Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2, Informative) 319

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 3, Informative) 319

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) 319

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:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 5, Insightful) 319

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.

Comment: Re:Carpooling should be as free as speech (Score 1) 288

by drinkypoo (#47925191) Attached to: California Declares Carpooling Via Ride-Share Services Illegal

Of course it's who they approve of - because the point of carpool lanes is to effectively remove significant traffic and air pollution, and they felt that Uber doesn't qualify.

Bullshit, they're still letting licensed commercial vehicles use the HOV lane. The fact is that HOV lanes are shit. They're a waste of space which accomplishes none of the stated goals. Simply adding another general lane does more to reduce emissions, because it does more to reduce congestion, and thus reduces idling — where vehicles without start-stop systems get 0 MPG and thus are producing pure pollution. They're always trying to justify the existence of HOV lanes with bullshit like this, but they still are unjustifiable.

Comment: Re:Silly design decision (Score 1) 406

by drinkypoo (#47922187) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos

Phones have big screens now, so they need armor anyway. So since you're going to put armor on the phone, you want the phone to get thinner, so that the phone with a case on it is still thin. Just making the phone thin allows the user to put whichever case on it they like, so they get to personalize their phone and you don't have to try to anticipate their needs, instead letting the whole world do that. And that's why having the camera really doesn't matter. In fact, having the bezel around it protrude from the camera probably helps protect that side from scratches. What's the problem, planned to slot-load the phone?

Comment: Re:Carpooling should be as free as speech (Score 1) 288

by drinkypoo (#47917535) Attached to: California Declares Carpooling Via Ride-Share Services Illegal

Even with the new rules that for-profit "ridesharing" (i.e. independent taxi service) can't use the carpool lane, ANYONE with more than one person in a car not charging the passenger gets to use the lane,

Right. Because someone is charging for something, they're not permitted to use the lane. That's prejudicial, since both people who are not charging and people who are charging but have a license to do so are able to use the lane. So it's not ANYONE, it's ANYONE YOU APPROVE OF.

Comment: Re:Car Dealers should ask why they're being bypass (Score 1) 148

by drinkypoo (#47914665) Attached to: Court: Car Dealers Can't Stop Tesla From Selling In Massachusetts

I believe the primary reasons are more likely to do with distance and communication.

But there's no reason to believe that.

The idea of trying to manage a network of stores across the country when communication was by post or expensive phone calls just simply didn't make sense.

What? Why not? Cars are expensive items, phone calls are minimal by comparison. If you have an order for a car, you drop the form in the post. At least, they did back then.

In fact, the reasons are as stated. The manufacturers want to make cars at X dollars, which requires building Y cars. Right now there are cars which can't be sold piled up all over the world, for reasons like these and others (e.g. "the economy, stupid")

Comment: some kind of EULA situation (Score 1) 324

by drinkypoo (#47913543) Attached to: Microsoft To Buy Minecraft Maker Mojang For $2.5 Billion

I was at home with a bad cold a couple of weeks ago when the internet exploded with hate against me over some kind of EULA situation that I had nothing to do with.

Yeah, some kind of EULA situation, like basically outlawing for-pay Minecraft services including hosting, selling packages of items, etc. In short, making most of the best MC servers illegal. The fact that he has nothing to do with it any more suggests that he should indeed uninvolve himself.

Itâ(TM)s not about the money. Itâ(TM)s about my sanity.

He's still a hypocrite given his explosion of hate over Oculus Rift, especially after this statement. He deserves our derision, and he's getting it.

Comment: Re:#1 Source of Environmental Mercury = Gold Minin (Score 1) 173

by drinkypoo (#47912049) Attached to: Surprise! More Than Twice As Much Mercury In Environment As Thought

Sorry, what's an "RO filter"?

Reverse osmosis, which uses water pressure both to push water through a plastic membrane (the osmosis part) but also to back-flush the filter. An "efficient" RO filter wastes about 10 parts of water for each 1 part filtered, but we have a well and a septic system so no harm done really.

Comment: Re:First world problems. (Score 1) 608

In your view, the fact that people were given for free a piece of music is something they should rightfully complain about?

You know how frustrating it is when your computer downloads updates while you're trying to watch a video? Now combine that with the potential to accidentally hear a U2 song while you're trying to listen to something that someone would program intentionally and you'll get the picture.

People aren't complaining about free music. They're complaining about automatic download of shitty music. If they wanted that, they could have signed up for it. There's whole websites based around the idea.

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Working...