Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Unlikely (Score 1) 393

by Peter H.S. (#49074045) Attached to: PC-BSD: Set For Serious Growth?

Take a look at FreeBSD Gnome, for example. I am sure that their patches to make Gnome portable again flow back upstream.

Perhaps, but this is exactly what I said; only the minimal effort to make the DE's run on BSD is made by BSD developers; when it comes to making the actual DE there seems to be no BSD developers helping out. In short, BSD developers aren't pulling their share of the load when it comes to DE development.

OpenSSH is portable. This is the difference between Linux and BSD developers. [snip: the usual anti-Linux ranting]. most Unices/BSDs already have the solutions for the problems and why should they accept something that has to be ported with a lot of effort? It is only being done with things that are worth to port.

Exactly, this is why DE's like KDE and Gnome shouldn't accept BSD patches anymore, but just make the BSD developers maintain the DE's in their own source trees, just like OpenSSH. If it is worth for BSD to maintain them, then they can do it, if not, then why bother Linux developers to make it BSD compatible.

As it is now, BSD is simply dragging Linux DE development down without the BSD developers contributing anything instead. At some point this has to stop; either the BSD community starts contributing, or the Linux community will stop working for free.

Comment: Unlikely (Score 1) 393

by Peter H.S. (#49070541) Attached to: PC-BSD: Set For Serious Growth?

It would require a radical shift among BSD developers and the companies that sponsor them to make any serious inroad into the desktop. AFAIK, there are almost no BSD developers contributing to DE's like KDE or Gnome.

This is probably because the focus for BSD's are servers; their sponsors pay for making server software that may be close sourced. All the major DE's are using GPL toolkits, so BSD developers are unlikely to make any contributions besides the minimal required work to make the DE's work on BSD.

In case that eg. Wayland support don't materialize on BSD, then I find it much more likely that DE's like KDE and Gnome will split their code, leaving it up to BSD developers to maintain whatever they need to make those DE's run, in the same way OpenBSD does with OpenSSH.

Comment: Re:I agree with Lennart (Score 2) 551

by Peter H.S. (#48840549) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

None of that speaks to why systemd needs to suck in everything under the sun that has a server mode (like the gimp and open office examples above).

It doesn't.
That a particular distro/package maintainer utilizes their distro's init-system and service manager for launching a daemon is hardly a problem or even controversial.

And just because something's launched often doesn't mean it has to be sucked into systemd. Angry Birds is launched on Linux more often than most stuff the systemd guys play with -- but that doesn't mean all games need insane dependancies on an init system.

It seems to me that have some problems with understanding what an init-system does. SysVinit/systemd/SMF deals with starting daemons and similar processes, not end user programs like games. Of course, if a game has a server mode what uses sockets and what not, then it probably is convenient to use a proper init-system.

Your container example seems to be taking the wrong approach too.

Lightweight containers like Docker seem to suggest it's best to run a single service within a container --- so the last thing such a system needs an init system -- let alone the most bloated init system in the world. A it turns out, it's quite a pain in the neck to run systemd in a docker container.

There are many different OS container modes, from running single services, to full blown servers. Each mode has it advantages and disadvantages. That flexibility is exactly what makes OS containers interesting.

Unlike other OS container implementations, systemd also support running unmodified Linux distros as containers. That means that I can boot a standard Debian distro on top of my Fedora distro, or running a newer unstable version of my distro on top. It takes seconds or minutes (depending on net speed) to launch such a container. A great way to test and debug new stuff without bothering with a full VM.
The "machine concept" that allows maintaining OS containers from the "outside" is also way cool.

All in all, systemd is on its way to become the best OS container manager the world have ever seen, and that is great news for Linux.

Comment: Re:Just keep it away from Gentoo and I'm good (Score 0) 551

by Peter H.S. (#48840389) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

So you like having useless software always running on your machines, that you cannot get rid of, or absolutely turn off? It also still violates do one thing and do it well because it tries to do many things, and seems to do them poorly.

"journald" isn't useless, even if you don't use binary logging, but forward everything directly to syslog.
"journald" works as a syslog helper that enhances syslog by collating all logfiles into a single file (instead of around +5 logfiles, some of them binary like "utmp"), and by collecting logging info from early boot, since journald can log from before even the root file system is mounted. When kdbus is mainlined, it will be able to collect "metal-to-metal" logging info, that means before rootfs is mounted, and after it is dismounted. Try that with syslog.

It also provide per-damon rate limiting and notification when syslog drops messages (syslog silently drops messages).

All in all, it would be stupid to turn of journald, even if forced to rely on flat file text logs.

Comment: Re:Fork it all (Score 1) 551

by Peter H.S. (#48840283) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

Here, I think there's some mendacity as well on the part of Red Hat. Systemd absorbed several RedHat-run open source projects that should be stand alone (D-Bus and udev, for example) and not require a dependency on systemd. That's classic Microsoft-style "embrace and extend" behavior.

There is exactly one project that joined systemd, and that was the basically one-man project "udev". The udev inventor is also the co-inventor of systemd, and that project started way before Red Hat had even started to say "no" to using systemd (they later said "yes"; read the interview). So it is demonstrably wrong to claim that RH could have forced Kay Sievers/udev into the systemd project.

Dbus isn't a single project, but a standard just like tcp/ip with several different implementations. systemd makes heavy use of dbus, and even have some dbus helper libs, but the point is that systemd works with the "standard" dbus specification, regardless of implementation. That is the whole point of using a standard.

All the talk about RH/systemd "subsuming" other projects are simply plain wrong.

Comment: Re:Just keep it away from Gentoo and I'm good (Score 1) 551

by Peter H.S. (#48840205) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

System is broken by design and totally violates the UNIX philosophy

Systemd isn't broken by design, it is in fact a brilliantly designed init-system which is why all major Linux distros are converting to it.

"UNIX philosophy" seems to be a codeword for "I have no real technical arguments against systemd".

But tell me this, if the most popular certified UNIX platforms are using init systems very similar to systemd, like SMF and launchd, aren't you really claiming that certified UNIX'es aren't UNIX?

Even non-certified UNIX clones like FreeBSD are talking about the necessity of having a init-system just like systemd/SMF/launchd. It is only a matter of time before all *BSD's have a modern init-system, and of course, they will clone every systemd feature possible.

Comment: Re:Just keep it away from Gentoo and I'm good (Score 1) 551

by Peter H.S. (#48840133) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

Systemd does startup, it does logging, it does ntpd, it manages processes.. What do you think it does that is just one thing?

The point is that this is all done by different daemons and tools. So each systemd tool basically just do one thing. It is documented in the man pages if your are interested in facts.

Oh and by the way, systemd doesn't do "ntpd". Claiming that is a sure sign that you haven't studied the systemd documentation. systemd comes with an optional sNTP client that is meant for use in OS containers, which have special timekeeping needs because of timedrift between host and container when sleeping etc.

Comment: Re:The very first thing out of his mouth (Score 1) 551

by Peter H.S. (#48840019) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

The only real fault I could give it is that in my experience, if you're so tightly wired into external things that you become an essential part of them, that's probably not the optimal system design.

That really isn't the case with systemd; it basically depends on glibc and util-linux for "mount" etc. just like most other init-systems, but everything else is optional.

That upstream projects actually make use of systemd features like systemd-logind can hardly be a problem either; all the non-systemd platforms are free to provide their own similar services that upstream projects can use, so there are no problems there either.

I DO have a lot against the binary logging for very good reasons. I've worked with a lot of products that did their logging in proprietary binary formats over the years, and even when the internal data formats are well-published, the mere fact that intermediary services are required to access and format them has made their respective products harder to work with.

Some facts first; systemd's journal isn't proprietary. It is a well documented standard with a stable API and language bindings:
  http://www.freedesktop.org/wik...
There are several independent journal readers already. I can't think of any non-contrived user case where it is a problem that the logs are binary.

In fact, I can't think of any non-contrived user case where old style flat text file logging is better than systemd's journal; it scales better in every direction and allows for powerful filtering in a much better way than using humongous regex lines, is much more secure, allows for a single collated system log and much better debugging, etc. etc.
Not forgetting that it is now possible to have reliable, robust logwatch scripts and even make a log viewing GUI that isn't just a glorifed "less" with windows decorations.

Just like you I have been bitten by (proprietary) binary log files (and much worse; binary config files). And just like you I was really, really skeptical about systemd's binary log format. But the more I used it, and the more documentation I read, the more I became really glad about it: systemd's journal just solves so many problems I have had over the years with syslog files. It is a really well thought out and well designed logging system.

Comment: Re:I agree with Lennart (Score 1) 551

by Peter H.S. (#48838743) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

I don't understand why 90% of the crap systemd's trying to suck in (like networking). Yet the systemd guys continue to glom everything in there.

If you don't understand it, it is probably because you don't use OS containers. Almost all new features and development on systemd the last couple of years have been OS container related; the sNTP client, networking, dhcp etc., are all meant for massive scale OS container deployment, and for the special need for OS container regarding keeping time (their environment can start-stop/freeze without notice, so time drift between host and container is a problem).

Google launches 2 billion OS containers a week, that is 3300 OS containers every second. The speed of "booting" a single OS container is therefore crucial for such massive deployments.

In fact, OS containers are rapidly becoming a central part of all new Linux deployment, and systemd is a central part of that.

Comment: Re:The very first thing out of his mouth (Score 1) 551

by Peter H.S. (#48838649) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

I tend to grit my teeth when people say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" about IT. IT tends to erode from the outside in, if no other way.

On the other hand, if you do "fix it", don't break things that people like and rely on.

So nothing on Linux must ever change, because there is always some reactionary, lazy admin somewhere who can't be bothered to learn something new and change his work-flow.

I have seen so many examples of such "IT-fossilization" during the last three decades. Some people scream and moan about how "new way" is bad and "old way" is much better. The end result is always the same; they get ejected out of the IT business when their old and obsolete skills are no longer needed.

If you work in tech, you just better have to learn to adapt to new and better technology like systemd. The first step in this is to be factually informed about how the new technology works.

And don't have the hubris to tell people that they're wrong/misguided/old-fashioned when they complain. That's the sin that both gnome3 and systemd committed.

Don't tell me you rely on hearsay from some swivel eyed systemd-hater to know the technical facts about Gnome and systemd?

It is a plain view fact that Gnome 3 runs on non-systemd platforms like BSD. So where is the problem?
Is the problem that Gnome developers for years have pleaded for someone to step up and actually maintain crucial infrastructure needed by Gnome in order to work on non-systemd systems?

Comment: Re:Just keep it away from Gentoo and I'm good (Score 1) 551

by Peter H.S. (#48838373) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

look, either journald is part of systemd or it isn't. If it is, then systemd does multiple things, and should be broken up into more parts. If it isn't, then your argument is nonsense.

If you want "metal-to-metal" logging and collating all logging info into a single file, and remain 100% compatible with syslog, you have no other choice than to design a logging system like systemd's "journald". It can't be split off because of how the Linux kernel is designed and handles /dev/log.

journald can start logging before even the root filesystem is mounted because systemd becomes active already in initramfs and then jumps to the rootfs when it is mounted.

It is a really good solution to a hard to solve problem.

If the cartoonish interpretation of "Unix philosophy" and "modularity" had any real substance, serious people would have forked systemd and split it into "modules". (The core of systemd is; systemd (daemon), udev, and journald; everything is optional). But they don't. The reason is simply that systemd have really, really good technical reasons for being designed like it is.

Comment: Re: Their comments on trolls/trolling (Score 1) 184

by Peter H.S. (#48660741) Attached to: Devuan Progress Report Published

The rest is fully achievable using ConsoleKit2. You realize you don't understand it, which is good ;-)

Link please. AFAIK, it isn't possible to run Xorg as non-root in a safe manner using either CK or ConsoleKit2.

And BTW, the difficulty in running xorg as non-root in a safe manner is caused by the way the Linux kernel handles devices, not Xorg. That is why you need user session management from systemd-logind in order to secure that attached devices can't be abused to compromise security.

Comment: Re:Forked the Debian? or the Debian? (Score 1) 184

by Peter H.S. (#48660261) Attached to: Devuan Progress Report Published

I had the impression your post had an agenda, and then I read, at the end, you confirmed it:

When FreeBSD changes to a modern init-system (they will probably clone systemd)

Sure, my agenda is to show that supporting multiple init systems is very difficult.

That FreeBSD (and other BSD's) will change to a systemd-like init system is a given thing too. Even the founder of FreeBSD has publicly said it is in the future for FreeBSD.

The fact is that the way people uses computers have changed dramatically the last decade; virtualization, OS containers, instantiated services, mobile devices etc. SysVinit and similar legacy style script based init systems simply aren't up to working with all this.

So when FreebSD change their init system (and they will), they won't support a free choice between the new init system and old legacy script based init systems either.

Comment: Re:Forked the Debian? or the Debian? (Score 1) 184

by Peter H.S. (#48660185) Attached to: Devuan Progress Report Published

If it isn't a bug, why patch it?

And this is a clear systemd bias (and GNOME attitude).

If systemd says it is not a bug, then it is not. And if something doesn't work - well, somebody opened a ticket about something NOT working - then something does NOT work. And if the systemd refused to fix it - who's going to?

Not every bug filed is an actual bug, even though the submitter feels it is. Saying no to bad patches and closing non-bugs with a "not-a-bug" is the daily grind of developers and package maintainers.

The "Heartbleed" bug is a prime example on how bad things can go when you accept patches that circumvent security measures in order to support obscure user cases.

Really, systemd developers accept a huge amount of patches from hundreds of different non-systemd developers each year, suggesting that they won't accept patches is simply contrary to reality. I have yet to see a reasonable patch being rejected on the systemd-mailing list.

The whole position of systemd implementors in Debian was and probably still is: we change how the whole system works, but we are totally not responsible if something breaks, because it is, duh, mainline systemd.

I really don't see the Debian systemd maintainers that way at all. They seem to be hard working and serious to me. I have yet to see a example of them accepting breakage because mainline systemd. As I said, there are Debian developers with commit access to the systemd git tree, so they obviously have a lot of influence on systemd as a upstream project.

Tollef Fog Heen was pretty clear that he is not going to do anything special for Debian. (He is (or was at the time) a Fedora user already anyway.)

I have seen no examples or evidence of this. Really, what specific non-trivial patches could Debian need that couldn't go into mainline systemd? Can't think of any, nor have I ever seen it on the mailing list.

Huh?

If you can't tell what the hell the trivial commit does, then you are obviously not a software developer.

It is trivial, but it is Debian distro specific and in upstream systemd. There are a lot more examples in the git tree, and also of Debian influence in the general design of systemd. You assertion that systemd developers doesn't care or won't accommodate the Debian distro is therefore unfounded.

That systemd actually accepts trivial distro specific patches, shows that they are accommodating their users. Since it is trivial, it could have been carried by the distro maintainer.

That was a great PR move on part of the systemd developers: to flood the mail lists with the buzz words. Users have no idea what they mean - but they sure sound cool - so systemd must be cool too.

Really, trying to pass off systemd as a "fad" that Debian accepted because of "buzzwords" on a mailing list is outright pathetic; systemd is real improvement over SysVinit in every aspect, and the Debian CTTE choose it because of its technical merit. That the Debian developers agree with this, was demonstrated at the latest Debian GR.

Comment: Re:Wait a minute... (Score 1, Interesting) 184

by Peter H.S. (#48659905) Attached to: Devuan Progress Report Published

Thanks Peter! you are so kind!

Hey wait a minute! the scammers are also on slashdot!!

quick quick, close your wallet!

Well, I am right ain't I. You funnel the donated Devuan money into dyne org, and as CEO/Chairman of that small org with self elected people, with no public oversight of the money, you also pull money out of dyne org into your own pocket to "pay for taxes". Dress it all up as a non-profit org too.

Make Devuan a proper org that directly receive the donated money you are begging for all the time, and have a proper elected committee with public oversight over the donated money and what they are spend on, and then maybe the smell of scam will evaporate.

Time to take stock. Go home with some office supplies.

Working...