systemd is destructive

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

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby debiman » 2016-09-29 17:40

oswaldkelso wrote:How to Crash Systemd in One Tweet
The following command, when run as any user, will crash systemd

hey, i finally succeeded in crashing it!
it must be flawed!

i think that "holds true" for any software, init- , operating system.
User avatar
debiman
 
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2013-03-12 07:18

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby edbarx » 2016-09-29 18:10

That command can easily be filtered off.
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: 5394
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby chrissywissy » 2016-10-01 07:29

The OP has effectively admitted that he is just having a rant, as he doesn't want to file a bug report for his particular problem.

I've been using Jessie on two machines at home since it went stable, and am completely happy with it. However, if others find implementation of systemd doesn't work for their usage case they have options.

Everyone likes progress, but few like change....
chrissywissy
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 2011-11-20 07:52

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby Danielsan » 2016-10-02 21:11

A bunch of folks forked Debian because systemd so eventually is not so unusual the fact that many people had, have or have been having issues with it.
User avatar
Danielsan
 
Posts: 483
Joined: 2010-10-10 22:36

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby M51 » 2016-10-07 00:19

chrissywissy wrote:The OP has effectively admitted that he is just having a rant, as he doesn't want to file a bug report for his particular problem.
...
Everyone likes progress, but few like change....


A rant? Somewhat, yes. systemd pissed me off because it continually f'ed up a system that was doing pretty much nothing except basic filesystem operations and by doing so risking the integrity of the data. But there was another purpose: To let those who may be on the fence about systemd know it has yet another problem.

You may ask: Why not file a bug? Some even have a silly tendency to discount my mention of an issue merely because I didn't file one.
I definitely could. Hell, I'm a developer and I could probably fix it myself. But...let me digress for a second...I'll come back to this.

Your last stement is a sweeping generalization I see a lot: That people who dislike systemd do so because they fear/dislike change (another is that they are old unix greybeards). There are some that may fit this stereotype, but the truth is that there are plenty of people (many developers) who dislike it because they see in it some of the worst traits of badly designed software. The links I've listed previously contain quite a number of well-thought out technical reasons for disliking systemd for those who care to read. I will not repeat them here.

So why not file a bug or fix it myself? Because (to me) it would be wasted effort. From personal experience, fixing bugs in badly designed software generally leads nowhere good...it's like standing on the deck of the Titanic and bailing with a bucket. Simply put: I have better things to do. I am not dependent on systemd in any way, so it doesn't matter to me if it is ever fixed and I'd rather see a better designed alternative get fixes instead.

debiman wrote:hey, i finally succeeded in crashing it!
it must be flawed!

i think that "holds true" for any software, init- , operating system.


Bugs are flaws...yes...and all complex software has them. However a lot of the dislike for systemd is not really about bugs. Bugs are just a symptom. The real problem is a flawed design. Despite some people claiming no evidence is ever given for this, there is plenty of information out there for those who look. I've linked to some of it.

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:As an aside, I really don't understand why those who claim that systemd violates the UNIX way then embrace sysvint happily, the latter transgresses the "do one thing well" rule in exactly the same way as is claimed for systemd :?


It's a matter of scale. systemd is far worse than sysvinit in terms of cyclomatic complexity, which can only be a bad thing for PID1. It also promotes creating crazy-ass dependencies in upstream projects: https://github.com/tmux/tmux/issues/428. But your reply brings up a great point: systemd proponents often paint everything in terms of the false dichotomy between systemd and sysvinit. There are alternatives, many of them better than either. To claim no one is making alternatives to systemd is a flat out lie that gets repeated quite often.

My advice would be for people to read both the pro and con information out there. If you have the background, read the source for systemd and a few of the alternatives. Actually try the alternatives. Decide for yourself and don't let fanbois or haterz make the decision for you.
M51
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 2013-05-13 01:38

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby bdtc1 » 2016-10-07 00:39

Regarding filing bugs, the systemd developers have a reputation for ignoring / discounting bug reports. And for not supporting things they don't use themselves.

And the systemd source code can make for some amusing / amazing reading. Even if you don't know how to program, go ahead and glance at some of the source code and look at the internal comments. The numerous "Fix Me" comments are especially interesting. There is some honest humor thrown in as well. I saw a place where they say something like "Huh? Freakout and continue." The code is right on the Debian website.

Really, not everyone wants to give total control of their machines to this software, for several very sensible reasons.
bdtc1
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 2015-01-22 09:00

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby dasein » 2016-10-07 00:48

M51 wrote:You may ask: Why not file a bug?

As many (including myself) will attest, filing a bug against systemd is mostly pointless. When one counts (much less examines) the bugs closed as WONTFIX or NOTABUG, it becomes clear that watching paint dry is a far more effective and efficient use of time.

(Sorry, but every time I hear someone say, "file a bug" or "just fork it" regarding systemd, I have to suppress an urge to do bodily harm.)
User avatar
dasein
 
Posts: 7775
Joined: 2011-03-04 01:06
Location: Terra Incantationum

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby edbarx » 2016-10-07 06:00

M51 wrote:The real problem is a flawed design. Despite some people claiming no evidence is ever given for this, there is plenty of information out there for those who look. I've linked to some of it.

Flooding people's minds with information certainly never helps. Can you in a few words summarise why systemd has a "flawed design"? A flawed design would be using cast iron for a rotating shaft that has to deliver a powerful torque.

Does anything of the sort exists with systemd? Is it because systemd runs as PID1 with many functions incorporated, that potentially can go wrong bringing down the entire system with them, as PID1's death would terminate the entire running process tree? Is it because systemd uses some extent of 'autonomous system management'?
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: 5394
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby M51 » 2016-10-07 15:29

edbarx wrote:Flooding people's minds with information certainly never helps.


I completely disagree. It's the one thing that does help.

"The highest ideal of a translation... is achieved when the reader flings it impatiently into the fire, and begins patiently to learn the language for himself."
-- Philip Vellacott
M51
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 2013-05-13 01:38

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby dasein » 2016-10-07 15:41

Love that quote. Stealing it.

The larger point is that a superficial "understanding" of a(ny) complex, multideterminate issue is indistinguishable from no understanding whatsoever.
User avatar
dasein
 
Posts: 7775
Joined: 2011-03-04 01:06
Location: Terra Incantationum

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby edbarx » 2016-10-07 18:02

dasein wrote:Love that quote. Stealing it.

The larger point is that a superficial "understanding" of a(ny) complex, multideterminate issue is indistinguishable from no understanding whatsoever.


Here is another one by Albert Einstein, love it.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Dasein, anyone who can explain a complex issue in simple terms cannot be said to have a superficial understanding. With a superficial understanding one speaks only non-sense.

So, we agree.
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: 5394
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby M51 » 2016-10-07 18:15

edbarx wrote:Here is another one by Albert Einstein, love it.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.


Paraphrasing Einstein: "“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

edbarx wrote:Dasein, anyone who can explain a complex issue in simple terms cannot be said to have a superficial understanding.


Sure they can, just listen to Donald Trump explain anything.

Reducing truly complex issues to soundbites makes for great arguments and flamewars, but does nothing to advance actual understanding.

As I said previously: "The links I've listed previously contain quite a number of well-thought out technical reasons for disliking systemd for those who care to read. I will not repeat them here."

What part of this didn't you understand? The material is already summarized. Go fish somewhere else.
M51
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 2013-05-13 01:38

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby edbarx » 2016-10-07 18:26

M51 wrote:Sure they can, just listen to Donald Trump explain anything.

Clearly, we are writing about different types of "explanations".
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: 5394
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby Head_on_a_Stick » 2016-10-08 09:41

M51 wrote:You may ask: Why not file a bug?

The point of my original post in this thread was *not* that this was a bug that needed reporting, it was that the behavior could be easily tuned to your preference.

In this specific case, it is interesting to note that the upstream release of systemd from freedesktop.org actually defaults to KillUserProcesses=yes but Debian reverses this.
E Pluribus Unix
User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: /dev/chair

Re: systemd is destructive

Postby M51 » 2016-10-08 14:27

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
M51 wrote:You may ask: Why not file a bug?

The point of my original post in this thread was *not* that this was a bug that needed reporting, it was that the behavior could be easily tuned to your preference.

In this specific case, it is interesting to note that the upstream release of systemd from freedesktop.org actually defaults to KillUserProcesses=yes but Debian reverses this.


If you read my reply, the part about filing a bug wasn't addressed to you.

I appreciated you were trying to help, but the KillUserProcesses setting is of no relevance to the problems systemd was causing, thus making your claims about the behavior being "easily tuned" pointless. It is a bug within systemd.
M51
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 2013-05-13 01:38

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

fashionable