Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

From the systemd source code

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!
Message
Author
spacex
Posts: 637
Joined: 2015-01-17 01:27

Re: From the systemd source code

#21 Post by spacex »

Well, nice to see that we are tolerant, open-minded people with no tunnel-vision at all. No matter what side we're coming from :lol:

To be serious, we should be able to strongly disagree with each other and still treat each other with some kind of dignity and respect. People disagreeing is actually what drives Linux forward. It's a good thing. Where everyone agrees, there's no one thinking at all. If everyone loved Systemd I would be just as worried as if everyone hated it, and that applies to everything.

But as I said before, there is a time and a place for everything. Fight the battles than can be won, and accept the ones that are lost. The odds of actually making a difference, is better that way. Just my 2 cents.

Randicus
Posts: 2663
Joined: 2011-05-08 09:11

Re: From the systemd source code

#22 Post by Randicus »

mor wrote:it seems to me you have laid out a set of rules/conditions in which you single out systemd as being "dangerous crap", yet if you set out to apply these rules on other important softwares you find it there too! It seems quite unfair to single out systemd if other basic building blocks mentioned also pass these conditions you set against systemd.
In the interest of playing Devil's advocate, it could be argued that it is appropriate to hold systemd to a higher degree of quality demand, because it integrates and controls everything else. If systemd malfunctions it could be catastrophic to the system, whereas if individual applications, even big ones, fail, the system will still be operational (at minimum with CLI) and the user has a chance of repairing/hacking faults. It could be argued that the importantance of quality control increases with the importance of the software.

somebodyelse
Posts: 231
Joined: 2015-05-24 17:15

Re: From the systemd source code

#23 Post by somebodyelse »

This is why it's important to log bugs in Debian. Let the project have visibility of whatever comes from testing. It's harder to argue against hard numbers.

somebodyelse
Posts: 231
Joined: 2015-05-24 17:15

Re: From the systemd source code

#24 Post by somebodyelse »

millpond wrote:This is a beast that must be killed in its infancy.
You cannot kill the work that someone else chooses to do. You can only do different work. This is the world of software freedom, not edicts from Redmond.

Randicus
Posts: 2663
Joined: 2011-05-08 09:11

Re: From the systemd source code

#25 Post by Randicus »

millpond wrote:This is a beast that must be killed in its infancy.
No. It is a beast that should have been killed in its infancy. It is far too late. It is now a fact of life in Linuxland.

User avatar
mor
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-08-28 15:16
Location: mor@debian

Re: From the systemd source code

#26 Post by mor »

Randicus wrote:In the interest of playing Devil's advocate, it could be argued that it is appropriate to hold systemd to a higher degree of quality demand, because it integrates and controls everything else. If systemd malfunctions it could be catastrophic to the system, whereas if individual applications, even big ones, fail, the system will still be operational (at minimum with CLI) and the user has a chance of repairing/hacking faults. It could be argued that the importantance of quality control increases with the importance of the software.
And this can be an appropriate and satisfying enough answer to the question NkfzGx3ok (not me, those you quoted in your posts are not my words ;) ) asked tomazzi.
When I asked him to reply to that, I didn't understand he was still answering to something that was said before, this is because the flow of the discussion suggested he was answering to the post from NkfzGx3ok right above (I explained this already).

Still, I figured tomazzi may have wanted to give his answer to that question.

Bye

Randicus
Posts: 2663
Joined: 2011-05-08 09:11

Re: From the systemd source code

#27 Post by Randicus »

mor wrote:And this can be an appropriate and satisfying enough answer to the question NkfzGx3ok (not me, those you quoted in your posts are not my words ;) ) asked tomazzi.
I was answering you. Hence why I chose to quote your emphasised statement. And I do not believe tomazzi addressed your concern.
Contrary to popular opinion, there is a method to my madness. :D

User avatar
mor
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-08-28 15:16
Location: mor@debian

Re: From the systemd source code

#28 Post by mor »

I understand, but that way it looks like those where my own words.
Regardless, I appreciate your effort.

Bye

User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: From the systemd source code

#29 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

Randicus wrote:
mor wrote:If systemd malfunctions it could be catastrophic to the system, whereas if individual applications, even big ones, fail, the system will still be operational (at minimum with CLI) and the user has a chance of repairing/hacking faults

Code: Select all

init=/bin/bash
;)
deadbang

User avatar
edbarx
Posts: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: From the systemd source code

#30 Post by edbarx »

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
Randicus wrote:
mor wrote:If systemd malfunctions it could be catastrophic to the system, whereas if individual applications, even big ones, fail, the system will still be operational (at minimum with CLI) and the user has a chance of repairing/hacking faults

Code: Select all

init=/bin/bash
;)
That way, is one way to change the root password without actually knowing the old password.

Run:

Code: Select all

passwd
There is no need to su, as booting Debian in this way, gives automatic root access. Please be also aware that a system booted in this way, does not behave properly as daemons will not be loaded. The same issue happens irrespective of whatever OS-initialiser is installed.
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: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: From the systemd source code

#31 Post by edbarx »

tomazzi wrote:Actually I've reported 3 key design bugs to systemd developers. (links can be found on this forums)

One of the key RedHat devs couldn't understand what the hell I was talking about - because He didn't even understand the manpage for kill(2) ... not even funny...
Lennart P. on the other hand, said that he would accept "a patch" which will fix the problem: systemd is not able to catch its own stack overflows (among other things) - but "The patch" would need to rewrite systemd core from scratch.
If I understand well, this post fragment by tomazzi confirms that Lennart Poettering himself was receptive to tomazzi's criticism of systemd.

For me, this is an opinion changer, while I still hold that systemd should be improved. I approve of all the efforts by tomazzi to put things right with systemd.
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
thanatos_incarnate
Posts: 717
Joined: 2012-11-04 20:36

Re: From the systemd source code

#32 Post by thanatos_incarnate »

Other software not being held up to a higher standard as systemd is no excuse for it to have sloppy programming. But xorg is being audited by several parties (xorg internal or external), it's just too old and too convoluted to be fixed. This is why people rather contribute to wayland. Should systemd become equally as convoluted and unmaintainable, it's hopefully going to be replaced by something better. So, let's fix the bugs while they are still small or, as tomazzi suggests, rewrite it, because it's probably going to be harder to rewrite it 5 years from now.

somebodyelse
Posts: 231
Joined: 2015-05-24 17:15

Re: From the systemd source code

#33 Post by somebodyelse »

^ Do it, man.

millpond
Posts: 698
Joined: 2014-06-25 04:56

Re: From the systemd source code

#34 Post by millpond »

thanatos_incarnate wrote:Other software not being held up to a higher standard as systemd is no excuse for it to have sloppy programming. But xorg is being audited by several parties (xorg internal or external), it's just too old and too convoluted to be fixed. This is why people rather contribute to wayland.
This deserves a topic of its own.

fogpipe
Posts: 37
Joined: 2015-09-18 21:53

Re: From the systemd source code

#35 Post by fogpipe »

bdtc1 wrote:Scanning comments from the Jessie version of a few random systemd files:



From mount.c:

Code: Select all

                /* FIXME: we need to do something here */
This has me wondering it this explians all the partition mix ups i have dealt with since i installed stretch recently. I have never before had to resort to UUIDs to mount drives.

Post Reply