Mailing List Archive

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!