Mailing List Archive

Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want
> your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it.
>
> iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big
> Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd.
> The gist of it can be resumed in two lines:
>
> "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and
> laptop both run it."
>
> I post it here because several times in the last discussions about
> systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd.
> I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in
> this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will
> continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do
> so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really*
> like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits:
>
> • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days
> more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the
> situation."
>
> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
> reality."
>
> • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy."
>
> • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text,
> not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the
> best of taste, but hey, details..[.]"
>
> • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are
> digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of
> software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either."
>
> • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed
> painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like
> they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody
> feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues
> that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to
> actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise
> that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same
> kind of mouth-time."
>
> It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.
>
> [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd

thanks for the pointer ;-)

S

Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want
> your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it.
>
> iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big
> Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd.
> The gist of it can be resumed in two lines:
>
> "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and
> laptop both run it."
>
> I post it here because several times in the last discussions about
> systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd.
> I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in
> this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will
> continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do
> so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really*
> like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits:
>
> • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days
> more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the
> situation."
>
> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
> reality."
>
> • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy."
>
> • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text,
> not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the
> best of taste, but hey, details..[.]"
>
> • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are
> digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of
> software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either."
>
> • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed
> painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like
> they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody
> feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues
> that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to
> actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise
> that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same
> kind of mouth-time."
>
> It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.
>
> [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd

Now you use this to advertise for systemd?

Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.

On 09/17/14 20:36, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.
>>
>> [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd
>
>Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>
>Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.

I'll second it.
I tried systemd and did not like it at all.

--
Joseph

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>
> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.

So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
happily.

So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.

Thanks for the laugh.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>
>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
> happily.
>
> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>
> Thanks for the laugh.
>
> Regards.

you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.

Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.

And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
it. Because history loves repetition.

Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko <at> gmail.com> writes:


> This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want
> your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it.

I think this is very much "on Topic".

> iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big
> Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd.
> The gist of it can be resumed in two lines:

> "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and
> laptop both run it."

Here I diagree. I think Linux's position is, hey it's a BIG tent;
can't we call get along? Kum_by_yah oh lord, Kum_by_yall......

Linus admits he rarely codes and does not have the skills he use to...

> I post it here because several times in the last discussions about
> systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd.
> I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in
> this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will
> continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do
> so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really*
> like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits:
>
> • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days
> more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the
> situation."
>
> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
> reality."
>
> • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy."
>
> • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text,
> not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the
> best of taste, but hey, details..[.]"
>
> • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are
> digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of
> software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either."

Really? This is idiotic. Anything that breaks down a "fault tolerant"
system, has to be removed, or the system is no long "fault tolerant"
(pist, it a mathematical thing, no a linux/unix concept. Linus
sounds like an *idiot* here. It's not the first time, nor could anyone
in his shoes not sound like an idiot on something as fundamental as
what cgroups hopes to eventually accomplish. By the way, just for the
record, I like the "theory" behind systemd. It's going to take SYSTEMD
A LONG TIME to MATURE and become ROBUST.

cgroups are mature, flexible, robust, well-understood and this is
absolutely no reason in hell that folks should ever be force to pick
one of the other. If/when "linx" make that decision, it will be just
as catastropic as the day Sun Microsystem consolidated ownership
of most unix source licenses in a effort (conspiracy) that SCO
unix tried to finish by kill the BSD efforts. That was when most
folks on the internet migrated to Linux. I think Linux is trying
to prevent another (reverse) watershed moment.

If folks have the choice, then they will stay with Linux. If forced
many will leave. The entire affair is AVOIDABLE. systemd, in all
it's glory should never force anyone to choose. Choice is the greatest
asset of all open source. Many would say, it is the only asset of
the open source movement.


> • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed
> painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like
> they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody
> feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues
> that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to
> actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise
> that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same
> kind of mouth-time."

Retarded comparision of vi vs emac and antoher application. systemd
vs the traditional cgroups is an the lowest level of the kernel.
Think aobut it by going to 'make menuconfig' in your local source dir.
Look at the myriad of low level choices we have. Why the hell is
systemd so special that it cannot stand up to other solutions and
competition?


> It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.

I agree. He sound more idiodic than Obama and his "red line". We
all know how that turned out.

CHOICE is EVERYTHING!

My decision to run a lightweight desktop (lxde, lxqt) and have
a mesos/spark cluser across several machines is my choice.
Others like KDE becoming the cluster. CHOICE. Exclude cgroups
and it will split the community, imho. That said, we all already
split across windows, mac, androi, linux, bsd, etc etc so
it really does not matter at all, imho.

But comparing fights over editors and applications to fundamentally
preventing cgroups, is beyond idiotic, it imbicilic, imho.


Please dont get me wrong, I look very forward to systemd, when I
choose to test/use it. I totally reject the idea of being
force to use systemd; and for sure, systemd is quite whimiscal on
many current issues, if you believe what you read. I file bug 517428
on Ftrace. I requested something that is not easy.
Ftrace/trace-cmd/kernelshark. Why? Because this is the exact sort of tool
combination
that will explicitly allow one to collect data on performance and reliabling
of systemd vs cgroups situations. When we get this (these) ebuilds
we will all be able to test identical system, except for systemd vs cgroups.

NOBODY is talking about the performance penaly for systemd, because
the tools for such measurements, are not being put out to the user
communities, imho. Please if I wrong, point me to the fair studies
where systemd outperforms a well tuned cgroup system? Please point
me to the tools so I can take 2 identical system, except for systemd
and cgroups and compare with a wide variety of tests? Published data?

Linus should make a clear, leadership statement that there will
always be a path for folks to use another mechanism besides systemd
in the linux kernel; This does not have to be a systemd vs cgroups
discussion, but it being presented this way. A clear statement
of multiplicity will put this issue to rest once and for all. By not stating
clearly was is obvious, many technically astute folks are looking for
options. Surely a fork is emminent and it will most likely be
the best thing to happen to linux, as the entire kernel development
process has become tainted by those with billions of dollars.

Linus is a wussy, at best!

> [1]
http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd


hth,
Jaems

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>>
>>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
>> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
>> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
>> happily.
>>
>> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>>
>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>
>> Regards.
>
> you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
> is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.
>
> Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.
>
> And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
> it. Because history loves repetition.

Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability
of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not
happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it.

What are you willing to bet?

Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:28 PM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Linus should make a clear, leadership statement that there will
> always be a path for folks to use another mechanism besides systemd
> in the linux kernel; This does not have to be a systemd vs cgroups
> discussion, but it being presented this way. A clear statement
> of multiplicity will put this issue to rest once and for all. By not stating
> clearly was is obvious, many technically astute folks are looking for
> options. Surely a fork is emminent and it will most likely be
> the best thing to happen to linux, as the entire kernel development
> process has become tainted by those with billions of dollars.

Uh, the only thing the Linux kernel does is spawn a single process as
PID 1 and offer a VERY STABLE system call interface for that and
future processes to make requests. Nobody is going to break sysvinit
if that happens to be the thing you tell Linux to execute as PID 1.

Whether anybody else actually supports sysvinit is a different matter.
I'm sure it will be around in Gentoo for a long time, and those with
official Gentoo support contracts will get the same care they are used
to. :)

--
Rich

Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>>>
>>>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>>> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
>>> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
>>> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
>>> happily.
>>>
>>> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>> you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
>> is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.
>>
>> Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.
>>
>> And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
>> it. Because history loves repetition.
> Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability
> of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not
> happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it.
>
> What are you willing to bet?
>
> Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy.
>
> Regards.

I am not betting anything.

But I want you to think about something:

devfs was the best thing since sliced bread.
As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced.

hal was the best thing since sliced bread.
As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned.

*kit?
The same.

On Sep 18, 2014 2:37 AM, "Volker Armin Hemmann" <volkerarmin@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>
> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> > This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want
> > your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it.
> >
> > iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big
> > Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd.
> > The gist of it can be resumed in two lines:
> >
> > "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and
> > laptop both run it."
> >
> > I post it here because several times in the last discussions about
> > systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd.
> > I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in
> > this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will
> > continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do
> > so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really*
> > like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits:
> >
> > • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days
> > more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the
> > situation."
> >
> > • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
> > thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
> > pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
> > it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
> > applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
> > a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
> > think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
> > reality."
> >
> > • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy."
> >
> > • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text,
> > not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the
> > best of taste, but hey, details..[.]"
> >
> > • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are
> > digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of
> > software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either."
> >
> > • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed
> > painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like
> > they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody
> > feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues
> > that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to
> > actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise
> > that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same
> > kind of mouth-time."
> >
> > It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.
> >
> > [1]
http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd
>
> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>
> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>

Oh give it a rest volker. its been obvious for years on this list that when
it really came down to it, many systemd "critics" (and i airquote that
because the amount of critical thinking is imaginary) were almost entirely
devoid of technical arguments when or even background knowledge, to the
point of embarassing themselves on the amount of "unix" knowledge they
purport to know.

theres been a terrible history of being blatantly ignorant about what a
software does and yet running the mouth about why its wrong, as if you had
a better idea on how to coordinate hundreds of disparate develeoper
projects on how to run their own ships. blatantly refusing to give a crap
what an "init thingy" is, or showing a hilarious understanding of what fhs
is supposed to do or solve, to downright manufacturing what the /usr split
was supposed to be about, or denying that boot up race conditions were a
thing... the list goes on and it only betrays the haters' biases.

fact of the matter is running to Linus' latest flame on udev or systemd or
fhs etc has been a standard go-to for haters t bring up for years past...
and now that Linus is like "well its okay blablabla" now the systemd peeps
are desperate?

no, you are. go read yourself some fucking man pages, maybe youll learn a
little unix.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>>>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>>>>
>>>>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>>>> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
>>>> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
>>>> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
>>>> happily.
>>>>
>>>> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>> you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
>>> is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.
>>>
>>> Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.
>>>
>>> And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
>>> it. Because history loves repetition.
>> Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability
>> of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not
>> happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it.
>>
>> What are you willing to bet?
>>
>> Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy.
>>
>> Regards.
>
> I am not betting anything.

I figured it.

> But I want you to think about something:
>
> devfs was the best thing since sliced bread.
> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced.
>
> hal was the best thing since sliced bread.
> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned.
>
> *kit?
> The same.

Yeah. So it happened with XFree86, aRts, esd, gnome-vfs, DCOP,
sendmail, and it will happen again with dbus (I'm willing to bet it
will be replaced, at least in Linux, with kdbus). And, BTW, it's
happening with SysV being replaced in Linux with systemd.

It happens all the time. It's a good thing. And it happened for *VERY*
different reasons in each case. Also, the transition has been
sometimes somewhat difficult (HAL comes to mind), but most of the
times really easy: we used devfs when I switched to Gentoo more than
10 years ago, and I don't remember being difficult the switch to udev.
XFree86 => X.org was also basically trivial.

Of course systemd can be replaced; if something cooler gets written,
we'll switch to it. But given the team behind systemd, and the design
it has, it's gonna be very difficult.

Using Linus words, you are making excuses. You can compare systemd to
HAL, but doing so only shows that you don't know the code, the design,
and the history behind both projects.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Rich Freeman <rich0 <at> gentoo.org> writes:


> Uh, the only thing the Linux kernel does is spawn a single process as
> PID 1 and offer a VERY STABLE system call interface for that and
> future processes to make requests. Nobody is going to break sysvinit
> if that happens to be the thing you tell Linux to execute as PID 1.

OK, where are your performance studies on how wonderful systemd is?
Simple (2) identical system except for systemd only on one. Run a
wide variety of tests, publish the data.

Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?



> Whether anybody else actually supports sysvinit is a different matter.
> I'm sure it will be around in Gentoo for a long time, and those with
> official Gentoo support contracts will get the same care they are used
> to. :)

I'm not sure if this is a threat, a promise or are you just trash talkin
with me now?

Besides, there is another thing you are not considering. The world of
embedded linux >> user linux. So, the embedded designers are all
wonderfully in line with systemd? Have you been to any of those
forums? They live by cgroups, because a few folks showed them how
to minimize embedded systems with age old state diagrams. Have you
offered them the systemd or highway plan yet?


It's not me, Rich, it lots of other technically astute folks that
are not happy. I just want choice. I hope systemd is wildly successful,
but I'm old school, so you and others are going to have to "show me".



James

On Wednesday 17 Sep 2014 22:03:14 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Yeah. So it happened with XFree86, aRts, esd, gnome-vfs, DCOP,
> sendmail,

Aheam! Excuse me, but there's nothing wrong with sendmail! :-p

--
Regards,
Mick

On Sep 18, 2014 5:19 AM, "James" <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman <rich0 <at> gentoo.org> writes:
>
>
> > Uh, the only thing the Linux kernel does is spawn a single process as
> > PID 1 and offer a VERY STABLE system call interface for that and
> > future processes to make requests. Nobody is going to break sysvinit
> > if that happens to be the thing you tell Linux to execute as PID 1.
>
> OK, where are your performance studies on how wonderful systemd is?
> Simple (2) identical system except for systemd only on one. Run a
> wide variety of tests, publish the data.
>
> Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?
>

The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of work on
publicly available data is

"do it yourself, youre not paying my bills you entitled ____".
(paraphrased from "code talks")

>
>
> > Whether anybody else actually supports sysvinit is a different matter.
> > I'm sure it will be around in Gentoo for a long time, and those with
> > official Gentoo support contracts will get the same care they are used
> > to. :)
>
> I'm not sure if this is a threat, a promise or are you just trash talkin
> with me now?
>
> Besides, there is another thing you are not considering. The world of
> embedded linux >> user linux. So, the embedded designers are all
> wonderfully in line with systemd? Have you been to any of those
> forums? They live by cgroups, because a few folks showed them how
> to minimize embedded systems with age old state diagrams. Have you
> offered them the systemd or highway plan yet?

last i checked, systemd uses cgroups - its a central part of the service
management bits. so what the frack are you on about?

>
> It's not me, Rich, it lots of other technically astute folks that
> are not happy. I just want choice. I hope systemd is wildly successful,
> but I'm old school, so you and others are going to have to "show me".
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
>

Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:


> > Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?
> The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of
> work on publicly available data is

I'm sorry, I must have missed your link to the published data?
Sure it exist and I have just missed it?


James

On Sep 18, 2014 5:36 AM, "James" <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> > > Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?
> > The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of
> > work on publicly available data is
>
> I'm sorry, I must have missed your link to the published data?
> Sure it exist and I have just missed it?
>
>

Make it yourself you entitled dickwad. this is what you get for being
polite to idiots.

Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:


> > Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?

> The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of
> work on publicly available data

Ah, here is some of the tesing you are referring to?

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-March/017570.html

Surely there is more? Please explian your position
with published data and comments, as I am listening to you!

comparitivly,
James

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:46 AM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> > > Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?
>
> > The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of
> > work on publicly available data
>
> Ah, here is some of the tesing you are referring to?
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-March/017570.html
>
> Surely there is more? Please explian your position
> with published data and comments, as I am listening to you!
>

My position is that you're an idiot and a troll.

The code is out there. Freely available. Both systemd and sysvinit. If you
wanted to measure both, you could, literally, in the time it took since you
first posted in this thread till now you could have measured several times
and left mean comments about whichever system you hated the most.

You're the only one in this thread that's imposing on everyone to produce
anything. You're the only one in this thread that SHOULD be producing
anything. That's how open source works and that's how it's supposed to
work. We're not your unpaid researchers.

--
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none

Am 17.09.2014 um 23:03 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>>>>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>>>>> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
>>>>> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
>>>>> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
>>>>> happily.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>> you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
>>>> is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.
>>>>
>>>> Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.
>>>>
>>>> And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
>>>> it. Because history loves repetition.
>>> Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability
>>> of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not
>>> happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it.
>>>
>>> What are you willing to bet?
>>>
>>> Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>> I am not betting anything.
> I figured it.
>
>> But I want you to think about something:
>>
>> devfs was the best thing since sliced bread.
>> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced.
>>
>> hal was the best thing since sliced bread.
>> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned.
>>
>> *kit?
>> The same.
> Yeah. So it happened with XFree86, aRts, esd, gnome-vfs, DCOP,
> sendmail, and it will happen again with dbus (I'm willing to bet it
> will be replaced, at least in Linux, with kdbus). And, BTW, it's
> happening with SysV being replaced in Linux with systemd.
>
> It happens all the time. It's a good thing. And it happened for *VERY*
> different reasons in each case. Also, the transition has been
> sometimes somewhat difficult (HAL comes to mind), but most of the
> times really easy: we used devfs when I switched to Gentoo more than
> 10 years ago, and I don't remember being difficult the switch to udev.
> XFree86 => X.org was also basically trivial.
>
> Of course systemd can be replaced; if something cooler gets written,
> we'll switch to it. But given the team behind systemd, and the design
> it has, it's gonna be very difficult.
>
> Using Linus words, you are making excuses. You can compare systemd to
> HAL, but doing so only shows that you don't know the code, the design,
> and the history behind both projects.
>
> Regards.

there was no breakage with xfree-to-xorg. True. But hal, yes. No upower
breakage. *kit breakage. The list is too long to ignore.

Arts was not something whole systems depended upon. And whatever
gnome-thingy you depend upon, you are fucked, because those guys are
infected with the same mindset. As soon as the bugs are ironed out and
everybody is using it: abandom it for something else.

That has nothing to do with 'improvement', or 'development' it is just
stupid.

AFAIR dcop was replaced, because of the freedesktop-gnome guys. Not
because anything was wrong with it. And look where it got us. No
improvement at all.

Am 17.09.2014 um 22:58 schrieb Mark David Dumlao:
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2014 2:37 AM, "Volker Armin Hemmann"
> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com <mailto:volkerarmin@googlemail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> > > This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want
> > > your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it.
> > >
> > > iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big
> > > Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd.
> > > The gist of it can be resumed in two lines:
> > >
> > > "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and
> > > laptop both run it."
> > >
> > > I post it here because several times in the last discussions about
> > > systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd.
> > > I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in
> > > this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will
> > > continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do
> > > so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really*
> > > like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits:
> > >
> > > • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days
> > > more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the
> > > situation."
> > >
> > > • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
> > > thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
> > > pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
> > > it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
> > > applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
> > > a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
> > > think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
> > > reality."
> > >
> > > • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX
> legacy."
> > >
> > > • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text,
> > > not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the
> > > best of taste, but hey, details..[.]"
> > >
> > > • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are
> > > digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of
> > > software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either."
> > >
> > > • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed
> > > painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like
> > > they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody
> > > feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues
> > > that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to
> > > actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise
> > > that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same
> > > kind of mouth-time."
> > >
> > > It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.
> > >
> > > [1]
> http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd
> >
> > Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
> >
> > Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
> >
>
> Oh give it a rest volker. its been obvious for years on this list that
> when it really came down to it, many systemd "critics" (and i airquote
> that because the amount of critical thinking is imaginary) were almost
> entirely devoid of technical arguments when or even background
> knowledge, to the point of embarassing themselves on the amount of
> "unix" knowledge they purport to know.
>
> theres been a terrible history of being blatantly ignorant about what
> a software does and yet running the mouth about why its wrong, as if
> you had a better idea on how to coordinate hundreds of disparate
> develeoper projects on how to run their own ships. blatantly refusing
> to give a crap what an "init thingy" is, or showing a hilarious
> understanding of what fhs is supposed to do or solve, to downright
> manufacturing what the /usr split was supposed to be about, or denying
> that boot up race conditions were a thing... the list goes on and it
> only betrays the haters' biases.
>
> fact of the matter is running to Linus' latest flame on udev or
> systemd or fhs etc has been a standard go-to for haters t bring up for
> years past... and now that Linus is like "well its okay blablabla" now
> the systemd peeps are desperate?
>
> no, you are. go read yourself some fucking man pages, maybe youll
> learn a little unix.
>

oh give it a rest Mark. Its been obvious for years on this list that
systemd fanbois are constantly advocating their crap. From 'it boots so
much faster' to 'Linus does not hate it'.

Do we really have to endure it?

With all the fuckups that had happened in the past and the systemd-devs
were unable to admit?

Seriously, keep the kindergarten away, ok? There are enough mailing
lists where you can pat each others back and tell yourselves how great
systemd is. You don't need to advertise it EVERYWHERE.

Am 17.09.2014 um 23:42 schrieb Mark David Dumlao:
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2014 5:36 AM, "James" <wireless@tampabay.rr.com
> <mailto:wireless@tampabay.rr.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com <http://gmail.com>> writes:
> >
> >
> > > > Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?
> > > The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of
> > > work on publicly available data is
> >
> > I'm sorry, I must have missed your link to the published data?
> > Sure it exist and I have just missed it?
> >
> >
>
> Make it yourself you entitled dickwad. this is what you get for being
> polite to idiots.
>

well, you claim there is data. So provide at least a set of search terms
to find it.

Also some comparism of code size systemd vs init+ lets say metalog.

Also, some explanation why it is a good idea to read the kernel command
line and reuse commands from there. Like 'debug'.

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann <
volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Am 17.09.2014 um 23:42 schrieb Mark David Dumlao:
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2014 5:36 AM, "James" <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > > > Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?
> > > The classic open source answer to being told to do a lot of
> > > work on publicly available data is
> >
> > I'm sorry, I must have missed your link to the published data?
> > Sure it exist and I have just missed it?
> >
> >
>
> Make it yourself you entitled dickwad. this is what you get for being
> polite to idiots.
>
>
> well, you claim there is data. So provide at least a set of search terms
> to find it.
>
>
There is the code and his system, and it's all the data he needs.


> Also some comparism of code size systemd vs init+ lets say metalog.
>
> Also, some explanation why it is a good idea to read the kernel command
> line and reuse commands from there. Like 'debug'.
>

You're just as bad as him. No seriously, people like to talk about how high
the signal to noise ratio of the gentoo mailing list is, and it would be
much higher if not for trolls like you putting in so much noise and
distraction. Canek has been patient as all heck for so many years now, even
down to the point of manning up and providing public ebuilds for systemd
integration, even an overlay that allowed sysvinit and systemd to integrate
better, while you naysayers whine more and more about how he practically
doesn't cook breakfast for you. Separating init functions from openrc?
Canek's helped a big deal with that. It's a disgrace and you really ought
to be ashamed of yourself for harassing someone who _actually provided
code_ while you just piled more and more bullshit on his plate.

And now here he is again, being patient to a fault, pointing out that one
of the excuses we've seen again, and again, and again, and again hoisted on
him - that Linus doesn't like something therefore its bad - is actually
false, again providing sources to back up what he's saying while you piddle
your Unix plattitudes, and now what? Harass him to do even more unpaid
research again?

I hate to see people abused like this. He won't swear so I'm going to do it
for him since I've gotten sick of this circle-jerking mailing list.

Stop being a jerk and acting like it's cool.

He wants data? It's not hard to produce it. Install systemd and sysvinit
side by side (something Canek helped become possible), boot once to openrc
and boot another to systemd. If there's no difference, YOU publish it and
be open to public scrutiny, not him.
--
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none

Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:


perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?


> > work on publicly available data

> > Ah, here is some of the tesing you are referring
to?http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-March/017570.html

> My position is that you're an idiot and a troll.
>
> The code is out there. Freely available. Both systemd and sysvinit. If
> you wanted to measure both, you could, literally, in the time it
> took since you first posted in this thread till now you could
> have measured several times and left mean comments about whichever
> system you hated the most.

This like compares kdbus to a test code ibench. It already done.
Since you are so wise and I so, well limited, why don't you
explain how the upcoming kdbus is giong to be faster?

Speed in the kernel is important?


> You're the only one in this thread that's imposing on everyone
> to produce anything. You're the only one in this thread that
> SHOULD be producing anything. That's how open source works and
> that's how it's supposed to work. We're not your unpaid researchers.

I'm sorry, Volker pointed out that the pro systemd folks came to
gentoo-user, waiving linux's dirty panties around. We ask a few
simple questions, now you result to name calling?

Benchmarking lowlevel effects in the kernel is not new. Important
changes are frequently marketed to the rest of the technical user
community, by " gee guys look how fast kdbus is going to be"

So, take your panties off, and show us just how fast you are?
systemd + kdbus?


Other *udev projects you would recommend?
I accept your sceptre, but you must illuminate things a bit.


<hugs and kisses?>
James

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:18 PM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Rich Freeman <rich0 <at> gentoo.org> writes:
>>On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:28 PM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Linus should make a clear, leadership statement that there will
>>> always be a path for folks to use another mechanism besides systemd
>>> in the linux kernel; This does not have to be a systemd vs cgroups
>>> discussion, but it being presented this way. A clear statement of
>>> multiplicity will put this issue to rest once and for all. By not
>>> stating clearly was is obvious, many technically astute folks are
>>> looking for options. Surely a fork is emminent and it will most
>>> likely be the best thing to happen to linux, as the entire kernel
>>> development process has become tainted by those with billions of
>>> dollars.
>
>> Uh, the only thing the Linux kernel does is spawn a single process as
>> PID 1 and offer a VERY STABLE system call interface for that and
>> future processes to make requests. Nobody is going to break sysvinit
>> if that happens to be the thing you tell Linux to execute as PID 1.
>
> OK, where are your performance studies on how wonderful systemd is?
> Simple (2) identical system except for systemd only on one. Run a
> wide variety of tests, publish the data.
>
> Publish perfomanced metrics; Choice; Unreasonable?

What does your reply have to do with my email? You asked for a clear
statement from Linus that there will always be a way to boot linux
without systemd. I simply stated that this was nonsensical, because
there is nothing specific to any init implementation in linux. Linux
is a kernel, and it launches exactly one process. All the stuff
you're arguing about happens in userspace. Sure, sooner or later
kdbus is likely to be added to the kernel, but just like dbus nobody
has to use it, and I'm sure like anything else in the kernel you won't
have to build it if you don't want it.

I really could care less about impressing you with systemd metrics.
If you want to believe that it has no value, fine.

>
>> Whether anybody else actually supports sysvinit is a different matter.
>> I'm sure it will be around in Gentoo for a long time, and those with
>> official Gentoo support contracts will get the same care they are used
>> to. :)
>
> I'm not sure if this is a threat, a promise or are you just trash talkin
> with me now?

Hint, the ":)" means that I'm joking. My point is that nothing is
going to break sysvinit, but that doesn't mean that somebody is going
to build a fancy Linux system for you based on it. The fact is that
nobody is paying a dime to use Gentoo linux, and whether sysvinit is
or isn't supported, in practice the amount of guaranteed support
you're going to get for it either way is zero.

Nobody is threatening to kill your kitten. Nobody is offering to feed
it forever, either. There are plenty of Gentoo devs who prefer
sysvinit, so I doubt it will go away anytime soon. Gentoo is about
choice. But, over the years there have also been plenty of choices
that went away. If you REALLY care about sysvinit then you should
consider contributing more than emails.

>
> Besides, there is another thing you are not considering. The world of
> embedded linux >> user linux. So, the embedded designers are all
> wonderfully in line with systemd? Have you been to any of those
> forums? They live by cgroups, because a few folks showed them how
> to minimize embedded systems with age old state diagrams. Have you
> offered them the systemd or highway plan yet?

So, the only widespread consumer devices that I'm aware of that run
Gentoo derivatives run neither sysvinit nor systemd - they run
upstart, despite upstart not even being in the portage tree, or a
single upstart configuration script. Heck, they probably sell more
devices running upstart than there are devices running Ubuntu.

Sure, that isn't really what I'd call embedded, but my point is that
people doing embedded work are going to tailor whatever they have to
in order to get the results they want. I wouldn't be surprised if
many of embedded devices don't even run sysvinit. Gentoo is a great
starting point for an embedded system precisely because it is so
adaptable, but we don't have any configurations that I'd really call
"plug and play" for the embedded world, nor do I think such a
one-size-fits-all configuration is even possible when you're concerned
about every byte of RAM or milliwatt of power.

> It's not me, Rich, it lots of other technically astute folks that
> are not happy. I just want choice.

Sure, and I'd like a pony. The fact is that on Gentoo you have
choice. You may or may not have it forever, but nobody is paying for
Gentoo so nobody can count on ANYTHING in Gentoo being around forever.
You'll have it as long as somebody cares to support it. We allow
proxy maintainers - that somebody could even be you.

Nobody owes anybody a roadmap for a community-based distro. If you
want somebody to "owe" you something then use a distro that is
commercially supported. Of course, if your goal is to avoid using
systemd, good luck with that. :)

--
Rich

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:11 AM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > You're the only one in this thread that's imposing on everyone
> > to produce anything. You're the only one in this thread that
> > SHOULD be producing anything. That's how open source works and
> > that's how it's supposed to work. We're not your unpaid researchers.
>
> I'm sorry, Volker pointed out that the pro systemd folks came to
> gentoo-user, waiving linux's dirty panties around. We ask a few
> simple questions, now you result to name calling?
>

There is no "gentoo-user separate from pro systemd folks". You made that
up. "pro systemd folks" have been part of gentoo user for years and years
now, and they've been harassed repeatedly with "simple" loaded questions
based on wrong assumptions for years and years now.

You know all those bits I mentioned to Volker about people getting FHS
wrong, or not bothering to read man pages, or not giving a crap what an
"init thingy" was and throwing public tantrums on it? I didn't make those
up. They're here, on this list, and I've had to wade in that crap for a few
years, and even in those threads where I only intended to give practical
advice like "if you want to load udev earlier, you could write an init
script for it..." or something to that effect. Only to be heaped by
plateful after plateful of vitriolic, _technically empty_ crap and
callbacks to Unix platitudes half the sayers don't even understand that
well.

Fact of the matter is systemd isn't "invading gentoo", it's part of it now,
and has been for quite a while. All those big changes many people have been
sore about on this list could have been turned into complete non-problems
if we took all the smart-brains time spent arguing this point to instead
write integration packages the way Canek did.
--
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none

Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> The code is out there. Freely available. Both systemd and sysvinit.
> If you wanted to measure both, you could, literally, in the time it
> took since you first posted in this thread till now you could have
> measured several times and left mean comments about whichever
> system you hated the most.

Unfortunately, the systemd guys keep screaming that systemd is faster,
and burden of proof is on the party that's claiming something. It's not
James'/Volker's responsibility to prove that systemd isn't faster.

That said, you guys need to stop flaming. If anything, it's easy to
dislike SysVInit because the init scripts it uses are piles of bash,
compared to a Systemd init script that has a handful of systemd config.

Is systemd starting to encompass too much? I think so, but who cares? If
we want an init manager that reads systemd-like files but doesn't do
anything else (hostnamectl, logging, udev, etc.), I guess we'll have to
make one.

Alec

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Alec Ten Harmsel
<alec@alectenharmsel.com> wrote:
> Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>> The code is out there. Freely available. Both systemd and sysvinit.
>> If you wanted to measure both, you could, literally, in the time it
>> took since you first posted in this thread till now you could have
>> measured several times and left mean comments about whichever
>> system you hated the most.
>
> Unfortunately, the systemd guys keep screaming that systemd is faster,
> and burden of proof is on the party that's claiming something. It's not
> James'/Volker's responsibility to prove that systemd isn't faster.
>

I think Mark fully appreciates that if he wants to change your mind
he's going to have to work hard to do it.

I just don't think he really cares.

The argument about whether systemd is better/worse than sysvinit was a
debate back in 2012-2013. Just about anybody actually contributing to
distros has moved on since then. That doesn't mean that there is 100%
agreement on anything, just that at this point it seems unlikely that
things are going to change much either way on that front. A few
distros are likely to avoid systemd, and the vast majority are in the
process of adopting it.

With Gentoo you can run whatever you want for PID 1, just as you can
use whatever bootloader, kernel, syslog, etc you want. Not all the
init options have equal support - upstart isn't even in the tree and
few packages supply scripts for runit. But, nobody is going to get in
anybody's way if they want to introduce upstart, etc.

The fact is among those actually contributing to projects like openrc,
udev, eudev, and systemd everybody tends to get along just fine.
There is plenty of interest in finding common ground and collaborating
so that anybody switching from one to another can do so easily, and so
that these projects don't diverge where it isn't intended. It seems
like the heaviest fighting seems to involve folks who don't contribute
to any of these.

--
Rich

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Alec Ten Harmsel
> <alec@alectenharmsel.com> wrote:
> > Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> >> The code is out there. Freely available. Both systemd and sysvinit.
> >> If you wanted to measure both, you could, literally, in the time it
> >> took since you first posted in this thread till now you could have
> >> measured several times and left mean comments about whichever
> >> system you hated the most.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the systemd guys keep screaming that systemd is faster,
> > and burden of proof is on the party that's claiming something. It's not
> > James'/Volker's responsibility to prove that systemd isn't faster.
> >
>
> I think Mark fully appreciates that if he wants to change your mind
> he's going to have to work hard to do it.
>
> I just don't think he really cares.
>
> The argument about whether systemd is better/worse than sysvinit was a
> debate back in 2012-2013. Just about anybody actually contributing to
> distros has moved on since then. That doesn't mean that there is 100%
> agreement on anything, just that at this point it seems unlikely that
> things are going to change much either way on that front. A few
> distros are likely to avoid systemd, and the vast majority are in the
> process of adopting it.
>

Yeah Rich gets it. "systemd guys keep screaming that systemd is faster"
seems to imply that most of us give a tweet what PID1 you're running. When
we don't. Most often what happens is some news on systemd developments
comes up, people say "yay!", and other people say "you're destroying Linux
and gonna doom us all" and they act all righteous when we say "uh, what?"
like it matters to us what you're running.

Fact is if it's _you_ that seems to give a tweet about systemd speed, so
it's on _you_ to measure it, I don't really care what you think. The fact
that you think pid1's speed or resource usage might be a big deal is very
indicative on how badly informed you are in the first place.

It reminds me a lot of how some communities treat Gentoo users, asking them
to off the bat produce speed benchmarks comparing them to Arch or whatnot.
As if the Gentoo users gave a tweet about what other users run on their
machines in their own time... no, they very largely don't and there's no
good reason for them to be convincing other people about it.
--
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none

On 09/17/2014 10:40 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:

> Fact is if it's _you_ that seems to give a tweet about systemd speed,
> so it's on _you_ to measure it, I don't really care what you think. The
> fact that you think pid1's speed or resource usage might be a big deal
> is very indicative on how badly informed you are in the first place.

I don't care about systemd speed. I really am completely ambivalent
about PID1; I've run Upstart, I've run systemd, I've run OpenRC, and
they all work fine. All I'm saying is that a common point in the systemd
community seems to be its awesome performance (unless I'm reading the
wrong documentation and conversations), and burden of proof is on the
party making the claim.

But also, caring about speed and resource usage are important. If one of
the three PID1s I've mentioned took 30 seconds to boot my system, I
would not use it. If it took 10% of my RAM, I would not use it. Lucky
for us, all three are fast enough and have a small enough footprint that
it doesn't matter which is used.

Alec

On 17/09/14 23:43, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>>>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>>>>
>>>>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>>>> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
>>>> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
>>>> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
>>>> happily.
>>>>
>>>> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>> you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
>>> is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.
>>>
>>> Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.
>>>
>>> And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
>>> it. Because history loves repetition.
>> Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability
>> of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not
>> happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it.
>>
>> What are you willing to bet?
>>
>> Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy.
>>
>> Regards.
> I am not betting anything.
>
> But I want you to think about something:
>
> devfs was the best thing since sliced bread.
> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced.

There was no problem with this development.

>
> hal was the best thing since sliced bread.
> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned.

That's untrue. HAL was responsibly replaced with UDisks.
As in, when Gentoo got rid of sys-apps/hal, we made sure everything was
ported to UDisks or that unported applications that were removed with
sys-apps/hal, had a direct replacement available.
It was a logical development, that's all.
>
> *kit?
> The same.
>
>
>

FUD.

On 18/09/14 03:12, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote:
> Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>> The code is out there. Freely available. Both systemd and sysvinit.
>> If you wanted to measure both, you could, literally, in the time it
>> took since you first posted in this thread till now you could have
>> measured several times and left mean comments about whichever
>> system you hated the most.
> Unfortunately, the systemd guys keep screaming that systemd is faster,
> and burden of proof is on the party that's claiming something. It's not
> James'/Volker's responsibility to prove that systemd isn't faster.
>
> That said, you guys need to stop flaming. If anything, it's easy to
> dislike SysVInit because the init scripts it uses are piles of bash,
> compared to a Systemd init script that has a handful of systemd config.
>
> Is systemd starting to encompass too much? I think so, but who cares? If
> we want an init manager that reads systemd-like files but doesn't do
> anything else (hostnamectl, logging, udev, etc.), I guess we'll have to
> make one.
>
> Alec
>

Notably Gentoo has never used entire SysV, only the init part, not the
/etc.d/rc.d part
So this POSIX sh script's are coming from dedicated *Gentoo* project,
which is sys-apps/openrc

Just clarifying

On 18/09/14 07:52, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Notably Gentoo has never used entire SysV, only the init part, not the
> /etc.d/rc.d part

I meant /etc/rc.d of course. Typing error. Sorry.

On 18/09/2014 02:12, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote:
> Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>> The code is out there. Freely available. Both systemd and sysvinit.
>> If you wanted to measure both, you could, literally, in the time it
>> took since you first posted in this thread till now you could have
>> measured several times and left mean comments about whichever
>> system you hated the most.
>
> Unfortunately, the systemd guys keep screaming that systemd is faster,
> and burden of proof is on the party that's claiming something. It's not
> James'/Volker's responsibility to prove that systemd isn't faster.
>
> That said, you guys need to stop flaming. If anything, it's easy to
> dislike SysVInit because the init scripts it uses are piles of bash,
> compared to a Systemd init script that has a handful of systemd config.
>
> Is systemd starting to encompass too much? I think so, but who cares? If
> we want an init manager that reads systemd-like files but doesn't do
> anything else (hostnamectl, logging, udev, etc.), I guess we'll have to
> make one.

or trim it back. Conceptually, it shouldn't be too hard to remove those
extra services leaving only an init manager.

Reading posts over the years (I don't use systemd) most of that stuff
can be disabled by config in systemd anyway




--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:34:01 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> AFAIR dcop was replaced, because of the freedesktop-gnome guys. Not
> because anything was wrong with it. And look where it got us. No
> improvement at all.

It wasn't really replaced as dbus was derived from DCOP, so it was more
of an evolution.


--
Neil Bothwick

Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 07:19:21 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > Is systemd starting to encompass too much? I think so, but who cares?
> > If we want an init manager that reads systemd-like files but doesn't
> > do anything else (hostnamectl, logging, udev, etc.), I guess we'll
> > have to make one.
>
> or trim it back. Conceptually, it shouldn't be too hard to remove those
> extra services leaving only an init manager.
>
> Reading posts over the years (I don't use systemd) most of that stuff
> can be disabled by config in systemd anyway

A lot of it is disabled by default anyway, you have to turn it on if you
want to use it. Otherwise it's just there.


--
Neil Bothwick

- We are but packets in the internet of Life-

On 18/09/2014 10:07, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 07:19:21 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>>> Is systemd starting to encompass too much? I think so, but who cares?
>>> If we want an init manager that reads systemd-like files but doesn't
>>> do anything else (hostnamectl, logging, udev, etc.), I guess we'll
>>> have to make one.
>>
>> or trim it back. Conceptually, it shouldn't be too hard to remove those
>> extra services leaving only an init manager.
>>
>> Reading posts over the years (I don't use systemd) most of that stuff
>> can be disabled by config in systemd anyway
>
> A lot of it is disabled by default anyway, you have to turn it on if you
> want to use it. Otherwise it's just there.



That's even better then.


I'm mildly bemused by these systemd threads - so much emotion. Me, I
don't have a dog in this fight so I can sit back and look at what's
going on.

Imagine the ISC-bind lovers going completely apeshit about unbound,
thinking named is about to go away forever. That's what this looks like.




--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:54:49 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:

> The fact is among those actually contributing to projects like openrc,
> udev, eudev, and systemd everybody tends to get along just fine.
> There is plenty of interest in finding common ground and collaborating
> so that anybody switching from one to another can do so easily, and so
> that these projects don't diverge where it isn't intended. It seems
> like the heaviest fighting seems to involve folks who don't contribute
> to any of these.

Isn't that how it always is? :(

I'm sure Canek realised that a flamefest would result from his post, but
it's a rather sad indictment of us that there as been almost no
discussion of Linus's comments - I wonder how many of the "contributors"
to this thread even read the link Canek posted.

Personally, I like to read Linus's opinions no such matters; the are
always insightful, usually entertaining and occasionally correct :)


--
Neil Bothwick

Run with scissors. Remove mattress tags. Top post. Be a rebel.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it.
>

Indeed. Thanks for the link!

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 17.09.2014 um 23:03 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>>>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>>>>>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
>>>>>> So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be
>>>>>> used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and
>>>>>> working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it
>>>>>> happily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>> you will stop laughing when redhat&poettering abandon systemd because it
>>>>> is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably as soon as everybody got used to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind
>>>>> it. Because history loves repetition.
>>>> Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability
>>>> of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not
>>>> happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it.
>>>>
>>>> What are you willing to bet?
>>>>
>>>> Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy.
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>> I am not betting anything.
>> I figured it.
>>
>>> But I want you to think about something:
>>>
>>> devfs was the best thing since sliced bread.
>>> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced.
>>>
>>> hal was the best thing since sliced bread.
>>> As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned.
>>>
>>> *kit?
>>> The same.
>> Yeah. So it happened with XFree86, aRts, esd, gnome-vfs, DCOP,
>> sendmail, and it will happen again with dbus (I'm willing to bet it
>> will be replaced, at least in Linux, with kdbus). And, BTW, it's
>> happening with SysV being replaced in Linux with systemd.
>>
>> It happens all the time. It's a good thing. And it happened for *VERY*
>> different reasons in each case. Also, the transition has been
>> sometimes somewhat difficult (HAL comes to mind), but most of the
>> times really easy: we used devfs when I switched to Gentoo more than
>> 10 years ago, and I don't remember being difficult the switch to udev.
>> XFree86 => X.org was also basically trivial.
>>
>> Of course systemd can be replaced; if something cooler gets written,
>> we'll switch to it. But given the team behind systemd, and the design
>> it has, it's gonna be very difficult.
>>
>> Using Linus words, you are making excuses. You can compare systemd to
>> HAL, but doing so only shows that you don't know the code, the design,
>> and the history behind both projects.
>>
>> Regards.
>
> there was no breakage with xfree-to-xorg. True. But hal, yes. No upower
> breakage. *kit breakage. The list is too long to ignore.

There was no really breakage; some distributions dealed with those
change without issues. Gentoo is special; we didn't had the tools to
rebuild all the required dependencies some years ago. Heck, sometimes
we didn't had the dependencies right.

> Arts was not something whole systems depended upon. And whatever
> gnome-thingy you depend upon, you are fucked, because those guys are
> infected with the same mindset. As soon as the bugs are ironed out and
> everybody is using it: abandom it for something else.

Oh, Volker. You really make me laugh with your ignorance.

> That has nothing to do with 'improvement', or 'development' it is just
> stupid.

It's improvement; it's just your bigotry against GNOME/systemd, your
small mindedness and your myopic vision that makes you not notice it.

HAL is special; it was a (IMO misguided) attempt to be "portable" to
the *BSDs and similar systems. The natural conclusion was that those
guys need to take care of themselves, and that's one of the reasons
why systemd is not portable and only works in Linux.

In all the other cases, it's evolutiion:

• gnome-vfs begat GVFS, which works great.
• static /dev begat devfs, which begat udev, which works great.
• DCOP and gconf begat dbus, which works great, and it will beget
kdbus, which *will* be greater.
• aRts and esd begat PulseAudio, which works great.
• SysV begat Upstart, and together with ideas from launchd and SMF
begat systemd, which works great.

You just don't get it, because as Rich says it you aren't really
involved with the development of these technologies. It's a continous
evolution of software, sometimes using the old code, sometimes just
taking ideas, design, or learning from mistakes.

> AFAIR dcop was replaced, because of the freedesktop-gnome guys.

Oh my god; did they put a gun on their heads? It could not possible be
that dbus is so much better, right?

> Not because anything was wrong with it. And look where it got us. No
> improvement at all.

You just keep showing your ignorance. Go to the KDE mailing lists, and
tell them to get back to DCOP, becuase it was better.

They will laugh at you. Just as I'm doing right now.

Funny, funny guy.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

On 2014-09-18, Alec Ten Harmsel <alec@alectenharmsel.com> wrote:
> Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>> The code is out there. Freely available. Both systemd and sysvinit.
>> If you wanted to measure both, you could, literally, in the time it
>> took since you first posted in this thread till now you could have
>> measured several times and left mean comments about whichever
>> system you hated the most.
>
> Unfortunately, the systemd guys keep screaming that systemd is faster,
> and burden of proof is on the party that's claiming something. It's not
> James'/Volker's responsibility to prove that systemd isn't faster.

I don't understand all the hoopla about systemd being "faster".

Faster at what?

Booting?

The only Linux systems where I care about boot time are embedded
systems which are never going to have the resources needed to run
systemd. As for normal desktop machines, who cares? I only reboot
them once every month or two (when I'm bored and want to make sure
they will still boot up after updates).

My laptop(s) get booted a lot more often than desktops, but the boot
times have never been an issue.

The other thing I keep hearing from systemd proponents is stuff about
how it allows you to parallelize startup. I don't _want_ stuff
starting up in parallel -- that just makes it all the more difficult
to troubleshoot problems. I want things to start up one at a time, in
a determined order.

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! The FALAFEL SANDWICH
at lands on my HEAD and I
gmail.com become a VEGETARIAN ...

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Grant Edwards
<grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only Linux systems where I care about boot time are embedded
> systems which are never going to have the resources needed to run
> systemd.

How about containers? When I launch mariadb I'd prefer that it happen
in milliseconds, not tens of seconds. That includes setting up
interfaces, populating /dev, getting an ip, launching ssh, syslog,
etc, and so on, oh, and mariadb.

> The other thing I keep hearing from systemd proponents is stuff about
> how it allows you to parallelize startup. I don't _want_ stuff
> starting up in parallel -- that just makes it all the more difficult
> to troubleshoot problems. I want things to start up one at a time, in
> a determined order.

I hope you aren't running openrc then. It doesn't launch in a
predetermined order.

I will agree that you get far more race conditions than you do with
openrc even with parallel startup, since processes start much more
quickly.

--
Rich

On 19/09/14 03:18, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-09-18, Alec Ten Harmsel <alec@alectenharmsel.com> wrote:
>> Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>>> The code is out there. Freely available. Both systemd and sysvinit.
>>> If you wanted to measure both, you could, literally, in the time it
>>> took since you first posted in this thread till now you could have
>>> measured several times and left mean comments about whichever
>>> system you hated the most.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the systemd guys keep screaming that systemd is faster,
>> and burden of proof is on the party that's claiming something. It's not
>> James'/Volker's responsibility to prove that systemd isn't faster.
>
> I don't understand all the hoopla about systemd being "faster".
>
> Faster at what?
>
> Booting?
>
> The only Linux systems where I care about boot time are embedded
> systems which are never going to have the resources needed to run

systemd is targeted at cloud systems and fast booting which is where I
guess redhats focus is these days since they seem to have lost the
desktop space. The fact that systemd isn't potentially as reliable etc.
is irrelevant when you are looking at a more disposable cloud model
where fast start and short life predominate.

The problem is that systemd is being forced into areas where people
don't want it (inc. me).

BillK

On 2014-09-18, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Grant Edwards
><grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The only Linux systems where I care about boot time are embedded
>> systems which are never going to have the resources needed to run
>> systemd.
>
> How about containers? When I launch mariadb I'd prefer that it
> happen in milliseconds, not tens of seconds. That includes setting
> up interfaces, populating /dev, getting an ip, launching ssh, syslog,
> etc, and so on, oh, and mariadb.

OK, that makes sense. I've never used containers and only have a
vague understanding of what they are -- I occasionally use a VM or
two, but startup speed doesn't matter for them in my applications. I
assumed there must be _some_ application where boot up speed is
important, but I just didn't know what it would be.

>> The other thing I keep hearing from systemd proponents is stuff about
>> how it allows you to parallelize startup. I don't _want_ stuff
>> starting up in parallel -- that just makes it all the more difficult
>> to troubleshoot problems. I want things to start up one at a time, in
>> a determined order.
>
> I hope you aren't running openrc then. It doesn't launch in a
> predetermined order.

I'm am running openrc (with parallel startup disabled) on my "regular"
Gentoo systems. On my systems, the startup order seems to be
deterministic. [.I also have a bunch of "other" systems I boot on
occasion for testing apps/drivers -- they're running various distros
using whatever init system they default to.]

> I will agree that you get far more race conditions than you do with
> openrc even with parallel startup, since processes start much more
> quickly.

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! It's the RINSE CYCLE!!
at They've ALL IGNORED the
gmail.com RINSE CYCLE!!

> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
> reality."
>

He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done
in complex systems.

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Alec Ten Harmsel <alec@alectenharmsel.com>
wrote:

>
> On 09/17/2014 10:40 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>
> > Fact is if it's _you_ that seems to give a tweet about systemd speed,
> > so it's on _you_ to measure it, I don't really care what you think. The
> > fact that you think pid1's speed or resource usage might be a big deal
> > is very indicative on how badly informed you are in the first place.
>
> I don't care about systemd speed. I really am completely ambivalent
> about PID1; I've run Upstart, I've run systemd, I've run OpenRC, and
> they all work fine. All I'm saying is that a common point in the systemd
> community seems to be its awesome performance (unless I'm reading the
> wrong documentation and conversations), and burden of proof is on the
> party making the claim.
>

The thing is, that's a strawman. Volker is outright delusional about
systemd people breaking into his threads and forcefeeding him Lennart facts
like "systemd is faster". It's the exact opposite. Every time a systemd
thread comes up, here come the anti-fanboys whining about "well why should
_i_ use it? because it's _faster_?" as if we gave a crap that he did.

The burden of proof is on the party making the claim, but almost nobody is
making the claim -to him-. The fact that he thinks systemd's speed is
important already betrays how biased and narrow his thinking is on the
topic. Most people don't even bother with bootup speeds that cut a few
seconds off. Heck I tried to tweak my boot process with systemd and I had a
hard time getting _even_ with Ubuntu. Generally we care more about the fact
that services have actual dependencies, are written declaratively, can be
executed exactly as upstream recommends, don't have magic code hacks, are
automatically cgrouped and thus have all child processes guaranteed killed
on service down, that logs and STDOUT are tracked and searchable in the
journal, etc etc etc. Every single one of those matters more than bootup
speed, but yeah, we heard somewhere that you can tweak parallel boots to be
faster or something.

Point is he's trying to paint the picture that systemd folks rattle on and
on about its speed, but they don't. And now _we_ have to prove it? Most of
the time we're not even the ones making the claim. It's like a McD fanboy
asking a BK fan to prove that their burgers are healthier than Big Macs...
might be true, might be false, heck either company probably has info
confirming it, but it's probably the last thing on the BK fan's mind and
he's confused that it's even ever brought up.
--
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2014-09-18, Alec Ten Harmsel <alec@alectenharmsel.com> wrote:
> > Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> >> The code is out there. Freely available. Both systemd and sysvinit.
> >> If you wanted to measure both, you could, literally, in the time it
> >> took since you first posted in this thread till now you could have
> >> measured several times and left mean comments about whichever
> >> system you hated the most.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the systemd guys keep screaming that systemd is faster,
> > and burden of proof is on the party that's claiming something. It's not
> > James'/Volker's responsibility to prove that systemd isn't faster.
>
> I don't understand all the hoopla about systemd being "faster".
>
> Faster at what?
>
> Booting?
>
> The only Linux systems where I care about boot time are embedded
> systems which are never going to have the resources needed to run
> systemd.


You are mistaken. I've helped a friend debug problems on a couple devices
running a custom Arch system with systemd.
--
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none

Am 18.09.2014 um 01:24 schrieb Mark David Dumlao:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:11 AM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com
> <mailto:wireless@tampabay.rr.com>> wrote:
>
> Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com <http://gmail.com>> writes:
> > You're the only one in this thread that's imposing on everyone
> > to produce anything. You're the only one in this thread that
> > SHOULD be producing anything. That's how open source works and
> > that's how it's supposed to work. We're not your unpaid researchers.
>
> I'm sorry, Volker pointed out that the pro systemd folks came to
> gentoo-user, waiving linux's dirty panties around. We ask a few
> simple questions, now you result to name calling?
>
>
> There is no "gentoo-user separate from pro systemd folks". You made
> that up. "pro systemd folks" have been part of gentoo user for years
> and years now, and they've been harassed repeatedly with "simple"
> loaded questions based on wrong assumptions for years and years now.

and that makes it fine to constantly spread pro-systemd propaganga?

So.. according to your logic, it would be fine to subscribe to systemd
mailing lists and constantly post why distri X or application Y is the
best of all?

Am 20.09.2014 um 16:08 schrieb Mark David Dumlao:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Alec Ten Harmsel
> <alec@alectenharmsel.com <mailto:alec@alectenharmsel.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/17/2014 10:40 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>
> > Fact is if it's _you_ that seems to give a tweet about systemd
> speed,
> > so it's on _you_ to measure it, I don't really care what you
> think. The
> > fact that you think pid1's speed or resource usage might be a
> big deal
> > is very indicative on how badly informed you are in the first place.
>
> I don't care about systemd speed. I really am completely ambivalent
> about PID1; I've run Upstart, I've run systemd, I've run OpenRC, and
> they all work fine. All I'm saying is that a common point in the
> systemd
> community seems to be its awesome performance (unless I'm reading the
> wrong documentation and conversations), and burden of proof is on the
> party making the claim.
>
>
> The thing is, that's a strawman. Volker is outright delusional about
> systemd people breaking into his threads and forcefeeding him Lennart
> facts like "systemd is faster". It's the exact opposite. Every time a
> systemd thread comes up, here come the anti-fanboys whining about
> "well why should _i_ use it? because it's _faster_?" as if we gave a
> crap that he did.

I am deluded? Who again posted systemd propaganda again?
>
> The burden of proof is on the party making the claim, but almost
> nobody is making the claim -to him-.

No, just on public mailing lists and fora.

True, speed is not a factor.

Except if you claim it is.

> The fact that he thinks systemd's speed is important already betrays
> how biased and narrow his thinking is on the topic. Most people don't
> even bother with bootup speeds that cut a few seconds off. Heck I
> tried to tweak my boot process with systemd and I had a hard time
> getting _even_ with Ubuntu.

so the systemd-fanbois that always masturbate about how systemd is so
much faster than anything else are actually lying?

Interesting.

If those systemd-fanbois wouldn't talk about how-fast-their-toy-is, I
wouldn't care about it. I only boot to replace kernels. I don't care
about boot time, as long as it stays under 5 minutes.

> Generally we care more about the fact that services have actual
> dependencies, are written declaratively, can be executed exactly as
> upstream recommends, don't have magic code hacks, are automatically
> cgrouped and thus have all child processes guaranteed killed on
> service down, that logs and STDOUT are tracked and searchable in the
> journal, etc etc etc. Every single one of those matters more than
> bootup speed, but yeah, we heard somewhere that you can tweak parallel
> boots to be faster or something.

and if your system breaks and systemd stops working - how do you easily
access those logs? Just a question. With other logging solutions it is
easy: cat, less tail... etc.

>
> Point is he's trying to paint the picture that systemd folks rattle on
> and on about its speed, but they don't.

except when they do.

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann <
volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> I am deluded? Who again posted systemd propaganda again?
>


> Point is he's trying to paint the picture that systemd folks rattle on and
> on about its speed, but they don't.
>
>
> except when they do.
>
>
The first person who even brought up systemd's speed was making an
anti-systemd remark. Several times in this thread the need to even discuss
speed was dismissed because
very few people cared much for speed in the first place.

And the fact of the matter is that's how most systemd threads run in this
list. "systemd has a new feature" or "help me get this thing to work" or
"has anyone tested blabla yet" all invariably end up with very few
pro-systemd people even bringing up speed and many anti-systemd people
demanding that they do.

Case in point, you and your bullshit here.

--
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann <
volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Am 18.09.2014 um 01:24 schrieb Mark David Dumlao:
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:11 AM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> > You're the only one in this thread that's imposing on everyone
>> > to produce anything. You're the only one in this thread that
>> > SHOULD be producing anything. That's how open source works and
>> > that's how it's supposed to work. We're not your unpaid researchers.
>>
>> I'm sorry, Volker pointed out that the pro systemd folks came to
>> gentoo-user, waiving linux's dirty panties around. We ask a few
>> simple questions, now you result to name calling?
>>
>
> There is no "gentoo-user separate from pro systemd folks". You made that
> up. "pro systemd folks" have been part of gentoo user for years and years
> now, and they've been harassed repeatedly with "simple" loaded questions
> based on wrong assumptions for years and years now.
>
>
> and that makes it fine to constantly spread pro-systemd propaganga?
>
> So.. according to your logic, it would be fine to subscribe to systemd
> mailing lists and constantly post why distri X or application Y is the best
> of all?
>

systemd is in portage you stupid troll, and it has been for years now.

--
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann <
> volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am 18.09.2014 um 01:24 schrieb Mark David Dumlao:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:11 AM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>> > You're the only one in this thread that's imposing on everyone
>>> > to produce anything. You're the only one in this thread that
>>> > SHOULD be producing anything. That's how open source works and
>>> > that's how it's supposed to work. We're not your unpaid researchers.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, Volker pointed out that the pro systemd folks came to
>>> gentoo-user, waiving linux's dirty panties around. We ask a few
>>> simple questions, now you result to name calling?
>>>
>>
>> There is no "gentoo-user separate from pro systemd folks". You made
>> that up. "pro systemd folks" have been part of gentoo user for years and
>> years now, and they've been harassed repeatedly with "simple" loaded
>> questions based on wrong assumptions for years and years now.
>>
>>
>> and that makes it fine to constantly spread pro-systemd propaganga?
>>
>> So.. according to your logic, it would be fine to subscribe to systemd
>> mailing lists and constantly post why distri X or application Y is the best
>> of all?
>>
>
> systemd is in portage you stupid troll, and it has been for years now.
>

and in fact I just searched my inbox for the search terms gentoo-user and
systemd and I had to go back an entire 150+ threads to encounter the first
"propaganda" thread that you seem to claim this mailing list is saturated
with - the Debian thread all the way back in February. Oh wow. Constant
posting of systemd propaganda left and right there, when it's _literally_
less than 1% of the encountered threads mentioning systemd in it.

You are delusional if you think systemd concerns are not part of gentoo.

You are delusional if you think this list is crowded with systemd
propaganda.

Don't use this list to push _your_ propaganda of how things should work for
other people.

> --
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none

On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
>> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
>> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
>> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
>> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
>> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
>> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
>> reality."
>>
>
> He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done
> in complex systems.

He doesn't need to; he's not trying to convince anyone of anything.
The reported asked:

"Systemd seems to depart to a large extent from the original idea of
simplicity that was a hallmark of UNIX systems. Would you agree? And
is this a good or a bad thing?"

Linus just answered the question. As for arguments, I think (and of
course I could be wrong) he would say "code talks; go on and make a
complex system with 'useful' abstractions, and then we'll talk". And
BTW, a complex system with "useful" abstractions was the whole idea of
HAL, I think.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

On 2014-09-20, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The only Linux systems where I care about boot time are embedded
>> systems which are never going to have the resources needed to run
>> systemd.
>
> You are mistaken.

No, I am not.

> I've helped a friend debug problems on a couple devices running a
> custom Arch system with systemd.

How does that contradict the statement I made that the systems where I
care about boot times do not have the resources required to run
systemd?

--
Grant

On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Grant Edwards
<grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-09-20, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The only Linux systems where I care about boot time are embedded
>>> systems which are never going to have the resources needed to run
>>> systemd.
>>
>> You are mistaken.
>
> No, I am not.
>

Guys, can we quit arguing about how we argue on the list?

--
Rich

On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 18.09.2014 um 01:24 schrieb Mark David Dumlao:
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:11 AM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mark David Dumlao <madumlao <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> > You're the only one in this thread that's imposing on everyone
>> > to produce anything. You're the only one in this thread that
>> > SHOULD be producing anything. That's how open source works and
>> > that's how it's supposed to work. We're not your unpaid researchers.
>>
>> I'm sorry, Volker pointed out that the pro systemd folks came to
>> gentoo-user, waiving linux's dirty panties around. We ask a few
>> simple questions, now you result to name calling?
>
>
> There is no "gentoo-user separate from pro systemd folks". You made that up.
> "pro systemd folks" have been part of gentoo user for years and years now,
> and they've been harassed repeatedly with "simple" loaded questions based on
> wrong assumptions for years and years now.
>
>
> and that makes it fine to constantly spread pro-systemd propaganga?

Just to be clear, I did prefixed the subject with "[OT]", and in the
first paragraph I clearly stated that this as highly off-topic, and
systemd related.

You could have easily ignored the post, but your bigotry against
systemd made you post your laughable "arguments". It was *you* who got
into an explicitly marked off-topic thread.

> So.. according to your logic, it would be fine to subscribe to systemd
> mailing lists and constantly post why distri X or application Y is the best
> of all?

If you marked it off-topic and was slightly related to systemd (like
"what distro X or app Y works better with systemd"), I don't think
nobody would mind. It probably would be mostly ignored, though.

And as Mark has already stated, systemd is part of Gentoo (now for
several years). Any post related to systemd is slightly related to
Gentoo, or at least to the many users using it (this is gentoo-user,
remember?)

I understand that, like a five year old that doesn't want to hear
about something, you would prefer that nobody *ever* posted anything
positive about systemd, or GNOME, or PulseAudio, or... man, your
bigotry is *HUGE*, it even sounds tiring. Anyway; it's not going to
happen: we will continue to post systemd-related topics in gentoo-user
if we consider them interesting to at least part of the Gentoo
community (which several members, including developers, already said
they did).

So I suggest you to do exactly like a five year old, cover your ears
and sing LA-LA-LA, because we are here to stay.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2014-09-20, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The only Linux systems where I care about boot time are embedded
> >> systems which are never going to have the resources needed to run
> >> systemd.
> >
> > You are mistaken.
>
> No, I am not.
>
> > I've helped a friend debug problems on a couple devices running a
> > custom Arch system with systemd.
>
> How does that contradict the statement I made that the systems where I
> care about boot times do not have the resources required to run
> systemd?
>

You made a generic, catch-all statement about embedded systems which isnt
necessarily true. There are plenty of routers or NAS devices or ipcams, etc
that have the resources to run systemd. Pretty much everything that has the
space to fit the kernel and a a few MB has the resources to run it

--
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-09-20, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The only Linux systems where I care about boot time are embedded
>> >> systems which are never going to have the resources needed to run
>> >> systemd.
>> >
>> > You are mistaken.
>>
>> No, I am not.
>>
>> > I've helped a friend debug problems on a couple devices running a
>> > custom Arch system with systemd.
>>
>> How does that contradict the statement I made that the systems where I
>> care about boot times do not have the resources required to run
>> systemd?
>>
>
> You made a generic, catch-all statement about embedded systems which isnt
> necessarily true. There are plenty of routers or NAS devices or ipcams, etc
> that have the resources to run systemd. Pretty much everything that has the
> space to fit the kernel and a a few MB has the resources to run it
>

Sorry I clicked somewhere onscreen and it sent immediately. An audit of 204
on debian shows that it's small to negligible, with a lot of optional
components.

https://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/docs/systemd-dependencies.html




>
> --
> This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
> Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
> Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none
>



--
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none

On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Point is he's trying to paint the picture that systemd folks rattle on and
> on about its speed, but they don't.

The speed argument/anti-argument can be traced back to Lennart's first
blog post on systemd (IIRC "rethinking pid 1") where he touted its
speeding up of the boot process. The reason that's regularly brought
up is that there aren't (m)any purely technical counterpoints to
systemd so boot speed (and binary logs but the latter can be disabled
with setting "Storage=none" in "journald.conf" and setting up a socket
for syslog to store the logs) are targeted.

On Sep 21, 2014 5:10 PM, "Tom H" <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Point is he's trying to paint the picture that systemd folks rattle on
and
> > on about its speed, but they don't.
>
> The speed argument/anti-argument can be traced back to Lennart's first
> blog post on systemd (IIRC "rethinking pid 1") where he touted its
> speeding up of the boot process. The reason that's regularly brought
> up is that there aren't (m)any purely technical counterpoints to
> systemd so boot speed (and binary logs but the latter can be disabled
> with setting "Storage=none" in "journald.conf" and setting up a socket
> for syslog to store the logs) are targeted.

Im well aware of Lennart talking about it but the relevant matter is
whether it was ever brought up in the conversation or not. If youre saying
its on me to prove a claim you better be fucking sure i made or care about
the claim in the first place. And on this list its consistently the
anti-fanboys that make the claim, because even Lennart himself doesnt
emphasize the speed as much as is imagined - he often mentions it as a mere
side effect of a "clean" bootup. Id link you the posts that say so if i
werent on a moving train.

>

Canek Peláez Valdés:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
>>> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
>>> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
>>> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
>>> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
>>> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
>>> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
>>> reality."
>>>
>>
>> He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done
>> in complex systems.
>
> He doesn't need to;

Sure he does. He made a statement that needs technical arguments (not
stuff like "people do it these days") and didn't even answer the
reporters question.

I think this is not a problem about complex systems, but rather about
development models.

But no wonder a C programmer in one of the highest commit rate projects
in the world thinks like that. And it's probably even true in that CASE.

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés:
>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
>>>> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
>>>> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
>>>> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
>>>> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
>>>> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
>>>> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
>>>> reality."
>>>>
>>>
>>> He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done
>>> in complex systems.
>>
>> He doesn't need to;
>
> Sure he does.

No, he does not, because the link I posted was not an argument, was an
interview and he was asked for his opinion, and in no moment was he
asked to justify his opinion.

You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing. I don't know exactly with
whom, because surely is not with me.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Am 17.09.2014 20:36, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:

> Now you use this to advertise for systemd?
>
> Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.

Gentoo is still all about choice, right? And we still have that choice.
If you dislike Systemd, then just don't use it. Period.

Contrary to many other distributions, like Debian or Arch Linux, we
still have that kind of choice.

On 09/21/2014 07:23 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
>>>>> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
>>>>> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
>>>>> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
>>>>> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
>>>>> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
>>>>> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of
>>>>> reality."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done
>>>> in complex systems.
>>>
>>> He doesn't need to;
>>
>> Sure he does.
>
> No, he does not, because the link I posted was not an argument, was an
> interview and he was asked for his opinion, and in no moment was he
> asked to justify his opinion.
>
> You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing. I don't know exactly with
> whom, because surely is not with me.
>

Then please just refrain from answering if you don't understand how my
point matters in terms of systemd development, thanks.

On 2014-09-21, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-09-20, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The only Linux systems where I care about boot time are embedded
>>>> systems which are never going to have the resources needed to run
>>>> systemd.
>>>
>>> You are mistaken.
>>
>> No, I am not.
>>
>>> I've helped a friend debug problems on a couple devices running a
>>> custom Arch system with systemd.
>>
>> How does that contradict the statement I made that the systems where
>> I care about boot times do not have the resources required to run
>> systemd?
>
> You made a generic, catch-all statement about embedded systems which isnt
> necessarily true.

No, I made a statement about the systems where _I_ care about boot
time. The embedded systems where I care about boot time are two
industrial product lines where which I'm reponsible for the embedded
Linux OS. Boot time matters for those products. Those products don't
have a few extra MB to run systemd.

> There are plenty of routers or NAS devices or ipcams, etc that have
> the resources to run systemd. Pretty much everything that has the
> space to fit the kernel and a a few MB has the resources to run it

I don't care about boot times for routers, NAS devices, ipcams, etc.

The embedded systems where I care about boot time do _not_ have a few
extra MB to run systemd.

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I am covered with
at pure vegetable oil and I am
gmail.com writing a best seller!