trolling is new, at least to me, but Debian also has a project-wide policy, already applied in many similar cases, of ignoring things like that in the absence of considerably more evidence of legal risk than we have to date. (And that legal risk, if it exists, would not be discussed in public, due to the pathologies of patent law in at least the United States and possibly elsewhere.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87y4zs3fyc@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
]] Jan Gloser 1) I think some valid questions have been raised to which I have not seen ANY satisfactory answer that no doubt a person who truly understands the subject (unlike me) should be able to give. (though I might have missed some) I'm not sure what those are, but I merely skimmed the earlier messages. 2) The responses with more or less subtle aggression and comments about the FORMAT of the original message greatly disquiet me as a user and client of the debian OS. Of course some formatting can help you better read the message but I was able to read it, I understand it as much as my education permits and I believe I possess only average intelligence, so I can't imagine why asterisks should be a problem for the OS guys. I believe focusing on such unimportant things is only the sign of ego standing in the way of clear reasoning. The original message in this thread was quite long and rambling, and while I'm sure it's possible to distill a meaning and maybe some useful questions out of it, I have better use for my time. Form, in addition to content, matters. I find it disrespectful to the 2500 odd members on the list to not spend time to format your message in a useful way and expect them to go out and do your homework for the original poster. (It sure looked that way to me from a skimming of the original mail, so I might be wrong here. If I am, see above about making sure your mails have a useful form. :-) -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m21txkohy6@rahvafeir.err.no
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On 03/30/2014 02:51 AM, Jan Gloser wrote: Otherwise if you just personally disagree with the design of systemd and can't describe such a scenario, why not just migrate to Gentoo or BSD? This has been said a 100 times... There's no need to migrate away. systemd is not (and will not be) mandatory in Debian in the foreseeable future. Your can continue to use sysv-rc (or OpenRC, file-rc, Upstart...) if you like. The TC decision is *only* about the *default* init system. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5337a8f8.4020...@debian.org
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:38:40AM -0500, Kevin Toppins wrote: On 26 March 2014 10:13, Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com wrote: [...] That is pretty much impossible, according to the developers of the logind API and its single implementation. Perhaps a subset of the logind API for use by desktop environments / compositors would be more useful in this init and OS portability predicament. I think Matthias Clasen, a GNOME developer, actually recently expressed interest in this from a portable window manager and compositor's perspective. Ryan Lortie said he'd work with others on some minimal logind like API during 3.14 cycle. But focussed on entire GNOME stack, not just gnome-shell. Complication being GDM (=extra work). Implementation on non-Linux to be done by those developers (FreeBSD, etc; they seems to be ok with that) I can tell you right now, it is *vastly more difficult* to try to adapt programs modified to work with systemd in their current state, than it is to *revert* those programs to their pre-systemd state. You're so certain while so utterly wrong on so many levels it is pretty amusing and embarrassing at the same time. You said you don't easily get offended, but hopefully you do pickup some learnings here. -- Regards, Olav (GNOME release team) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140328081951.ga17...@bkor.dhs.org
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
El Fri, 28 de Mar 2014 a las 1:19 AM, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl escribió: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:38:40AM -0500, Kevin Toppins wrote: On 26 March 2014 10:13, Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com wrote: [...] That is pretty much impossible, according to the developers of the logind API and its single implementation. Perhaps a subset of the logind API for use by desktop environments / compositors would be more useful in this init and OS portability predicament. I think Matthias Clasen, a GNOME developer, actually recently expressed interest in this from a portable window manager and compositor's perspective. Ryan Lortie said he'd work with others on some minimal logind like API during 3.14 cycle. But focussed on entire GNOME stack, not just gnome-shell. Complication being GDM (=extra work). Implementation on non-Linux to be done by those developers (FreeBSD, etc; they seems to be ok with that) Thank you, that was who I was thinking of. Best regards, -- Cameron Norman
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On 28 Mar 2014 03:40, Olav Vitters wrote: [...] I can tell you right now, it is *vastly more difficult* to try to adapt programs modified to work with systemd in their current state, than it is to *revert* those programs to their pre-systemd state. You're so certain while so utterly wrong on so many levels it is pretty amusing and embarrassing at the same time. You said you don't easily get offended, but hopefully you do pickup some learnings here. Did you understand that... There are (at least) two paths to take here, and this is referring to the more difficult of the two. The easier choice is the reversion then selective upgrade path. I did go on to explain why the first path was more difficult. Did you consider what I said there? Please, put why I'm so utterly wrong into writing here and let's see what you understand. -Kev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cadkoaxhnleetyo6-fgjqujaryhnq8nv6kaxu8bazyudvzvr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:08:54AM -0500, Kevin Toppins wrote: On 28 Mar 2014 03:40, Olav Vitters wrote: [...] I can tell you right now, it is *vastly more difficult* to try to adapt programs modified to work with systemd in their current state, than it is to *revert* those programs to their pre-systemd state. You're so certain while so utterly wrong on so many levels it is pretty amusing and embarrassing at the same time. You said you don't easily get offended, but hopefully you do pickup some learnings here. Did you understand that... There are (at least) two paths to take here, and this is referring to the more difficult of the two. The easier choice is the reversion then selective upgrade path. Nope. I did go on to explain why the first path was more difficult. Did you consider what I said there? You claimed, you never explained. Ryan analysed, convinced maintainers, convinced other developers, convinced release team. There is a *huge* difference between the two. Please, put why I'm so utterly wrong into writing here and let's see what you understand. That is pointless; I don't care what you wanted to prove. Do the same amount of work others have done for starters, then we'll see. -- Regards, Olav -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140329020452.gb17...@bkor.dhs.org
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
Quoting Cameron Norman (camerontnor...@gmail.com): El Wed, 26 de Mar 2014 a las 9:03 PM, gustavo panizzo gfa g...@zumbi.com.ar escribió: On 03/26/2014 11:49 PM, Cameron Norman wrote: I wonder if dbus activation could be used to accomplish this. Of course, then one would not be able to put (in the case of Upstart) the socket bridge, dbus bridge, dbus, or anything those services need to boot into a cgroup, but one can still put stuff like Apache, lightdm/gdm/kdm/sddm, nginx, et al into a cgroup. Another option is to push the kernel maintainers to allow delegating parts of the cgroups tree to other processes, so that the init system could say you get a sub-hierarchy, you get a sub-hierarchy without the complication of multiple separate hierarchies. How do you suggest this integration with cgroups be done? i just want to put services inside cgroups, no socket activation, no dbus, no dbus activation. Haha. The problem there is that cgmanager uses dbus! So you need It doesn't use the system or session bus, though, just listens over its own unix socket. Dbus does not need to be started first. -serge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140327142638.GC7658@sergelap
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On 26 Mar 2014 12:30, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote: [...] But here is the vastly oversimplified technical argument... To the point of being neither technical nor valid. (Which admittedly was never in doubt even before I started reading.) What do you consider technical? Vastly oversimplified doesn't mean automatically wrong in this context. It means there are a huge amount more of valid technical points I can raise here, but under the requirements expressed, I had to fit it down to a page, and so I left out quite a lot. These arguments are still valid, even if they are but only a small tip of the iceberg. I think you will confirm that neither you, nor I, nor the guy who came up with the original idea actually understands how it works If understanding how systemd works is so much of a problem for you that you cannot even conceive of anybody, let alone its author, doing so then I'd like to suggest that debian-devel is not the right place for you. One of the problems of giving truncated information is that some people aren't aware of the steps one has already taken to establish the validity of the argument. Lennart Poettering doesn't really understand what systemd is, and as a consequence, how it works. I tested this out myself. You can read up on how I determined this if you want, but it is a truth in its own right. I'd suggest an alternate mailing list, but I'm afraid I'd offent both you and the other participants of that list, should I do so. You do not have to fear that you will offend me. But, there are specific reasons why debian-devel is the primary target here. Again... information I left out in the condensed version. -Kev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CADkoAxj+rFQXvGhv-BHF5pX0DZwMV=gyioaf_d8j8be-ywz...@mail.gmail.com
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On 03/25/2014 12:42 AM, Kevin Toppins wrote: Sorry for the intrusion into your world, but this *needed* to be said, and needed to be said on *this* specific list. Not correct. We didn't need another iteration of such a post. - the *future* of linux actually *does* depend on what - you - *do* here Correct. Which doesn't include reading or writing such a message. If you want thing to move on, stop posting useless messages, and start working on alternatives. For example, helping adding more features to OpenRC would certainly help a way more than this post. Writing an independent, init system agnostic, logind API compatible daemon would be another good thing to do. Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5332ae91.9070...@debian.org
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 03/25/2014 12:42 AM, Kevin Toppins wrote: Writing an independent, init system agnostic, logind API compatible daemon would be another good thing to do. That is pretty much impossible, according to the developers of the logind API and its single implementation. Perhaps a subset of the logind API for use by desktop environments / compositors would be more useful in this init and OS portability predicament. I think Matthias Clasen, a GNOME developer, actually recently expressed interest in this from a portable window manager and compositor's perspective.
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On 26 March 2014 05:40, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: [...] If you want thing to move on, stop posting useless messages, and start working on alternatives. For example, helping adding more features to OpenRC would certainly help a way more than this post. I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on my post being useless. First off, let's realize that we have more than one problem here. The actual implementation work that you indicate should be done is a valid point. We are both in agreement there. However, there exists an even bigger problem to be tackled. You can come up with all the solutions you want, but until it is *widely understood* that your solutions are *needed*, people tend to ignore and dismiss you. You can clearly see that happening in the responses I got back in Nov 2012. You first have to help people *understand* the problem and given how all the other topics on systemd being a failure *still didn't stop* debian's progress with using it I decided a very different perspective needed to be introduced. And I had to wait a while for things to get bad enough for people to see some validity in what I am saying. And while *you* might understand systemd is a problem, it is *objectively evident* that most do not, given the recent momentum to further adopt systemd by the linux community at large. My post is an analysis of systemd from an engineer's point of view. And systemd *violates* every engineering principle I spent years in college to learn. The biggest problem is awareness and that is the primary purpose of my post. And having it discussed in closed or private circles does not help mass awareness. It needs to be out in the open where everyone can read it. But it will have the most traction here. Hence why debian-devel was the primary target all along. -Kev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CADkoAxhLo5fmJHEukhct2WB1ATH6a4yf_k=kjtm9qvc2gnk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On 26 March 2014 10:13, Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com wrote: [...] That is pretty much impossible, according to the developers of the logind API and its single implementation. Perhaps a subset of the logind API for use by desktop environments / compositors would be more useful in this init and OS portability predicament. I think Matthias Clasen, a GNOME developer, actually recently expressed interest in this from a portable window manager and compositor's perspective. I can tell you right now, it is *vastly more difficult* to try to adapt programs modified to work with systemd in their current state, than it is to *revert* those programs to their pre-systemd state. There is a huge amount of unknown design parameters that would need to be known to adapt those programs effectively, and since systemd clearly lacks any coherent design, you will not be able to identify coherent ways to fix this. That is your signal to abandon that path right there. Trust me on this, you don't want to try to patch the *current* versions. And what about all the non-systemd improvements made to those programs over the years they worked with systemd? For that, it is *orders of magnitude easier* to take the improvements and adapt them to the pre-systemd version of the program. This is why I specifically mentioned that Debian perform a pre-systemd reversion to escape this mess. Once you have reverted, you can then figure out how to apply the *useful* upgrades to the old programs. This is the easiest path you can take. -Kev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CADkoAxh2_GyySKzTVOmdTvzSMy8w=pjkhu1u4vj76jtvw-y...@mail.gmail.com
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On 26/03/14 17:13, Kevin Toppins wrote: I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on my post being useless. With the hope of contributing constructive criticism, I'll answer that. As far as the systemd vs. upstart discussion, I was leaning in upstart (more precisely, against systemd). As such, your email was very interesting to me. Unfortunately, it was unreadable. You said you'll start with background, but instead of providing technical background, you provided meaningless and irrelevant he said, I said arguments. Trying to skim ahead to find where the meat starts did not easily detect such a point. At this point, I simply assumed the email had nothing more to say. If I'm wrong, feel free to answer with the technical gist of your arguments. If you want me to read it, please adhere to the following guidelines: * No more than one page. * No *asterisks* and - arrows. * No references to previous discussions, or other people's arguments for/against systemd. I believe in free discussion. As such, feel free to ignore these suggestions, just as I'll feel free to ignore your email if you do so. Shachar
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On 26 March 2014 13:42, Shachar Shemesh shac...@debian.org wrote: [...] As far as the systemd vs. upstart discussion, I was leaning in upstart (more precisely, against systemd). As such, your email was very interesting to me. Unfortunately, it was unreadable. You said you'll start with background, but instead of providing technical background, you provided meaningless and irrelevant he said, I said arguments. Trying to skim ahead to find where the meat starts did not easily detect such a point. At this point, I simply assumed the email had nothing more to say. If I'm wrong, feel free to answer with the technical gist of your arguments. If you want me to read it, please adhere to the following guidelines: No more than one page. No *asterisks* and - arrows. No references to previous discussions, or other people's arguments for/against systemd. First, here is a version with the asterisks removed. It might be visually easier to read. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/03/msg00449.html Second, some concepts need a lot of information communicated to make sense to those who are not already familiar with the concept. We don't send people to college for a day and expect them to grasp 4 years of higher education. There are some limits on Human learning that you have to respect. But here is the vastly oversimplified technical argument... The test of comprehension is... if you cannot put an idea into writing, then you do not understand that idea well enough to be of any practical use. If that idea is a program... this means you do not actually have control of the program when implemented. Our ability to control things is directly dependent on our knowledge of how that thing operates. With knowledge, comes the ability to manipulate the thing to suite our purposes. Please, tell me what systemd is, fitting its entire functionality as expressed as one single concept. That does not mean it has to be one sentence, but it does mean you cannot group different concept together and simply give that as an answer. Grouping them together is saying what it does, not what it is. Big difference. I think you will confirm that neither you, nor I, nor the guy who came up with the original idea actually understands how it works, and we will not actually have control of it in situations where we need to control it. And so we need to pull it out of linux. -Kev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CADkoAxgmfwpKw-cx4abjQZXK0d+-VgKzbu1Rugk=xtp3efk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
Excerpts from Kevin Toppins's message of 2014-03-26 13:00:22 -0700: On 26 March 2014 13:42, Shachar Shemesh shac...@debian.org wrote: [...] As far as the systemd vs. upstart discussion, I was leaning in upstart (more precisely, against systemd). As such, your email was very interesting to me. Unfortunately, it was unreadable. You said you'll start with background, but instead of providing technical background, you provided meaningless and irrelevant he said, I said arguments. Trying to skim ahead to find where the meat starts did not easily detect such a point. At this point, I simply assumed the email had nothing more to say. If I'm wrong, feel free to answer with the technical gist of your arguments. If you want me to read it, please adhere to the following guidelines: No more than one page. No *asterisks* and - arrows. No references to previous discussions, or other people's arguments for/against systemd. First, here is a version with the asterisks removed. It might be visually easier to read. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/03/msg00449.html Second, some concepts need a lot of information communicated to make sense to those who are not already familiar with the concept. We don't send people to college for a day and expect them to grasp 4 years of higher education. There are some limits on Human learning that you have to respect. But here is the vastly oversimplified technical argument... The test of comprehension is... if you cannot put an idea into writing, then you do not understand that idea well enough to be of any practical use. If that idea is a program... this means you do not actually have control of the program when implemented. Our ability to control things is directly dependent on our knowledge of how that thing operates. With knowledge, comes the ability to manipulate the thing to suite our purposes. Please, tell me what systemd is, fitting its entire functionality as expressed as one single concept. That does not mean it has to be one sentence, but it does mean you cannot group different concept together and simply give that as an answer. Grouping them together is saying what it does, not what it is. Big difference. Kevin, it would be quite helpful for those who accept this challenge if you could do the same for the pieces of the stack that systemd is meant to replace or is (was?) competing with. So - Sysvinit is ... - Upstart is ... - OpenRC is ... Or since your argument is that Linux fits into this: Linux is ... Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1395865553-sup-7...@fewbar.com
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
Hi, Kevin Toppins: But here is the vastly oversimplified technical argument... To the point of being neither technical nor valid. (Which admittedly was never in doubt even before I started reading.) I think you will confirm that neither you, nor I, nor the guy who came up with the original idea actually understands how it works If understanding how systemd works is so much of a problem for you that you cannot even conceive of anybody, let alone its author, doing so … then I'd like to suggest that debian-devel is not the right place for you. I'd suggest an alternate mailing list, but I'm afraid I'd offent both you and the other participants of that list, should I do so. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On 03/26/2014 07:40 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: If you want thing to move on, stop posting useless messages, and start working on alternatives. For example, helping adding more features to OpenRC would certainly help a way more than this post. going offtopic here, do you know if there is any plan to use cgmanager with openrc, i really like the idea of putting each service in it's own cgroup -- 1AE0 322E B8F7 4717 BDEA BF1D 44BB 1BA7 9F6C 6333 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/533387ec.2090...@zumbi.com.ar
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
El Wed, 26 de Mar 2014 a las 7:07 PM, gustavo panizzo gfa g...@zumbi.com.ar escribió: On 03/26/2014 07:40 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: If you want thing to move on, stop posting useless messages, and start working on alternatives. For example, helping adding more features to OpenRC would certainly help a way more than this post. going offtopic here, do you know if there is any plan to use cgmanager with openrc, i really like the idea of putting each service in it's own cgroup I was thinking about how to do something like this without requiring cgmanager to be started before the init system or moving the cgroups management into the init system itself. I wonder if dbus activation could be used to accomplish this. Of course, then one would not be able to put (in the case of Upstart) the socket bridge, dbus bridge, dbus, or anything those services need to boot into a cgroup, but one can still put stuff like Apache, lightdm/gdm/kdm/sddm, nginx, et al into a cgroup. Another option is to push the kernel maintainers to allow delegating parts of the cgroups tree to other processes, so that the init system could say you get a sub-hierarchy, you get a sub-hierarchy without the complication of multiple separate hierarchies. How do you suggest this integration with cgroups be done? Best regards, -- Cameron Norman
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
On 03/26/2014 11:49 PM, Cameron Norman wrote: El Wed, 26 de Mar 2014 a las 7:07 PM, gustavo panizzo gfa g...@zumbi.com.ar escribió: On 03/26/2014 07:40 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: If you want thing to move on, stop posting useless messages, and start working on alternatives. For example, helping adding more features to OpenRC would certainly help a way more than this post. going offtopic here, do you know if there is any plan to use cgmanager with openrc, i really like the idea of putting each service in it's own cgroup I was thinking about how to do something like this without requiring cgmanager to be started before the init system or moving the cgroups management into the init system itself. i don't see any problem starting cgmanager after init, i don't see much value on a big init or an init daemon confined by a cgroup. I wonder if dbus activation could be used to accomplish this. Of course, then one would not be able to put (in the case of Upstart) the socket bridge, dbus bridge, dbus, or anything those services need to boot into a cgroup, but one can still put stuff like Apache, lightdm/gdm/kdm/sddm, nginx, et al into a cgroup. Another option is to push the kernel maintainers to allow delegating parts of the cgroups tree to other processes, so that the init system could say you get a sub-hierarchy, you get a sub-hierarchy without the complication of multiple separate hierarchies. How do you suggest this integration with cgroups be done? i just want to put services inside cgroups, no socket activation, no dbus, no dbus activation. i would use it for servers, apache and friends, what i would really like is to be able to run multiple instances of the same service each on it's own cgroup. something like su - user -g cgroup_name -c command or a flag to start-stop-daemon, cgroups could be created in advance by an init script (a Required-Start in lsb slang) just my 0.02$ of what i would use as sysadmin Best regards, -- Cameron Norman -- 1AE0 322E B8F7 4717 BDEA BF1D 44BB 1BA7 9F6C 6333 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5333a2fe.2040...@zumbi.com.ar
Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it)
El Wed, 26 de Mar 2014 a las 9:03 PM, gustavo panizzo gfa g...@zumbi.com.ar escribió: On 03/26/2014 11:49 PM, Cameron Norman wrote: I wonder if dbus activation could be used to accomplish this. Of course, then one would not be able to put (in the case of Upstart) the socket bridge, dbus bridge, dbus, or anything those services need to boot into a cgroup, but one can still put stuff like Apache, lightdm/gdm/kdm/sddm, nginx, et al into a cgroup. Another option is to push the kernel maintainers to allow delegating parts of the cgroups tree to other processes, so that the init system could say you get a sub-hierarchy, you get a sub-hierarchy without the complication of multiple separate hierarchies. How do you suggest this integration with cgroups be done? i just want to put services inside cgroups, no socket activation, no dbus, no dbus activation. Haha. The problem there is that cgmanager uses dbus! So you need dbus installed + started before you can use cgroups with later kernels. i would use it for servers, apache and friends, what i would really like is to be able to run multiple instances of the same service each on it's own cgroup. something like su - user -g cgroup_name -c command or a flag to start-stop-daemon, cgroups could be created in advance by an init script (a Required-Start in lsb slang) I think cgexec is what you are looking for here. This would break with later versions of the linux kernel, though, because you need one centralized writer (e.g. cgmanager or systemd). -- Cameron Norman
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Kevin Toppins wrote: - Debian needs to *cut all ties* to systemd […] - revert every program systemd took over to its pre-systemd state - cut your losses while you still can technically achieve a reversion Seconded (especially the last bullet point). bye, //mirabilos -- [16:04:33] bkix: veni vidi violini [16:04:45] bkix: ich kam, sah und vergeigte... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.10.1403251418120.3...@tglase.lan.tarent.de
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On 24/03/2014 17:42, Kevin Toppins wrote: To all debian developers: [snip] -Kev Lots of asterisks won't make a point. federico -- Federico Di Gregorio federico.digrego...@dndg.it Di Nunzio Di Gregorio srl http://dndg.it If nobody understand you, that doesn't mean you're an artist. -- anonymous -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53318aa0.3000...@dndg.it
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On 25 March 2014 08:54, Federico Di Gregorio f...@dndg.it wrote: [...] Lots of asterisks won't make a point. The asterisks are there to specifically focus your attention on those words. Because - I find that if I don't use them - people tend to misread what I write (or more so at least) -Kev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cadkoaxjot59abrb-+ihutqf6g8e8mdto5n3vcbwf9zuxzh6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
I was very proud of my fellow colleagues for not feeding the troll a full 24 hours later. Thanks for breaking the record :( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140325161525.ga25...@bryant.redmars.org
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On 25/03/2014 16:46, Kevin Toppins wrote: On 25 March 2014 08:54, Federico Di Gregorio f...@dndg.it wrote: [...] Lots of asterisks won't make a point. The asterisks are there to specifically focus your attention on those words. Because - I find that if I don't use them - people tend to misread what I write (or more so at least) You're missing the *point* of my reply. federico p.s. I know, I know, don't feed ... But sometimes one just can't resist. -- Federico Di Gregorio federico.digrego...@dndg.it Di Nunzio Di Gregorio srl http://dndg.it Qu'est ce que la folie? Juste un sentiment de liberté si fort qu'on en oublie ce qui nous rattache au monde... -- J. de Loctra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5331ac72.6050...@dndg.it
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:15:25PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: I was very proud of my fellow colleagues for not feeding the troll a full 24 hours later. Thanks for breaking the record :( I agree - I even *told* people on #-devel to not even - bother replying - since I figured no one would *post* to this. But seriously; is it really this easy to bring the project to a halt? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On 25 March 2014 11:25, William Unruh un...@physics.ubc.ca wrote: [...] And if they are there, together with all the boldfacing, people tend to think that you are a complete kook. So you makes your choices... Okay, my apologies. I am not very experienced with lists and the expectations that run within them. Here is a plaintext version stripped of asterisks. I do think the arrows help though. -Kev -- To all debian developers: - systemd is fundamentally incompatible with linux Now, I realize that's a bold claim, but if you are up for some reading, I will prove it. First - a little history just to put this into a context that's easier to follow Over a year ago (Nov 2012), I tried to warn you that systemd was a disaster in progress. It started out over a discussion about udev, and some of the reasons people were giving for using systemd seemed to be woefully naive. I tried to explain this simple point at first, but it became increasingly evident that - none of the people who were advocating systemd - because they claimed it would solve certain problems - seemed to understand what systemd would do to linux So, I took some of the problems systemd was supposed to fix, and wrote a response that primarily did three things. 1 - explain why linux had certain mechanisms, and what would happen if you removed them 2 - show how those problems could be solved without stripping out very important pieces of the architecture (which systemd would do, knowingly or not) 3 - the most important one - probe how much the systemd people really understood about what they were doing to the rest of linux Now, I'm sure many people will jump on that last one right there and declare - how can you possibly judge what they understand if you don't understand it yourself?!! And this is how... There is a well known saying that runs in every engineering discipline, including software engineering... - if you can't put it in writing, then you don't understand it well enough Einstein had another version... - if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough So, I presented a series of technical questions, that I asked to be answered without references for me to go read documentation. Those questions are not there because I'm clueless as to how systemd works. Those questions are there to see if anyone (including systemd people) had any clue how systemd would interoperate with - the rest of linux. And I got my answer. - nope I even said - the point of this post was to see if these questions could be answered - because if they couldn't - that was a very strong signal that they didn't understand it And I got several responses, many of them saying I was... - ignorant - unhelpful - wasting everyone's time because I didn't read the documentation - weird (lol) - and in some places elsewhere over the internet - autistic I even went to Lennart Poettering's google+ page and - tried to warn everyone there that systemd was headed for failure - asked Poettering (in a different way) if he could answer what role systemd was to serve in linux I said - I have a question for you. If you can answer it with one, and ONLY one, concept that describes fully what systemd is I will consider I might have misjudged this. He replied... - systemd is a suite of basic building blocks to build an OS from Okay - right there he gives two important pieces of information... 1 - there is nothing about how it works with linux 2 - his answer is so vague, it should tell you he hasn't really thought this out systemd will wreck linux, I am certain of it. Without some kind of design blueprint of some sort - systemd ended up being built by programming blindly in the dark. There is no boundary where systemd stops and linux begins. They will keep on absorbing pieces of linux until systemd is the entire operating system - and there is no coherent design to how it does / should work. I think everyone here knows how this is going to end. I tried to get this point across back in Nov 2012 - however, I don't think systemd caused enough chaos back then to really register with people what was coming their way. Now that systemd has wrecked all kinds of previously working stuff, and many are beginning to realize the impossibility of getting systemd to work with linux - I think this might have some effect this time around. - Debian needs to cut all ties to systemd It is not possible to save it unless a design blueprint for how it works with linux can be expressed in writing - and I seriously doubt anyone can (I sure as hell can't). - revert every program systemd took over to its pre-systemd state - cut your losses while you still can technically achieve a reversion While systemd might one day work flawlessly on its own - it has absolutely no business being in linux. And you might ask - why did I put this on the debian list?
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On 25 Mar 11:36, Kevin Toppins wrote: On 25 March 2014 11:25, William Unruh un...@physics.ubc.ca wrote: [...] And if they are there, together with all the boldfacing, people tend to think that you are a complete kook. So you makes your choices... Okay, my apologies. I am not very experienced with lists and the expectations that run within them. Here is a plaintext version stripped of asterisks. I do think the arrows help though. Weird, I just think they clutter up the place, make the text harder to read and are annoying as hell... Also, you keep talking about linux as if linux is an operating system in its own right... it's not, it's a kernel. GNU Linux is the linux kernel + GNU userland, the change to systemd is mostly just a change to the underlying init, *and* Debian is only changing the *default* not enforcing you to use it. Maybe you should do some more investigation, get some better clue of what you're talking about, and come back with a better, more thought out, set of arguments that actually have merit. Thanks, -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140325172952.GC4308@miranda
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 16:15, Jonathan Dowland wrote: I was very proud of my fellow colleagues for not feeding the troll a full 24 hours later. Thanks for breaking the record :( I had a hope that the no one will answer OP. :( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140325173351.ga6...@arvanta.net
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:40:02 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Dowland wrote: I was very proud of my fellow colleagues for not feeding the troll a full 24 hours later. Thanks for breaking the record :( Jonathan we've been through this before. - https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/11/msg00565.html - https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/11/msg00604.html You think I'm retarded or a troll. Believe it or not, I can actually sympathize with why you think that. I too, would find myself to be a huge pain in the ass if I threw a wrench into something as big as systemd. I recognize the frustration, I really do. But I am not trolling you here. There is something that you fundamentally don't get - if I present a question regarding the interaction of linux and systemd - and you get pissed with me because it's too exhausting or difficult to formulate a response - that means you don't really understand how the interaction between linux and systemd works Yes. That's the point (not to piss you off, but to test what you comprehend). That's why engineering has the phrase to begin with... - if you can't put it in writing, then you don't understand it well enough Because it's pissing you off, it's telling me that we have a problem with the design of systemd. It's underthought. Dangerously underthought. This entire time, my concerns were never about the features of either program. It was always about the design. Features don't make good software.good design makes good software. systemd is its own project (operating system?). It does not have any design blueprint for how it works with linux. That's why you need to pull it out of linux, because it's trashing all the good designs for crap that we can't even explain very well in writing. Which means that we don't really know what this is doing. And when we don't really understand what something is doing, we are extremely vulnerable to a symphony of problems waiting to occur. I would say that trying to resolve the default init system hassle is one example of a problem that could have been easily avoided if we had a blueprint for how systemd is designed. Please try to look past my failings with using lists, and see that we really do have a nightmare situation on our hands. -Kev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cadkoaximadsjomvwd1xihlglp3v8utfyb4bqrpa+u0bypz3...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 01:31:44PM -0500, Kevin Toppins wrote: Jonathan we've been through this before. - https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/11/msg00565.html - https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/11/msg00604.html Thanks for the trip down memory lane. This is not quite the same, I giving considerably more benefit of the doubt back then, and some honest advice on how to improve your ability to communicate on this list, advice which you appear to have sadly ignored. You think I'm retarded or a troll. I didn't think you were a troll back in November. -- Jonathan Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140325213334.ga2...@bryant.redmars.org
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
El Mon, 24 de Mar 2014 a las 9:42 AM, Kevin Toppins kevin.topp...@gmail.com escribió: To all debian developers: - systemd is *fundamentally incompatible* with linux Now, I realize that's a bold claim, but if you are up for some reading, I will prove it. I'll bite. I even went to Lennart Poettering's google+ page and - tried to warn everyone there that systemd was headed for failure - asked *Poettering* (in a different way) if he *could answer* what role systemd was to serve in linux I said - I have a question for you. If you can answer it with one, and ONLY one, concept that describes fully what systemd is I will consider I might have misjudged this. He replied... - systemd is a suite of basic building blocks to build an OS from Maybe he was talking about the systemd project as a whole. systemd's source tree includes a number of different pieces of software, from udev to networkd. They are the basic building blocks. I will talk about systemd, the init system, specifically. This includes the journal (because it is mandatory and cannot be used without systemd) and the systemd binary, but not logind, udev, or anything else. systemd starts, supervises, controls, and stops software according to dependencies, state, events, and chronology. * start: simple execution, with optional environment and pre-created sockets. Decides to start when certain events occur (including device, socket, and bus events) or it is wanted by a starting unit, its own wants and dependencies are satisfied, its own conditions are true, and the moment is right (chronology is correct). * supervise: monitors the process and optionally restarts it on failure. * control: allows resource limits with cgroups, oom, nice, rlimit, and probably more. Hooks up its stdin/out/err. * stop: stops the process and, optionally, that process's children (uses cgroups for this). See the documentation for the following if they are not familiar to you: * dependencies: Wants/WantedBy, Requires/RequiredBy (in man::systemd.unit) * states: ConditionFileExists, ConditionFileExecutable, Condition* (probably in man::systemd.service) * events: man::systemd.device, man::systemd.socket, Alias=dbus-org.foo.bar.service (in man::systemd.install) * chronology: Before, After (probably in man::systemd.service) I have heard you question why systemd recommends daemons to not fork/double fork. This is a pretty simple answer: it is costly and unnecessary, and systemd has less. To fork or daemonize is needless computation power that systemd does not require to be notified of the process's readiness. Furthermore, this makes it harder to supervise (track the PID and collect the stdout/err) the process. Lastly, it is a fair bit of unnecessary code on the daemon's part. Any other questions? -- Cameron Norman
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
El Tue, 25 de Mar 2014 a las 3:11 PM, Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com escribió: See the documentation for the following if they are not familiar to you: * dependencies: Wants/WantedBy, Requires/RequiredBy (in man::systemd.unit) * states: ConditionFileExists, ConditionFileExecutable, Condition* (probably in man::systemd.service) * events: man::systemd.device, man::systemd.socket, Alias=dbus-org.foo.bar.service (in man::systemd.install) * chronology: Before, After (probably in man::systemd.service) Sorry, pretty much all of that except the device and socket stuff is in systemd.unit.
Re: systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
previously on this list Brett Parker contributed: Maybe you should do some more investigation, get some better clue of what you're talking about, and come back with a better, more thought out, set of arguments that actually have merit. Right, by arguing on the basis of the definition of Linux rather than the meaning of his arguments, or as often is the case on this subject dividing and conquering or ignoring the valid points and changing the subject to the 100th *needed* functionality that every system apparently should have by default but actually turns out to already exist but optionally installed and actually means little or just gets in the way of better implementations. There is another reason why Unix consisting of parts that do one thing well is so valuable and that is because arguing over the best way of doing it can't be polluted or crap forced in the back door with the good. Your response is actually closer to trolling. Why is it the the word troll gets so abused. Naming people trolls when they are not is worse than trolling in my opinion. I really haven't the time right now to look over the links having took a break from work to watch a footy match but assuming I didn't miss the sarcasm then if Thorsten Glazer sees even an ounce of merit then I can almost guarantee he is not trolling. p.s. systemd being a bad design for an OS which aims to be so cross platform is simply obvious to me on many levels, at the very least it calls for extra oil/work/code depending on the scenario to meet that aim and with little/no *real/truly beneficial* reason. Still maybe it will be the death of Linux on the desktop atleast for techies and I wouldn't mind to be honest as without grsecurity the linux *kernel* actually has less security features than Windows or even FreeBSD now and FreeBSD was trailing behind for a long time. The userland security is much better than windows but with the exception of apt repos being the only well used thing that springs to mind (which is a valuable security feature) this was basically inherited from good designers. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/815696.92264...@smtp145.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* - and I can prove it
To all debian developers: - systemd is *fundamentally incompatible* with linux Now, I realize that's a bold claim, but if you are up for some reading, I will prove it. First - a little history just to put this into a context that's easier to follow Over a year ago (Nov 2012), I tried to *warn* you that systemd was a disaster in progress. It started out over a discussion about udev, and some of the reasons people were giving for using systemd seemed to be woefully naive. I tried to explain this simple point at first, but it became increasingly evident that - none of the people who were advocating systemd - because they claimed it would solve certain problems - seemed to *understand* what systemd would do to *linux* So, I took some of the problems systemd was supposed to fix, and wrote a response that primarily did three things. 1 - explain *why* linux had certain *mechanisms*, and what would happen if you removed them 2 - show *how* those problems could be *solved* without stripping out very important pieces of the architecture (which systemd would do, knowingly or not) 3 - the *most important* one - probe how much the systemd people *really understood* about what they were doing to the rest of linux Now, I'm sure many people will jump on that last one right there and declare - how can you possibly judge what they understand if you don't understand it yourself?!! And this is *how*... There is a well known saying that runs in every engineering discipline, including software engineering... - if you can't put it in writing, then you don't understand it well enough Einstein had another version... - if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough So, I presented a series of *technical questions*, that I asked to be answered *without* references for *me* to go *read documentation*. Those questions are *not* there because I'm clueless as to how systemd works. Those questions are there to see if *anyone* (including systemd people) had any clue how systemd would *interoperate* with - the rest of linux. And I got my answer. - nope I even said - the *point* of this post was to see if these questions *could* be answered - because if they couldn't - that was a *very strong* signal that they *didn't understand it* And I got several responses, many of them saying I was... - ignorant - unhelpful - wasting everyone's time because I didn't read the documentation - weird (lol) - and in some places elsewhere over the internet - autistic I even went to Lennart Poettering's google+ page and - tried to warn everyone there that systemd was headed for failure - asked *Poettering* (in a different way) if he *could answer* what role systemd was to serve in linux I said - I have a question for you. If you can answer it with one, and ONLY one, concept that describes fully what systemd is I will consider I might have misjudged this. He replied... - systemd is a suite of basic building blocks to build an OS from Okay - right there he gives two important pieces of information... 1 - there is *nothing* about how it works with linux 2 - his answer is so *vague*, it should tell you *he hasn't really thought this out* systemd will *wreck* linux, I am certain of it. *Without* some kind of *design blueprint* of some sort - systemd ended up being built by *programming blindly in the dark*. There is no *boundary* where systemd stops and linux begins. They will keep on absorbing pieces of linux until systemd is the entire operating system - and there is no coherent design to how it does / should work. I think everyone here knows how this is going to end. I tried to get this point across back in Nov 2012 - however, I don't think systemd caused enough chaos back then to really register with people what was coming their way. Now that systemd has wrecked all kinds of previously working stuff, and many are beginning to realize the *impossibility* of getting systemd to work *with* linux - I think this might have some effect this time around. - Debian needs to *cut all ties* to systemd It is *not possible* to save it *unless* a design blueprint for how it works *with* linux can be *expressed in writing* - and I seriously doubt anyone can (I sure as hell can't). - revert every program systemd took over to its pre-systemd state - cut your losses while you still can technically achieve a reversion While systemd *might* one day work flawlessly on its own - it has *absolutely no business* being in linux. And you might ask - why did I put this on the debian list? This clearly applies to *all* of linux... - because out of any linux distro that stands a *reasonable chance* to undo the systemd nightmare - debian is the *most visible* - and other distros are more likely to *follow your lead* than any other distro that might change If you think I am wrong - let's settle the debate, once and for all. If systemd *can* work *with* linux - these
