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 twoflowers » 2014-11-26 20:40

This does not lead anywhere. Like in GNOME any bug is called feature. What's there left to debate? May you live in interesting times :mrgreen:
twoflowers
 

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby Bulkley » 2014-11-26 21:08

So far, I'm not finding any more problems with my transition into Jessie and Systemd than I have had with any previous dist-upgrade. One thing that I could not do (as I suspected) is break it up into bite sized chunks; with Systemd it is all at once. (rest assured, I did it CLI from a console - no GUI to muck it up) Control is different; thus, a learning curve.
Bulkley
 
Posts: 6029
Joined: 2006-02-11 18:35

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby buntunub » 2014-11-26 21:47

Bulkley wrote:So far, I'm not finding any more problems with my transition into Jessie and Systemd than I have had with any previous dist-upgrade. One thing that I could not do (as I suspected) is break it up into bite sized chunks; with Systemd it is all at once. (rest assured, I did it CLI from a console - no GUI to muck it up) Control is different; thus, a learning curve.


Systemd has been in development for a long time now. If it did not work then it would not have adoption amongst the major distro's, so it works fine, or at least some versions of it does. Besides, nobody in the anti-Systemd camp (that knows what they are talking about anyway) is complaining about Systemd not working as intended. They are complaining that Systemd is working as intended.
User avatar
buntunub
 
Posts: 591
Joined: 2011-02-11 05:23

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby schnuller » 2014-11-27 01:36

People seem to try to tell us that Debian uses an init system which works at all.
Damnit: I assumed all the time it wouldn't even boot.

Technical argument for systemd:
1) At least it works at all.

upstart, runit, openrc, sysvinit and what not don't work, of course. That *is* the main problem with all other init systems.
schnuller
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 2014-11-25 05:05

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby TobiSGD » 2014-11-27 04:07

schnuller wrote:
Bulkley wrote:
Head_on_a_Stick wrote:I have installed Debian 7.2 and dragged it up through jessie & sid and it still allows me a CLI-only login.


. . . and CLI reboot and poweroff. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/allow_users_to_shutdown

Code: Select all
$ systemctl poweroff
$ systemctl reboot


As with many things, ArchWiki is way ahead of Debian with documentation.

The more i think about it, the better the idea sounds.
Mainly on multi-user machines, with people from other places connecting via ssh, etc. (argh ... does not work from remote. How lame is that? Add it).

rkhunter considers the ability to shutdown via keyboard-shortcut as a "problem". iirc.
But hey: it is a feature, it offers comfort. Why not?
I wouldn't bother at all if the machine shuts down while i am busy doing my work (Let it happen three times each day and people will ove it).

I probably missed the point.

This bothered me a bit so I searched for information on it and found this in the ArchWiki:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Sy ... management
polkit is necessary for power management as an unprivileged user. If you are in a local systemd-logind user session and no other session is active, the following commands will work without root privileges. If not (for example, because another user is logged into a tty), systemd will automatically ask you for the root password.
Shut down and reboot the system:
$ systemctl reboot
Shut down and power-off the system:
$ systemctl poweroff
Suspend the system:
$ systemctl suspend
Put the system into hibernation:
$ systemctl hibernate
Put the system into hybrid-sleep state (or suspend-to-both):
$ systemctl hybrid-sleep
So you don't need to worry about the machine shutting down while you are working at it remotely.
User avatar
TobiSGD
 
Posts: 859
Joined: 2010-05-08 22:27
Location: Hannover, Germany

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby schnuller » 2014-11-27 05:09

Isn't that awesome?
systemd users finally can shutdown their system. A technical revolution ...
I for one simply kick against the left side of the computer, in a Bruce Lee style.

Weird that you checked it at all. The whole idea would sound so plain mad that anyone would expect something like that only from systemd, it seems ....
(around the same lines is the "joke" by Poettering to implement libreoffice into systemd. I was not able to figure out if he was serious about it, but i sure could imagine it).
schnuller
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 2014-11-25 05:05

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby thanatos_incarnate » 2014-11-27 06:26

The shutdown behaviour with policykit was there before, even without systemd.
I'm not sure why that is suddenly an issue or reason to spew bile again.
User avatar
thanatos_incarnate
 
Posts: 717
Joined: 2012-11-04 20:36

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby edbarx » 2014-11-27 06:54

I would like to comment about systemd's source organisation and style.

The source's tree is logically organised into directories, while the coding style clearly shows, that whoever wrote that code, is a very meticulous person.

It is not a secret that, the police use caligraphy experts in their investigations, which means caligraphy, uncovers one's character. Therefore, the same can be said about a programmer's source, which is a programmer's 'caligraphy'.

Since, my first glimpse at Poettering's et al code, I had these impressions.
-------------------------------------------

Many members of these fora may be astonished at my U-Turn, but, my very first inspections of systemd's code, immediately gave me the impression, that something in my standing with respect to the adoption of systemd in Debian, did not resonate well logically.

Now, to add insult to injury, at debianfork, it was decided that they form the same type of government Debian has! :roll: My standing about this is: if one rejects a form of government, one doesn't accept to take part in any government of that form. debianfork, criticised that Debian didn't allow for users' participation in the decision making mechanism, while they are adopting the same policy. :?

My second reason for quitting debianfork, is I wanted to contribute in coding. I made it clear from the very beginning of my conversations on debianfork, that I am not formally qualified to code. However, it is not the first time that university students ask for my assistance to help them in their assignments and dissertations, therefore, I have enough education to educate myself if I need to further improve my coding ability. Last time a student asked me to help her to code a compiler. Both of us consulted books and discussed the methodology, with the end result being, a tokenizer and compiler. The task was to create a compiler for a fictitious programming language. So, we had to study how to make sure the tokens were in the correct syntactical order, and report errors where appropriate. We used several recursive calls to syntactically check expressions, sub-expressions, statements, etc.

However, the elders at debianfork, thought otherwise of my ability. They assumed I use 'words I do not understand', probably, like a twelve year old who wants to impress his peers! Yes, I do not hold degrees in programming, but I can cope as my education level enables me to study on my own to further improve my skills. Denying this fact, is adding insult to injury, and is reminiscent of sheer elitism.

This is why I quit. Hypocrisy is not among my values.
Last edited by edbarx on 2014-11-27 07:25, edited 1 time in total.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.
User avatar
edbarx
 
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby schnuller » 2014-11-27 07:12

Not that the character of someone who writes code would have anything to do with the problems,
but many would not agree with your conclusion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception

Pretty sure that i read somewhere (Gentoo wiki) that a big part of systemd is uncommented (That really isn't what bugs me, but it isn't a sign of being a meticulous programmer).

I am not astonished.
schnuller
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 2014-11-25 05:05

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby reinob » 2014-11-27 09:25

confuseling wrote:Presumably you've got examples of recent problematic changes in its external interfaces then.


Not many, but in my experience with systemd there's been a number of WTF-events, where I tried doing something according to the official documentation and it didn't work, or I tried to do something according to the Arch Wiki but didn't work in Debian, etc.

One concrete examples (if I can remember well) was "systemctl mask", which didn't work in debian so you had to use the symlink method.

Also with systemd-networkd I've had to change config files a couple of times. The "[DHCP]" section in a .network file was previously split into "[DHCPv4]" and "[DHCPv6]". The "MTUBytes" option in a .netdev file seems to be ignored, but will perhaps be honored at some point in the future. The bonding mode (section "[Bond]") is also ignored because it is set when the module is loaded and systemd doesn't pass the option to the module, so you have to tweak in /etc/modprobe.d.

This is more a problem with the documentation and/or downstream packaging, but as long as implementation and documentation are not aligned the situation is a bit messy and unstable. As I said, this is OK for now (jessie is still testing, and Arch is AFAIK not claimed to be stable, don't know about Fedora). But once Jessie becomes Stable I'd expect a consistent documentation of whatever is implemented (or not) in systemd.
reinob
 
Posts: 869
Joined: 2014-06-30 11:42

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby reinob » 2014-11-27 09:35

schnuller wrote:Not that the character of someone who writes code would have anything to do with the problems,
but many would not agree with your conclusion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception


I read that chapter and didn't see anything related to the quality of the source code. Or you're talking about something else?

Pretty sure that i read somewhere (Gentoo wiki) that a big part of systemd is uncommented (That really isn't what bugs me, but it isn't a sign of being a meticulous programmer).


Citation needed. Anyway, anyone is free to read the code and decide if he or she likes it. Comments are not necessary. In fact, if the code is clean and elegant, you don't really need to comment anything. But this is a style issue as long as you're not part of the development team (and we are not). I for one prefer good code vs hacky-but-commented code.

I am not astonished.


Me neither. About what? :)
reinob
 
Posts: 869
Joined: 2014-06-30 11:42

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby dilberts_left_nut » 2014-11-27 09:45

reinob wrote: But once Jessie becomes Stable I'd expect a consistent documentation of whatever is implemented (or not) in systemd.

Yes indeed.
Did you check for or file bug reports about what you found?
Bugs against documentation need squashing for release, just as much as bugs against applications.
AdrianTM wrote:There's no hacker in my grandma...
User avatar
dilberts_left_nut
 
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-10-05 07:54
Location: enzed

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby schnuller » 2014-11-27 10:04

reinob wrote:
schnuller wrote:Not that the character of someone who writes code would have anything to do with the problems,
but many would not agree with your conclusion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception


I read that chapter and didn't see anything related to the quality of the source code. Or you're talking about something else?

K, let me give you a hand.
This is what edbarx wrote:
It is not a secret that, the police use caligraphy experts in their investigations, which means caligraphy, uncovers one's character. Therefore, the same can be said about a programmer's source, which is a programmer's 'caligraphy'.

This is what i wrote:
Not that the character of someone who writes code would have anything to do with the problems,


Now what do you say? Did i write about the quality of the code?
Or did i write about what edbarx said (the character of a person) ?
We will never know for sure. I usually write something different than what i want to say, so that anyone can rant about anything which comes to his mind.

I am astonished there are people who can't see the relation between two posts. But that is not what i had in mind above
(If someone says: "perhaps some of you are astonished because i ...", and i say "i am not astonished", then you can assume that i speak about the same thing he spoke about).
schnuller
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 2014-11-25 05:05

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby schnuller » 2014-11-27 10:17

reinob wrote:
Pretty sure that i read somewhere (Gentoo wiki) that a big part of systemd is uncommented (That really isn't what bugs me, but it isn't a sign of being a meticulous programmer).


Citation needed.

You have heard of that thing called searchengine?
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Compar ... it_systems
schnuller
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 2014-11-25 05:05

Re: Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

Postby reinob » 2014-11-27 11:13

schnuller wrote:
reinob wrote:
schnuller wrote:Not that the character of someone who writes code would have anything to do with the problems,
but many would not agree with your conclusion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception


I read that chapter and didn't see anything related to the quality of the source code. Or you're talking about something else?

K, let me give you a hand.
This is what edbarx wrote:
It is not a secret that, the police use caligraphy experts in their investigations, which means caligraphy, uncovers one's character. Therefore, the same can be said about a programmer's source, which is a programmer's 'caligraphy'.

This is what i wrote:
Not that the character of someone who writes code would have anything to do with the problems,


Now what do you say? Did i write about the quality of the code?
Or did i write about what edbarx said (the character of a person) ?
We will never know for sure. I usually write something different than what i want to say, so that anyone can rant about anything which comes to his mind.


Can you actually understand what you write?
You posted this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception

I read it, and noticed that it has no relevant whatsoever to the source code or its quality. So my question is/was: why did you post that link? what were you trying to say?

I am astonished there are people who can't see the relation between two posts. But that is not what i had in mind above
(If someone says: "perhaps some of you are astonished because i ...", and i say "i am not astonished", then you can assume that i speak about the same thing he spoke about).


OK. Whatever. I think Eliza could discuss things better than you.
reinob
 
Posts: 869
Joined: 2014-06-30 11:42

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

fashionable