Where will you go after systemd?

[Head_on_a_Stick]

@Head_on_a_Stick:

What software are you responsible for?

What have you written and where is it used?

Which packages (if any) do you maintain for this or any other distribution?

None whatsoever -- I have already clearly stated that I do not have the expertise to dissect any code base.

My point is that anyone can post authoritative-sounding bulls**t -- how are the users of this forum supposed to be able to separate the bs-merchants from the genuine experts?

EDIT: Anyway, I though I was on your "ignore" list...

[tomazzi]

To summarise: there are no bugs in core/main.c:

1. Ignoring return value from sigaction is not a problem, because it's
almost *unlikely* to fail.
In any case, kernel will do the job, so it doesn't even matter
whether the handlers are installed or not -> everything that can be done
in the handler is to just quit anyway.

2. SIGSEGV handler (and others): it's *unlikely* to happen that the
handler will be executed at the bottom of the main stack (with
insufficient stack space or when the stack is already overflowed) -
because stacks are huge, and in case of segfault see point 1.

3. SA_NODEFER is OK, cause it's *unlikely* that external signal gets
delivered. Even if the crash() handler will crash (f.e. because it's
not re-entrant), what (again) is *unlikely* to happen, see point 1.

I've learned a lot, sorry to waste Your time.

Just to be clear, is the above sarcasm? Because it could be interpreted as saying that you finally agree and see their point.

Of course this is sarcasm.

There's no point to argue with statements like "it's unlikely to happen, so let's just ignore it". I call this bad and dangerous programming practice, but it can be also pure stupidity. Pick one.

Lennart said that he could accept a patch for this - so I'm writting one - alternative, systemd-compatible soultion (with properly designed signals and errors handling). I'll send him a link when the code reaches testing stage....

Regards.

[bdtc1]

There's no point to argue with statements like "it's unlikely to happen, so let's just ignore it". I call this bad and dangerous programming practice, but it can be also pure stupidity. Pick one.

I wonder what they'd say about the "asynchronous sync" issue. Data corruption can be worse than system lock-up.

[tomazzi]

System "lock-up" (this term can mean a really wide range of situations) can cause data corrupiton too.

Anyway, I've spent many hours in replying to e-mails and posting replies on systemd-devel, only to discover that it was a waste of time.
I think I know what will be the answer to "sync problem" - it's *unlikely* to happen... (and hard to catch, so it will randomly cause problems "for no obvious reason" ... )

Therefore, instead of wasting yet more time, I'll just continue to work on my project(s)

Regards.

ps.
There's also no point to post portions of broken systemd code here, cause when looking at the replies, it seems obvious that it's *unlikely* to find someone who could understand it...

[mardybear]

@tomazzi: You sounded frustrated and fatigued a bit back, so just wanted to wish you good luck with your init development. Hopefully you will get something useful out of your effort for yourself...and maybe for us non-programmers. Always good to have choices, that's what Linux used to be about. Still is to some extent but feels more restrictive.

[bdtc1]

There's also no point to post portions of broken systemd code here, cause when looking at the replies, it seems obvious that it's *unlikely* to find someone who could understand it...

I would understand it, but it'd be quite sufficient to simply post a bullet list summary of everything you found.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

it seems obvious that it's *unlikely* to find someone who could understand it...

Obviously we cannot meet your lofty standards but users could just *trust* your *opinion* if you were to provide some independent *evidence* of your *competence*...

How are we lowly non-programmers supposed to be able to tell if you really are an experienced programmer or just a nut-job with an axe to grind who is good at writing bull-s**t?

[oswaldkelso]

"Head_on_a_Stick"

Option1: Why don't you just go and find out for your self. Go and read systemd-devel and see what Lennart Poettering thinks. He's meant to be a good trustworthy programmer....... ahh.

https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-de ... llist.html

OK
Option2: Learn to program

[Head_on_a_Stick]

"Head_on_a_Stick"

Option1: Why don't you just go and find out for your self. Go and read systemd-devel and see what Lennart Poettering thinks. He's meant to be a good trustworthy programmer....... ahh.

https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-de ... llist.html

OK
Option2: Learn to program

I have no interest in programming, I find it boring.

[twoflowers]

I have no interest in programming, I find it boring.

Then why are you complaining about not understanding?

><<<(°>

[Head_on_a_Stick]

I have no interest in programming, I find it boring.

Then why are you complaining about not understanding?

><<<(°>

I'm not complaining about not understanding.

I am just attempting to make the point that anybody at all can post on these boards and if there is no way of independently verifying their programming skills then that post is meaningless.

I have said before that I trust the judgement of @falconindy (Dave Reisner) over on the Arch forums because I actually use the programs he has written every day: he made the top 10 list of systemd contributors in 2014.

If I knew which programs have been written by the posters here who express disappointment at the coding skills of a team whose product has been adopted by every major GNU/Linux distribution then I (and the many other Debian users who read these forums) would be more inclined to take their point of view seriously.

Without such verification, I (and the many other Debian users who read these forums) must presume that their skills are simply not up to the standard they claim.

To presume otherwise would be foolish.

[Deb-fan]

I thought everyone had put of both on ignore HOAS.

Sheesh, obviously many of the <censoreds> are fulla <also censored>. So in this case, some promises are made to be broken imo. Ahhhhh the great tomazzi, he's a legend in hiz own mind obviously. Dude is such an extreme intellect and awesome uber l33t coder, he couldn't figure out how to make a bug report. This tells anyone w 43 braincells a coupla of things about him. Stuff like a. I mean come on, you need somebody to hold your hand to figure out how to submit a bug report ?! b. He very likely has never bothered, in all hiz coding l33tness to submit a bug report to any major opensource project either.

Just based off of what I've seen the guy type in this one thread, he's told me more than I needed to know about the kinda person he must be and his holy qualifications as pertains to software development.

In ending, @HOAS ... common sense, reason, logic, experience and nothing of the sort will work when trying to have a meaningful convo w several of the people participating in this joke of a thread. An old truism pops to mind, well make that a couple.

* Choose your battles.
* Don't have a battle of wits, w unarmed people ( personally I think that one's bs, why not shoot fish in a barrel ? Lotsa fun "sometimes". Though pointless is pointless.
* Lastly ... don't waste your time arguing w id10t's, they'll just try to drag you down to their level and then beatcha w experience.

Going back to ignoring this FF&FF thread.

[schnuller]

I have no interest in programming, I find it boring.

Then why are you complaining about not understanding?

><<<(°>

I'm not complaining about not understanding.

I am just attempting to make the point that anybody at all can post on these boards and if there is no way of independently verifying their programming skills then that post is meaningless.

I have said before that I trust the judgement of @falconindy (Dave Reisner) over on the Arch forums because I actually use the programs he has written every day: he made the top 10 list of systemd contributors in 2014.

If I knew which programs have been written by the posters here who express disappointment at the coding skills of a team whose product has been adopted by every major GNU/Linux distribution then I (and the many other Debian users who read these forums) would be more inclined to take their point of view seriously.

Without such verification, I (and the many other Debian users who read these forums) must presume that their skills are simply not up to the standard they claim.

To presume otherwise would be foolish.

In case it matters to you: I understand your point, and i agree.
(I did understand it and agreed from the very beginning, but have seen no point in posting it. I assumed tomazzi would quickly answer your original question.... Now it seems as if you could need a bit of support).

[bdtc1]

users could just *trust* your *opinion* if you were to provide some independent *evidence* of your *competence*...

How are we lowly non-programmers supposed to be able to tell if you really are an experienced programmer

He has already posted exact independent proof in the form of excerpts from the original source code, including comments from the authors where they themselves admit that there are problems which they are not addressing at that time. Non-programmers might not understand, but that doesn't change the validity of the proof. I believe that the full list should be posted here, or better yet in the bug-tracking system.

The fact that someone else has used this programming without failure is not proof that the programming is correct or that failures cannot occur. Security updates are routinely posted for programs which have been working just fine in most cases, but which still have flaws which can result in problems. These are legitimate concerns, irregardless of anyone person's dis-belief.

[schnuller]

You don't seem to have understood the reasoning of Head_on_a_Stick or what he has asked for.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

He has already posted exact independent proof in the form of excerpts from the original source code, including comments from the authors where they themselves admit that there are problems which they are not addressing at that time. Non-programmers might not understand, but that doesn't change the validity of the proof. I believe that the full list should be posted here, or better yet in the bug-tracking system.

After posting on the systemd mailing list and recieving a reply from the developers regarding the points he raised:

I've learned a lot, sorry to waste Your time.

@schnuller -- thank you, I appreciate your support.

[bdtc1]

In case this was overlooked:

<From the mailing list:>To summarise: there are no bugs in core/main.c:
I've learned a lot, sorry to waste Your time.

Just to be clear, is the above sarcasm? Because it could be interpreted as saying that you finally agree and see their point.

Of course this is sarcasm.

[twoflowers]

sarcasm detectors are out of order nowadays

[dasein]

Argument from authority is not only no better than ad hominem, it's no different.

(Just sayin')

[dasein]

There's also no point to post portions of broken systemd code here, cause when looking at the replies, it seems obvious that it's *unlikely* to find someone who could understand it...

Sadly true, which is just one of the many reasons why this "debate" needs to just farqing die already.

(@tomazzi: I know that you neither need nor want my support in this particular point, but you have it anyway.)