Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:well, duh? (Score 1) 228

by drinkypoo (#47936885) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps

If you define "has" as "has within a mile," then you're absolutely correct. If you define it as "has passing the home," then definitely not.

I live on a paved road and I'm several miles (at least three) away from fiber. Literally the only company with fiber into my county is AT&T, and as you likely know, they are bastards of the first degree.

Comment: Re:10Mbps is still slow (Score 1) 228

by drinkypoo (#47936529) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps

Minimum standard for what? 2014? Per individual? Per family? Per household? Per block? Per neighborhood?

Please try to keep up.

1. Standards change. 10Mbps might be an acceptable minimum today, but it certainly won't be in 2024, let alone 2054.

1. Standards change.

The devil is in the details.

So is the wankery of your comment.

Comment: Re:Are you even aware of SystemD works? (Score 1) 332

by drinkypoo (#47934955) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

cgroups existed before systemd.

the cgroups functionnality existed in the kernel but wasn't really used that much before. [...] whereas current /etc/init.d/apache can't without fumbling of shell scripts.

Yes, my argument was that altering the init scripts would have solved most of what systemd solved. Thanks for confirming that.

each script end up fucking things up in its own original and different way.

The scripts are unified by maintainers. I've already made the proposal that you could actually interpret unit files as init scripts, with the right parser which basically stripped out the sections in brackets, dumped the rest of the content of the file into a series of variables by sourcing it, and then running a unified init script. This would work just fine for any daemons which are long-running, without any complex work. All you'd need is a hashbang at the top of the unit file.

proper handling of dependencies at runtime

Already handled by several init systems.

None of which are the original sysvinit.

Congratulations, you just hammered home the point that you don't understand Unix, while simultaneously proving that you don't understand sysvinit. Using fancy scripts with the original sysvinit is still using the original sysvinit. You are witnessing the awesome power of the Unix philosophy. Because sysvinit is small, simple, and completely modular, the scripts could be extended to provide functionality which sysvinit didn't try to claim for itself. Instead of moving more functionality into PID1, the functionality can be implemented at the script level.

Or cron if it's time-based activation. Or udev if it's hardware based activation. Etc.
Why do we need 83 different way to start some code ?!
Wasn't the whole point of Unix philosophy having one piece of software which concentrates into doing one thing and doing it well?

You failed to understand the Unix way. It's not to have one piece of software. That's the systemd way. It's to have many pieces of interoperable software which can be combined to perform complex tasks, and reconfigured to perform other complex tasks. So we have cron and at (which are often merged) and we have udev and inetd. And each of these things does one simple thing. It's not unusual to want to start processes in multiple ways, that is in fact common to all modern operating systems. You can start them from the command line, you can schedule them, you can start them from the GUI. Is that a problem for you?

Before, you'd have the same concept spread into a dozen of different systems, each only doing part of that functionnality.

And you still do. Only now, they're all managed by one process which, if it craters, will not just cause them all to fail, but which will cause a panic. Great idea!

if you don't like it, don't use it.

That's getting harder to do as people depend on it. I may finally have to go back to BSD.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 1) 332

by drinkypoo (#47934933) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

It uses kernel namespaces and capabilities to protect the system; this is on top of SELinux etc.

Well then, I sit corrected on this one point. And finally, we have found something for systemd to do. I propose that we stop using it as init, strip out all the shit better done with a script, and use just that part. Perhaps it can be reworked into a replacement for daemontools. That would make a lot more sense than eating up all these daemons which work fine on their own.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2, Informative) 332

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) 332

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.


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) 332

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) 332

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.

Some programming languages manage to absorb change, but withstand progress. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982