Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

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:Mandatory xkcd (Score 4, Insightful) 212

by devent (#49492101) Attached to: GNU Hurd 0.6 Released

That's why people want systemd. If I look at sysvinit scripts, there are a ton of magic stuff going on that I don't know, and maybe nobody knows. On Ubuntu 12.04 the sysvinit script for Apache is over 7000 bytes long, and it includes bad stuff like "# wait until really stopped" with a loop of kill and sleep. The ClamAV init script is even bigger, over 9000 byes long. Is there any maintainer who really knows what it does?

Comment: Re:Check their work or check the summary? (Score 1) 486

by devent (#49336755) Attached to: No, It's Not Always Quicker To Do Things In Memory

All they did compare was one memory access vs. another memory access, and showed that Strings are inefficient compared to a byte array. Because the first code will concatenate Strings in memory, the second code will concatenate byte array data in memory, and then both are written to disk. The disk-access test should have been:

    for (int i=0; i numIter; i++) {

Comment: Re:Watching systemd evolve (Score 1) 765

by devent (#49223563) Attached to: Ubuntu To Officially Switch To systemd Next Monday

That is your opinion. I wrote reasons why I think it is proven and obviously a lot of Linux distributors think that, too. Lets assume you are correct and it is unproven and will break in RHEL 7 and a lot, if not all, customers will get very angry with Red Hat and switch to sysvinit or stick to 6 or switch to a different distribution or to Windows. Do you think Red Hat will live with that risk? So, why would Red Hat use systemd in their enterprise distribution if they not think it is ready? Red Hat, Inc. is even a publicly traded company and since May 2014 their stock continues to grow in value, i.e. there is no sign that customers are running away from RHEL 7.

Comment: Re:What is systemd exactly? (Score 3, Informative) 765

by devent (#49216285) Attached to: Ubuntu To Officially Switch To systemd Next Monday

What are you talking about? In the core systemd have only 5 daemons: systemd, journald, networkd, logind and user session, and it depends only on dbus, cgroups, autofs and kdbus. That is very minimalistic. The rest are optional daemons and tools that make your life easier.

Comment: Re:Complexity is not a property of the observer (Score 1) 188

by devent (#49216229) Attached to: The Origin of Life and the Hidden Role of Quantum Criticality

I'm still compelled to ask the same question, so what? Biological systems had 3.5 billion years to evolve. That is a lot of time for evolution and surviving of the fittest. If you look at biological organisms, they are in fact based on simplicity. Our mammalian brain is based on the amphibian and the fish brain. That is because we evolved from fish ancestors and then from amphibian ancestors. That is one example of from simple to complex. In the cell we have DNA->RNA->Proteins. That is also from simple to complex, because the first life had only proteins, then it got RNA for genetic information and enzyme in one, then it got DNA only for genetic information. Or eukaryotes evolved after prokaryotic cells, and eukaryotes fussed with chloroplast and mitochondrion cells to form our modern animal/plant cells. Also, single celled life lived long before multicellular life evolved, etc. etc. You can find simple to complex everywhere in biology.

Comment: Re:Watching systemd evolve (Score 1) 765

by devent (#49216155) Attached to: Ubuntu To Officially Switch To systemd Next Monday

1. my impression is that systemd is just more transparent about it, because syslog just drops the corrupted log entries silently.
2. that is just wrong. journald just rotates the log files, nothing is lost. journald shows all partials log files together as one journal:

If called without parameters, it will show the full contents of the journal, starting with the oldest entry collected. [...] Output is interleaved from all accessible journal files, whether they are rotated or currently being written, and regardless of whether they belong to the system itself or are accessible user journals.

Comment: Re:Watching systemd evolve (Score 1) 765

by devent (#49204155) Attached to: Ubuntu To Officially Switch To systemd Next Monday

So, your issue with systemd is that it works just like syslog, only that systemd makes the issue more transparent by showing corrupted logs instead of just silently drop them like syslog?

"Transferring log messages via rsyslog or snmp traps is CURRENTLY the only resolve here and it is one I find to be annoying."

Just like you would without systemd. I don't see why you think then it is a bug of systemd. I think you should open a feature request.

Comment: Re:What is systemd exactly? (Score 2) 765

by devent (#49200503) Attached to: Ubuntu To Officially Switch To systemd Next Monday

It is also my understanding that SystemD is taking the approach of wrapping up quite a number of those software pieces into one tool/process.

Your understanding is wrong. systemd init have only a few components, and everything else is in independent daemons/tools. It follows exactly the Linux "Philosophy".

Comment: Re:Watching systemd evolve (Score 0) 765

by devent (#49200473) Attached to: Ubuntu To Officially Switch To systemd Next Monday

So, where is the bug and where is your issue on how the issue was solved? Systemd just rotates on corruption, and the issue is resolved. What do you want? That systemd magically fixes the corruption, that systemd can go back in time and retrieve the log message? There is absolutely nothing that any computer can do on file corruption, or on sudden power loss.

"The next question seems obvious to me though - how do we avoid that in the future?"

Have better hardware, have a RAID, transfer the log messages over the network, have a UPS on your computer, invent a time machine.

Comment: Re:What is systemd exactly? (Score 1) 765

by devent (#49197899) Attached to: Ubuntu To Officially Switch To systemd Next Monday

Can you define "SystemD also has integrated into it"? Because that what you have listed are independent daemons that offer functionality and are not "integrated" into systemd. The only "integration" you have is the common name prefix "systemd-" like "systemd-tty-ask-password" to avoid name conflicts.

"At one point, if your logging didn't work, it broke your keyboard so you could not terminal in. Don't you love it when two unrelated services with no logical dependencies can some how affect each other?"

What are you talking about?

If you don't have time to do it right, where are you going to find the time to do it over?