Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby tomazzi » 2014-12-26 22:59

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:@tomazzi -- thank you for posting that without the personal attacks.

I don't understand any of it, but it sounds a lot more credible that way ;)

Oh, You don't understand?
Well, that's what changed till I've visited Debian Forums long ago, before registration...
Debian gets popular, and as a consequence it has a lot of users, who don't really understand what Debian is (or was...)

Systemd, in my opinion, is broken by design - I'm working on a fork of it, because I don't want my OS to be broken by such a crappy software. My OS is my tool - I'm using it to work, seriously. Unfortunately, Debian TC have decided to polllute my OS with such a crap as systemd is, and apparently they have no idea of what they did.
This will result in thousants of patches to patches - as the Debian team haven't learned the lesson of pulseaudio, and they've forgot that init system is the cruitial part of the OS...

I don't know whether Debian was intentionally undermined (but it seems it was). The only value of this OS is now the number of packages it has. But, since I'm able to recompile them all, then I'm not tied to this particular OS forever...

However, when my fork of systemd (and dbus) will be working, I'll make it available for download - so everyone who's interrested can try it. Until then, I'm going to use Wheezy - which is free from the insanity introduced by systemd...

...and since I'm doing it for myself, not for the company, then by definition, this project will have better chances to be better... ;)

Regards.

<edit>
I'm really pissed off due to a fact, that systemd was forced on me (and on all the users). I really don't wan't to re-write the systemd, as I have better things to do. But it's just a necessity if I want to use future versions of Linux without that shitty code of systemd.
It's beyond my understanding, how it is possible that such a big company as RedHat have chosen such bunch of uneducated fools to write such critical part of a system.
Practically, in every C unit file at least few critical bugs can be found... (like ignoring return values, etc) this is madness...
I'm guessing that the decision of adopting this crap was made only basing on a wiki - nobody in the TC have even tried to read the sources (with understanding) ....
</edit>
Odi profanum vulgus
tomazzi
 
Posts: 730
Joined: 2013-08-02 21:33

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby twoflowers » 2015-02-03 08:11

Enjoy reading:

http://ma.ttias.be/whats-new-systemd-2015-edition/

My favorite:
* read ahead implementation dropped: in the age of SSDs the benefit is not
big enough to have this. All systemd developers have SSDs and no more
spinning disks, nobody could/wanted to support this anymore. The idea was
to read-ahead the bits needed during the boot process and remember it next
time, for faster boots. But with SSDs, this support is dropped.
twoflowers
 

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby Head_on_a_Stick » 2015-02-03 10:11

twoflowers wrote:Enjoy reading:

http://ma.ttias.be/whats-new-systemd-2015-edition/

My favorite:
* read ahead implementation dropped: in the age of SSDs the benefit is not
big enough to have this. All systemd developers have SSDs and no more
spinning disks, nobody could/wanted to support this anymore. The idea was
to read-ahead the bits needed during the boot process and remember it next
time, for faster boots. But with SSDs, this support is dropped.

Make your mind up -- do you like the fact the systemd offers support for a plethora of different functions or not?

All these features are optional except the "stateless system" paradigm -- that one raised a few eyebrows even on the Arch forums...

There are many independent read ahead implementations on offer in GNU/Linux, just as there are udev alternatives.

If you have a problem with any of them then use something else, just as you would with any other component of a GNU/Linux operating system.

All this nonsense about not adhering to UNIX principles (based on a single soundbite by Doug McIlroy) blissfully ignores the fact that all the tools for UNIX (the C library, the kernel, etc) are all maintained in the same repository and they are all released in sync, have the same coding style, the same build infrastructure and the same release cycles -- everything's the same. If anything systemd is making GNU*/Linux more like UNIX, not less. It's almost like all the people spouting off about this have never actually used UNIX at all...

* Remember: GNU's Not UNIX!
:D
Black Lives Matter

Debian buster-backports ISO image: for new hardware support
User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
 
Posts: 12747
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: /dev/chair

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby schnuller » 2015-02-03 20:09

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
All this nonsense about not adhering to UNIX principles (based on a single soundbite by Doug McIlroy) blissfully ignores the fact that all the tools for UNIX (the C library, the kernel, etc) are all maintained in the same repository and they are all released in sync, have the same coding style, the same build infrastructure and the same release cycles -- everything's the same. If anything systemd is making GNU*/Linux more like UNIX, not less. It's almost like all the people spouting off about this have never actually used UNIX at all...


I hought the main UNIX principle is "Do one thing and do it well"
Which is also the principle (or one ) of C (C is small, the rest is done in headers).
Assuming one can easily distinguish between the two at all (i doubt it).

You seem to be speaking of BSD, cause in Linux the kernel and the C library are sure not maintained in the same repository.
schnuller
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 2014-11-25 05:05

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby schnuller » 2015-02-03 20:17

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:* Remember: GNU's Not UNIX!
:D

I guess the name GNU is often misunderstand as "Gnu is *not* Unix"

While it tries to point out that it is free (compared to UNIX):
GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it

and to give credit to UNIX (give credit by making fun of is not seldom to be found, at least in hackerspace).
schnuller
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 2014-11-25 05:05

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby schnuller » 2015-02-04 02:52

tomazzi wrote:
Head_on_a_Stick wrote:@tomazzi -- thank you for posting that without the personal attacks.

I don't understand any of it, but it sounds a lot more credible that way ;)

Oh, You don't understand?
Well, that's what changed till I've visited Debian Forums long ago, before registration...
Debian gets popular, and as a consequence it has a lot of users, who don't really understand what Debian is (or was...)

The level of this forum has fallen. That is true.
But it isn't true that in the past discussing source code was usual.
Else i would like to see links to examples.
One also doesn't need to understand code at all to understand the nuts and bolts of Debian.
schnuller
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 2014-11-25 05:05

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

fashionable