Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 1) 280

by phantomfive (#47931637) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Personally, I think the systemd opponents are too concerned with negative campaigns against systemd, that they entirely forget to code any alternatives, so I predict ever more distros like Slackware abandoning script based init systems; they simply don't have an alternative.

What will happen is other distress will add a compatibility layer so they can handle all the kludge that has added systemD as a requirement.

The problem is systemD is bad design. The systemD guys like to say, "but look at all the features!", which is cool, but features aren't an excuse for bad design. "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly" etc etc

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 1) 280

by phantomfive (#47931531) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

However, I observe Linux is not a microkernel but it has a reputation for both reliability and being relatively secure.

It has a reputation for security compared to Windows, which is not saying much. Look through a database of security vulnerabilities sometime, it's depressing.

Also worth mentioning that the kernel guys keep as much stuff out of the kernel as possible. There's even a way to segregate drivers into userland. Doing so comes with a performance hit, but if that is relatively unimportant, then it's worth keeping out. Drivers for scanners are part of the kernel, but kept in userland (as one example).

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 3, Informative) 280

by drinkypoo (#47928733) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Xorg, which on desktop is as critical as init to keep running, is not really simple.

Never go full retard. X is not even remotely as important as init. For one thing, if X dies, who will restart it? And do we really want computers that explode when the GUI dies? I, for one, would like network services to terminate gracefully. The whole idea of TCP/IP networks, the dominant network used with Unix, is peer-to-peer. I may well run both services and clients on my machine. If X dies, the clients may die (if they're not text and running in screen) but the servers won't.

kernel, which is also as critical as init to keep running, and it is *much* *much* more complex than systemd. systemd is not at the "bottom layer" of the system, there's the whole of kernel underneath still.

So the argument is that since the kernel is complex, we should add more complexity, or that more complexity won't matter? That's an ignorant, illogical argument.

And one common myth is that systemd has these so many features and systemd is pid 1 therefore pid 1 is this huge bloated monster that does udev, logging and NTP, right? Wrong; actually, just the core bits of systemd run in pid 1 and the rest is compartmentalized in a bunch of separate daemon processes.

Systemd still has to be more complicated so that it knows how to run these other processes, which wasn't even necessary. init was never meant to manage daemons. daemons were meant to manage themselves, or be run from inetd. If you want more complexity, inetd is the place to add it. And for handling daemons which don't adequately manage themselves, there's daemontools. There was simply no need whatsoever for this to happen.

So, this "increased complexity" issue is not really as bad as it sounds, realistically.

It is bad, because PID1 is now responsible for a bunch of things which could have existed in any other daemon. And rather than roll the things which actually make sense in together, everything is getting rolled together. So now not only do we depend on a complex kernel, but we depend on a needlessly complex init system. There was no good reason to put all of this stuff into the same daemon.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2) 280

by drinkypoo (#47928683) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

You can't seriously claim that systemd provides nothing that can't be done by script based init systems, shell scripts and existing daemons

Yes, yes I can. And I did.

logind is just one example

Does nothing a script can't do

But it would be an interesting project to make a Linux SysVinit distro that tried get feature parity with systemd, so that daemons could utilize the kernel "namespaces" and "capabilities"

Systemd doesn't even fucking use capabilities, just cgroups. Which we could use before systemd. Systemd manages permissions in lieu of using capabilities, e.g. apparmor or selinux.

Isn't that argument just trying to make a virtue out of the fact, that SysVinit and the like, are totally crude and primitive init systems that are unable to anything much of interest?

No. That is the virtue. They are simple. Simplicity is still a virtue.

All the analyses I have seen shows that moving crucial processes into PID2, just makes everything more fragile and opens up security holes.

Making PID1 more complex makes everything more fragile and opens up security holes.

I think that there are actually very good design reasons for why systemd is designed like it is.

NIH

It only runs one process as PID1, the daemon "systemd" which is rather small. This daemon however, is capable of "talking" with with several other processes, which gives it many advantages,

This is making init do stuff it doesn't need to do, which makes it more complex, which makes it more fragile. You should not need a detailed explanation to understand why this is a bad thing.

Comment: Re:Are you even aware of SystemD works? (Score 4, Informative) 280

by drinkypoo (#47928579) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

You don't seem to understand how SystemD actually works. The PID 1 is relatively simple -- it uses all sorts of separate (i.e. non-PID 1) helper processes to do all the heavy and complicated lifting.

Lifting which should not be done by PID 1. And PID 1 has to be more complex than it should be just to handle those external programs.

SystemD currently does a fuckton of stuff no other currently usable init system on Linux does.

It does a lot of stuff the init system shouldn't do.

(Reliable process supervision which cannot be evaded,

cgroups existed before systemd.

sane handling of process stdout/stderr

Up to the init script.

proper handling of dependencies at runtime

Already handled by several init systems.

socket activation

We call it inetd.

I don't particularly care which init system my system runs, but I want those features and currently only SystemD can deliver them.

That is ignorance at best, or perhaps a lie.

Please stop spreading FUD about things you know next to nothing about.

You have no idea about anything, that didn't stop you. I see why you didn't log in.

Comment: Re:Misleading slashdot headline (Score 2) 280

by phantomfive (#47928097) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Torvalds: UNIX Philosophy is Obsolete

I'm not sure that's accurate......it seems he's actually saying, "UNIX Philosophy is hard to implement in complex systems." It seems to me the reason he doesn't have much of an opinion is because he hasn't spent the time necessary to think it through deeply. There might be a better solution or not, he doesn't know.

And I think it makes sense......SystemD is a heap of trash, but System V isn't an example of great design, either.

Comment: Re:Of course they do (Score 4, Interesting) 676

by phantomfive (#47927969) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children
A google search for "terrorists are engineers" turns up a heap of relevant links, but here is one in particular from the IEEE.

My hypothesis is that working as an engineer in Pakistan (for example) is one of the most miserable jobs you can have, with horrible managers and only somewhat better pay to compensate. Having seen how it is, I would rather work as a farmer than an engineer in that situation, it's more satisfying and enjoyable.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2, Insightful) 280

by drinkypoo (#47926333) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

If you really buy that principle and want to enforce it religiously,

It's not a religion, it's a principle. When it makes sense, you put it aside and get work done. The argument against systemd is that it doesn't make sense. systemd is a simple case of NIH because it provides absolutely nothing which could not be implemented with the existing daemons and some small shell scripts.

That't the issue: Every single person who hates SystemD because "UNIX PHILOSOPHY!!" has no problem violating that philosophy to actually get things done in a whole bunch of other areas.

That's right.

That's not even bringing up the fact that SystemD is.. wait for it... built from a bunch of individual utilities that can actually be used by non-systemd programs.

That's not the complaint. The complaint is that the process at PID 1 should be simple. You people running around screaming about a bunch of different processes are only compounding the proof that you do not understand Unix. It's not a problem to have many processes.

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...