Why systemd is the way forward: technical arguments

[reinob]

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? :)

[dilberts_left_nut]

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.

[schnuller]

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]

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

[reinob]

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]

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.

I was waiting for 215-6, which we now have. I think the issues I've mentioned are resolved now -- except for MTUBytes and bonding parameters -- but at least for the latter there was some discussion that this problem only occurs with bond0. If you ignore bond0 and tell systemd to configure bond1 then it works as designed.

Still, I'll look into this, but my time is limited (and posting a bug without details is not that helpful). AFAIK systemd-networkd is still pretty much experimental. It might even be never used/supported in debian -- as ifupdown still works fine and is actually still partially required in combination with wpa_supplicant. systemd-networkd is still very limited and intended for server/container use. That I use it on my laptop just happens to be because I find network-manager, wicd and, to some extent, ifupdown ugly hacks. But this is a topic for another thread :)

[edbarx]

One's character is a collection of various natural tendencies that affect anyone's life, including work. It is clear that I am not the only person living on Earth, who claims that one's character determines one's attitudes towards work, at least, this should result in some correleration rather than none.

According to some dictionaries, a character is defined as:

edbarx@sid-inst:~$ dict character
6 definitions found

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

Character \Char"ac*ter\, n. [L., an instrument for marking,
character, Gr. ?, fr. ? to make sharp, to cut into furrows,
to engrave: cf. F. caract[`e]re.]
[1913 Webster]
1. A distinctive mark; a letter, figure, or symbol.
[1913 Webster]

It were much to be wished that there were throughout
the world but one sort of character for each letter
to express it to the eye. --Holder.
[1913 Webster]

2. Style of writing or printing; handwriting; the peculiar
form of letters used by a particular person or people; as,
an inscription in the Runic character.
[1913 Webster]

You know the character to be your brother's? --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

3. The peculiar quality, or the sum of qualities, by which a
person or a thing is distinguished from others; the stamp
impressed by nature, education, or habit; that which a
person or thing really is; nature; disposition.
[1913 Webster]

The character or that dominion. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

Know well each Ancient's proper character;
His fable, subject, scope in every page;
Religion, Country, genius of his Age. --Pope.
[1913 Webster]

A man of . . . thoroughly subservient character.
--Motley.
[1913 Webster]

4. Strength of mind; resolution; independence; individuality;
as, he has a great deal of character.
[1913 Webster]

5. Moral quality; the principles and motives that control the
life; as, a man of character; his character saves him from
suspicion.
[1913 Webster]

6. Quality, position, rank, or capacity; quality or conduct
with respect to a certain office or duty; as, in the
miserable character of a slave; in his character as a
magistrate; her character as a daughter.
[1913 Webster]

7. The estimate, individual or general, put upon a person or
thing; reputation; as, a man's character for truth and
veracity; to give one a bad character.
[1913 Webster]

This subterraneous passage is much mended since
Seneca gave so bad a character of it. --Addison.
[1913 Webster]

8. A written statement as to behavior, competency, etc.,
given to a servant. [Colloq.]
[1913 Webster]

9. A unique or extraordinary individuality; a person
characterized by peculiar or notable traits; a person who
illustrates certain phases of character; as, Randolph was
a character; C[ae]sar is a great historical character.
[1913 Webster]

10. One of the persons of a drama or novel.
[1913 Webster]

Note: "It would be well if character and reputation were used
distinctively. In truth, character is what a person is;
reputation is what he is supposed to be. Character is
in himself, reputation is in the minds of others.
Character is injured by temptations, and by wrongdoing;
reputation by slanders, and libels. Character endures
throughout defamation in every form, but perishes when
there is a voluntary transgression; reputation may last
through numerous transgressions, but be destroyed by a
single, and even an unfounded, accusation or
aspersion." --Abbott.
[1913 Webster]

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

Character \Char"ac*ter\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Charactered}.]
[1913 Webster]
1. To engrave; to inscribe. [R.]
[1913 Webster]

These trees shall be my books.
And in their barks my thoughts I 'll character.
--Shak.
[1913 Webster]

2. To distinguish by particular marks or traits; to describe;
to characterize. [R.] --Mitford.
[1913 Webster]

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:

character
n 1: an imaginary person represented in a work of fiction (play
or film or story); "she is the main character in the novel"
[syn: {fictional character}, {fictitious character},
{character}]
2: a characteristic property that defines the apparent
individual nature of something; "each town has a quality all
its own"; "the radical character of our demands" [syn:
{quality}, {character}, {lineament}]
3: the inherent complex of attributes that determines a persons
moral and ethical actions and reactions; "education has for
its object the formation of character"- Herbert Spencer [syn:
{character}, {fiber}, {fibre}]
4: an actor's portrayal of someone in a play; "she played the
part of Desdemona" [syn: {character}, {role}, {theatrical
role}, {part}, {persona}]
5: a person of a specified kind (usually with many
eccentricities); "a real character"; "a strange character";
"a friendly eccentric"; "the capable type"; "a mental case"
[syn: {character}, {eccentric}, {type}, {case}]
6: good repute; "he is a man of character"
7: a formal recommendation by a former employer to a potential
future employer describing the person's qualifications and
dependability; "requests for character references are all too
often answered evasively" [syn: {character}, {reference},
{character reference}]
8: a written symbol that is used to represent speech; "the Greek
alphabet has 24 characters" [syn: {character}, {grapheme},
{graphic symbol}]
9: (genetics) an attribute (structural or functional) that is
determined by a gene or group of genes
v 1: engrave or inscribe characters on

I leave it to the readers whether one's character affects the quality of one's work. It is enough to download systemd's code to immediately realise its high quality. The most striking characteristics are the coding presentation (style) and how different source files are organised.

Since, style and source directory organisation do not affect the final compiled code, it means, Poettering et al, are paying extra attention for these 'unnecessary' characteristics. Therefore, it is more than justified to expect the coding quality to be of the same high standards. Furthermore, Poettering is not some amateur who codes for fun, but was competitively selected to code for Red Hat.

Now, I invite those who reject my claims to have a look at the code to start objectively criticising Poettering et al's work.

[golinux]

edbarx . . . you are giving me whiplash . . .

[tomazzi]

Now, I invite those who reject my claims to have a look at the code to start objectively criticising Poettering et al's work.

It would be easier to just rewrite systemd code rather than quoting hundreds of portions of its code and explaining or discussing what's wrong there...

However, let's try: (v217)

core/main.c.931:

Code: Select all

if (getpid() != 1)
   return -EINVAL;
else
   return 0;

... just joking, systemd curently can be run as not PID1, but with very limitted functionality.

Seriously:
core/main.c.222: ()

Code: Select all

static void install_crash_handler(void) {
        struct sigaction sa = {
                .sa_handler = crash,
                .sa_flags = SA_NODEFER,
        };

        sigaction_many(&sa, SIGNALS_CRASH_HANDLER, -1);
}

now:
shared/util.c.2121:

Code: Select all

int sigaction_many(const struct sigaction *sa, ...) {
        va_list ap;
        int r = 0, sig;

        va_start(ap, sa);
        while ((sig = va_arg(ap, int)) > 0)
                if (sigaction(sig, sa, NULL) < 0)
                        r = -errno;
        va_end(ap);

        return r;
}

shared/def.h.40:

Code: Select all

#define SIGNALS_CRASH_HANDLER SIGSEGV,SIGILL,SIGFPE,SIGBUS,SIGQUIT,SIGABRT

Amazing.
Only this one portion of code has at least few serious bugs and exposes bad programming practices:
1. Installing several signal handlers for crash handling without checking return value. (!)
2. Vararg functions are bad practice in general - most known example is the printf() family of functions, which has one huge vulnerability: variable number of arguments can crash the program due to stack overflow. Not only critical function (sigaction_many()) is of vararg type, but also the number of args is hidden behind a preprocesor symbol : SIGNALS_CRASH_HANDLER : bad practice
3. SA_NODEFER allows nesting of signals, and thus nesting of stack frames used by the handler. Since level of nesting is unpredictable, then without special protection and care this flag can cause stack overflow and crash.

It's impossible to list even those flaws and bugs which are visible even without launching the program...

Regards.

[edbarx]

To tomazzi:
Notwithstanding your analysis weakens my argument, it is the type of critical analysis that we need here, to discuss systemd in an educated and unbiased manner.

Thanks a lot and well done. I hope, other developers on both sides of the systemd issue follow your example to critically evaluate systemd's code from a coder's perspective.

You have set a good example worthy of imitation.

[mor]

Exactly, well said Ed.

[schnuller]

You don't think the packager has already checked that ? (let me add: as he should).

iow. I assume it is of sufficient code quality to be distributed by debian.

I mean: just check it. No one can hinder you. But in that case you have lost the trust you should have got. Because there is more than just one package to be found in Debian. And they really should be checked *before* they enter the debian repositories at all (which, like said, i assume has happened).

[schnuller]

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/deve ... anitycheck

Install the package and make sure the software works

and
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/deve ... ner-duties

As a package maintainer, you're supposed to provide high-quality packages

There might well be more to be found, but it seemed like the general spirit to me (while i never cared to search where exactly such is stated).
Or can someone provide something where it is said " As long it is open-source, we don't care. Let's package and distribute it, no matter if it is crap or not. Let the users check what might be wrong with a package" ? It would sound like a very weird approach, at least to me.

[NkfzGx3ok]

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/deve ... anitycheck

Install the package and make sure the software works

and
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/deve ... ner-duties

As a package maintainer, you're supposed to provide high-quality packages

There might well be more to be found, but it seemed like the general spirit to me (while i never cared to search where exactly such is stated).
Or can someone provide something where it is said " As long it is open-source, we don't care. Let's package and distribute it, no matter if it is crap or not. Let the users check what might be wrong with a package" ? It would sound like a very weird approach, at least to me.

If you're argument here is that anything with some bad coding practices should be thrown out because it's not high quality (or in your words: crap) then you may as well kiss goodbye to 95% of every piece of FOSS software that exists or ever has.
What would be interesting to see, is for tomazzi to post to the systemd mailing list bringing up his few findings in a polite/sociable/professional manner and see what responses he gets.

[schnuller]

I didn't argue that anything should be thrown out,
but that it already is tested sufficiently.

Posting such to systemd mailing lists might be an idea,
but i sure got no idea why i should trust the users of a forum more than debian-devlopers (or maintainers).

you're argument

Say what?

[NkfzGx3ok]

Apologies, I think my brain got mixed between asking "If your argument is..." and "if you're arguing that..." - almost 15 years I live in England and I can still make simple mistakes from trying to create sentences

[tomazzi]

I'm staring to feel like I'm wasting my time here...
This is supposed to be a 'techical' thread...

You don't think the packager has already checked that ? (let me add: as he should).
iow. I assume it is of sufficient code quality to be distributed by debian.
I mean: just check it. No one can hinder you.

Reading with understanding appears to be a really a hard task for some people... - NO, maintainer is NOT resposible of what code is included...

If you're argument here is that anything with some bad coding practices should be thrown out because it's not high quality (or in your words: crap) then you may as well kiss goodbye to 95% of every piece of FOSS software that exists or ever has.

Not true at all: 95% of the Free Software is maybe not perfect, but it holds and follows Unix principle of "doing one thing well"

And unless You're going to provide examples or proves, please just dont waste servers' memory. Im criticising systemd in this TECHNICAL thread because I have a reason AND I can prove my claims - If You have something interresting to say on this matter, then feel free to express Yourself....

No offense. Regards.

[schnuller]

I'm staring to feel like I'm wasting my time here...
This is supposed to be a 'techical' thread...

You don't think the packager has already checked that ? (let me add: as he should).
iow. I assume it is of sufficient code quality to be distributed by debian.
I mean: just check it. No one can hinder you.

Reading with understanding appears to be a really a hard task for some people... - NO, maintainer is NOT resposible of what code is included...
.

If you say "Reading", then it must be written somewhere.
Where?

Of course the maintainer is supposed to know the software he packages and make sure it doesn't do harm.

[Bulkley]

One thing I notice on my Jessie desktop is that it is managing CPU usage better than Wheezy did. This is an older machine (Athlon processor). Wheezy kept CPU usage close to max most of the time. With Jessie, it is rarely over half. I can only assume that systemd is responsible.

[schnuller]

I can only assume that systemd is responsible.

You could also assume it has something to do with a newer (different) kernel. Or both. Or something different.
But, truth to be told, as long it works i don't care much why (or works better, in this case). You could install sysv, use that, and check it, in case you are different than i am.

For what it's worth: My CPU usage is less than 10% (with openrc. But as long i don't run VirtualBox it seemed to always be like that, hence with sysv and systemd too). model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU P6100 @ 2.00GHz