hey, i finally succeeded in crashing it!oswaldkelso wrote:How to Crash Systemd in One Tweet
The following command, when run as any user, will crash systemd
it must be flawed!
i think that "holds true" for any software, init- , operating system.
hey, i finally succeeded in crashing it!oswaldkelso wrote:How to Crash Systemd in One Tweet
The following command, when run as any user, will crash systemd
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.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....
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.debiman wrote: hey, i finally succeeded in crashing it!
it must be flawed!
i think that "holds true" for any software, init- , operating system.
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.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
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.M51 wrote:You may ask: Why not file a bug?
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.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.
I completely disagree. It's the one thing that does help.edbarx wrote: Flooding people's minds with information certainly never helps.
Here is another one by Albert Einstein, love it.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.
Paraphrasing Einstein: "“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”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.
Sure they can, just listen to Donald Trump explain anything.edbarx wrote: Dasein, anyone who can explain a complex issue in simple terms cannot be said to have a superficial understanding.
Clearly, we are writing about different types of "explanations".M51 wrote:Sure they can, just listen to Donald Trump explain anything.
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.M51 wrote:You may ask: Why not file a bug?
If you read my reply, the part about filing a bug wasn't addressed to you.Head_on_a_Stick wrote: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.M51 wrote:You may ask: Why not file a bug?
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.
About what exactly? That systemd is crap? You would be absolutely right on that point, as I've looked at it in depth, long before this issue arose.debiman wrote:M51 has their mind set.
nothing anybody here says can change it even one iota.
suck it up.
Sadly, you will still hit your head against formidable walls attempting to author a private distribution. I assume you know systemd's API is used by many upstream packages. I know, as I actually contributed writing the simple-netaid* packages for Devuan.M51 wrote:Using Debian with sysvinit will hold me over nicely until I can get everything moved over to my private distro.
Would this call for a bug report with Debian itself? Would it be "release-critical"?M51 wrote: the entire root filesystem had been remounted read-only! Attempts to remount it read-write failed. Nothing relevant shows in the logs