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