Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 740

I don't agree that was the situation by 2014 and earlier this year. I think by then the chain of dependencies was starting to form that was making things increasingly nasty.

a) There were loud objections to systemd which would normally cause Debian to back off
b) The dependencies were making it clear that Jessie was the last Debian distribution that not tying onself to systemd and remaining a mainstream distribution would be viable for. So the question was really switch now or switch in 2.5 years when the switch would be even more painful.

I do agree with you on the interfaces last longer than cold post BTW. I think that while systemd is a huge plus. Replacing systemd say 20 years from now will be very difficult. Essentially the modules will each need to be reimplemented in a way that's backwards compatible, offers what the future features are and allows partial implementation. The kinds of problems say Microsoft, Apple, DEC or Sun had in pushing forward. I'm a fan of tight vertical integration but there certainly are counter arguments against it and for loose coupling.

Comment Re:BSD is looking better all the time (Score 1) 740

.I worked with Linux-HA before systemd, and I of all the problems, I don't recall init scripts being one of them.

The problem isn't init scripts it is what to do with chains of dependencies on high availability. If you worked in Linux-HA think about the application specific restart code that each application had to do and how fragile it all was.

That's an interesting thought.......have you ever supported Oracle Financials or similar? Do you have experiences you can share?

I help people migrate to cloud. IaaS/PaaS is a godsend in getting complex application stacks working. I can offer experience there that what I'm finding is not that people want a lighter thinner init-system but they want an process manager which is capable of intelligently handling

resource orchestration, resource monitoring, resource provision and resource balancing
virtual machines: backup, restart, status...
storage virtualization: especially backup
network virtualization
continuous test
continuous delivery especially decommissioning a
security validation
database monitoring ....

They all want an much richer environment of management tools. In real life I've never met anyone who thinks systemd is too thick, they all argue it is too thin. The amount of time IT people spend worrying about basic things like messaging across security zones is infuriating to management. Mostly now that Linux is taking on the workloads of mainframes I'm finding most companies want Linux to offer the kinds of services you would find on mainframes (but more modern).

Comment Re:Ever stop and ask why? (Score 1) 740

It was "just an init system" when it was made the init system in Debian "jessie", the most recent release.

No it wasn't. There was certainly an earlier debate about which init system which ended with Debian not having to make a choice. But the debate for Jessie was about systemd dependencies most of which were not tied to init.

Please justify your version of historical determinism.

Saying X happened for reason Y isn't historical determinism it is just an assertion about historical fact. This particular fact isn't even contested the people who did POSIX were quite openly doing it to advance open systems.

We know from innumerable examples that it isn't true; and we also know that since POSIX, the open system specification, won the war against vendorized UNIX

POSIX was for vendorized UNIX. POSIX advanced the proprietary Unixes. What killed them was NT and Linux, the advantages of x86 hardware mostly.

since POSIX there haven't been any successful closed systems

NT was after POSIX. OSX is a UNIX that came after POSIX.

That is very much an ad-hominem attack.

An ad-hominem attack is saying argument X is wrong because Y is a bad person. Saying Y gets treated badly because he's a bad person is not an ad-hominem attack. So saying that the anti-systemd people being jerks proves that systemd is a good idea would be ad-hominem saying the anti-systemd get ad-hominem attacks for lying and ignorance is not ad-hominem though it is not polite.

Besides, if they're such ignorant liars, couldn't you just point them at a FAQ and be done with it,

I've done so. I try that too when their are factual claims.

Comment Re:Best coverage (Score 1) 142

European carriers are often subsidized more heavily (like USA land carriers). The bigger problem is that Europe even sparse countries have more uniform density. America has a lot of suburbs and x-burbs where a huge percentage of the population live in moderate densities. Rural highway is easy (though expensive). The problem is what to do in lightly populated areas.

Comment Re:Strange path he is taking (Score 1) 740

The OS kernel really do much to manage process and threads. Consider this example: A is a daemon which depends on B which depends on C. C encounters a problem and needs to restart. What should the system do about A? Linux prior to systemd lacked any standards for this and every daemon had to handle this sort of thing on its own on top of init.

Let's make it worse. Assume A is going to follow process B's lead and process B needs to know why C crashed to decide what to do.
a) How does process B find out what happened to C?
b) How does B find out whether C was able to resolve the problem on restart?
c) How does A find out given that A and C don't directly touch?

Comment Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score 1) 712

The reason they wanted to do that was they started stripping clothes off people before killing them and wanted to be able to identify bodies for the records. This is well attested to historical fact. So asking that sort of question without quickly checking the answer implies either deliberate ignorance or dishonesty.

Comment Re: Brought about by the internet? (Score 1) 712

No it doesn't. Just talk about Israel the way you would talk about Myanmar. One doesn't conflate Tibetans in China with Burmese Tibetans in Myanmar even though they are close and support one another.

Avoid "blaming" anyone. This is a policy dispute it isn't about "blame". You disagree with policy X and want to see policy X changed. Once it goes beyond that, well then there is good reason it gets considered anti-Semitism.

Comment Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score 1) 712

I'm a fan of free speech. But the holocaust is well verified historical fact. There is no rational reason that a critic of Israel on policy grounds would need to have any opinion outside the norm on the holocaust. One can be critical of most other country's policies, even those with popular support within the country without having to make up fake history. The reason that anti-Zionism gets grouped with anti-Semitism is that anti-Zionism doesn't feel like a foreign policy debate but more like a religious debate.

Comment Re:Ever stop and ask why? (Score 0) 740

It is just an init replacement, right?

Wrong. There is your mistake there. It is a process manager. It is not an init system.

Why binary logging? Who asked for that?

Log aggregation systems for well over a decade.

Why throw away POSIX

POSIX was the solution to the problem of Open Systems: how to be able to write software for a huge range of proprietary Unixes without needing extensive porting. We no longer have that problem the proprietary Unixes are almost all dead or dying.

Why the barrage of ad hominem attacks systemd critics?

Because mostly they are ignorant liars. They state untrue things and when the truth is explained to them they often continue. They have a much thinner range of experience with systems and often condescendingly talk about how no one did X and anyone who disagrees with them can't administer a system when in fact X was the norm and they don't know all that much about how system administration is being handled today. And to boot their tone is atrocious almost unhinged. Coming at this from a place of honest exploration would have helped.

Comment Re:What path have we chosen? (Score 1) 740

I'm beginning to think that those distributions which have chosen systemd are now beginning to think, what have we done to ourselves?

Well you are thinking wrong. The distributions that choose systemd have been able to easily layer Linuxes into more complex systems and as a result IaaS and PaaS type configurations involving literally millions of CPUs or workload running Linux as a base OS are becoming standard. At the same time microservice architectures are thriving making program management much easier.

What they are finding is that Linux finally scales easily to fill the niches their customers want.

Comment Re:BSD is looking better all the time (Score 1) 740

Upstart: couldn't keep up. Systemd came out of solutions to some of the problems with upstrart. There was no good reason in theory upstart couldn't have won, it just didn't.

Launchd is tied to BSD initialization. But... there was an attempt to port its features over to Linux. That was called systemd.

What you might really like is OpenRC which is a "better init for Linux" and doesn't aim to be more than just init version 2. But it is mostly defunct now.

Comment Re:BSD is looking better all the time (Score 1) 740

As an aside launchd is open source. The FreeBSD people were able easily to move it over.

Now onto your question:

OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Slackware not have any problems with init scripts?

Those 3 don't support complex tiers of applications that need to work together. They aren't aiming to have say something like Oracle Financials running on them. They aren't used in large configurations involving hundreds (or many thousands or more) CPUs.

Help me, I'm a prisoner in a Fortune cookie file!

Working...