Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Not just Linux (Score 1) 716

by ookaze (#49039455) Attached to: Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?

It isn't just Linux; it's the nature of modern systems to become "too complex". Back in the days of my youth, it was possible for one person to grok an entire operating system, but it simply isn't possible anymore, unless it's a tightly-focused and built-to-purpose system.

And yet that's exactly what I'm doing today on my systems, which I build from scratch. And I grok the entire operating system, systemd was a god send tool for me.
I run in a setup where multiple graphical sessions run on one computer, which only Linux allow me to do very easily.

There is one exception though : polkit. It is the only tool on my systems that I never tried to completely understand. Now I don't even need to anymore with udev + systemd. And I bet that's where the op is having problems, as it was fixed by installing systemd.

Comment: Re:Lack of management (Score 1) 716

by ookaze (#49039409) Attached to: Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?

The behaviour of "Linux" (all the distributions and kernels) as a whole is exactly the same behaviour you see in companies with poor management. Everyone is working on stuff, and maybe even working hard, but all those things don't add up to the whole. There's no 1 person over-seeing it all to ensure everyone is working smart, and in the same direction.

And the outcome is pretty good as Linux runs on every computer available to this day, be it embedded or phones or HPC. So I don't understand what you mean by poor management, are they able to do that in poor management companies?

To me, this is what is happening with Linux. Everyone has ideas, and some of those ideas are great, but when everyone can fork and create and merge without an overall management process, you end up with a bit of a mess and mass confusion for those on the "outside."

You're just new to this: Free Software is like that since it started, what you say is laughable to people used to FOSS. You talk like you just discovered FOSS.

This is both the advantage (choice) and disadvantage (lack of alignment) with Linux. Should I use Gnome or KDE or Unity? Do I even know what those are as a end-user? Should I?

What I get OSX, I know what I get. When I get Windows, it's the same.

Should you use Windows or OSX? Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows Server 2008?
When you get Ubuntu, you know what you get just as much as when you get OSX, you even can test it without installing anything.
You're juste spewing fallacies here.

Everything (mostly) from the previous version will work with this version, the interface isn't some massive surprise, etc (which is partially why Windows 8 was such a fiasco; things WEREN'T compatible and the UI was totally different).

You must be young as what you say is patently false, especially in Windows. Nearly everything I learned in Windows 98 was made useless when Windows XP came, including most of my work environment. I can say the same with Windows NT to Windows Server 2003. While nearly everything I learned in school on Unix 20 years ago is still usable today on Linux which is not even Unix.

At the end of the day, what needs to happen is exactly what most Linux devs hate the most: a large corporation with 1 vision needs to come in and create a clean, uniform experience that allows consistency and compatibility for years/decades, and reduces "choice" to a degree in order to provide consistency.

To some degree, you can argue RedHat did this a bit, especially with packages, but everyone hates on them too now..

This is what distro do, it's nothing new, it's just you discovering it now, but everything you're saying has already been done and evolved since then.

Comment: Re:Unix was built on top of a few paradigms (Score 1) 716

by ookaze (#49039245) Attached to: Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?

Let's see what modern Linux does:

- Lots of binary stuff everywhere, where text would do
- You'll boot up faster with systemd, oooh yeah baby, totally rad!

It's funny you say that, as systemd is about putting back text (systemd units) instead of lots of binary stuff everywhere (init scripts).

- Oooh, and it's more integrated, one single process does everything!

Not on my Linux, and I use systemd. I mean it's integrated and I do not have one single process which does everything.

Comment: Re:What do you mean, modern? (Score 1) 716

by ookaze (#49039063) Attached to: Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?

I would personally like to see three flavors of Linux:

Server - lean, NO systemd or plug-and-play crap, focus on security

So you will need systemd on your servers, especially if you want focus on security. The Linux kernel provides dynamic interfaces since a long time, and no one in userspace provided the tools to cope with it until systemd. Devices was done with udev and its predecessor devfs, but init was unable to cope with it before systemd, despite higher level tools trying to cope with the linux kernel dynamic nature.

Comment: Re:Why does John shut down all systemd talk? (Score 1) 716

by ookaze (#49038953) Attached to: Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?

When vague anecdotes start to pile up (and they do for systemd unreliability), they become facts in themselves.

No, anecdotes never lead to facts even if you have millions of them. You can't even say facts of what. Only analysis of anecdotes can lead to facts.
This is becoming ridiculous, pushing dogmatic thoughts like that is dangerous.

Add to that that systemd problems are exceptionally hard to debug (you have to look into complex C source code for many) and the development team is unhelpful

This is pure lie that can be debunked by just looking at the devel ML.
Why systemd haters always have to rely on lies?

The reason many, many people are reporting vague anecdotes about their system being unstable from systemd is not that they are lying, or fantasizing or on drugs, the reason is that systemd does indeed break reliability and on top is very hard to debug and fix.

No, the reason is that the unstable distro these people are using is really unstable, but they are too young to have experienced previous big breaks in GNU/Linux distro, like udev predecessor, kernel 2.2 to 2.4, 2.4 to 2.6, 2.6 to 3.0, 3.3 to 3.4, Gnome to Gnome 2, Gnome 2 to Gnome 3, ...
systemd is far from being the biggest change and challenge in Linux since I've worked with it starting in 1999, it's actually a breeze that no decent admin that know several Unix + Linux should trip on.

Some very old engineering failure analysis wisdom applies here: To really break things, you have to screw up in two major aspects. Systemd manages to do this easily by being unreliable and so hard to debug that most people fail at it. People are scared of it and angry at it, because they cannot master this complexity. And they are right to fight it: A decent OS has no business at all being complex in any place where it is avoidable and in particular, it has no business at all replacing simple things that work with complex ones, regardless of whether they work or not. If Linux is not kept free of high complexity in core components, it will implode.

When I read this I could be made to believe I'm a genius. This is wrong on so many levels, the first one being that things didn't work before, things were duct taped constantly by distro providers or by admins. Which is why the first thing systemd haters talk about is being able to tweak their initscripts, because the secret to unknowing people is that the basic distros just don't work with their setup, which has to be tweaked with ugly hacks for every specific environment.
It becomes a hell to maintain and every distro upgrade is at risk of failing very badly or erasing their change.
Usually what happens is that you forget about it, then when it blows up, blame the distro, and then quickly flee in shame when you realise it was all your fault to begin with. Now these admins blame systemd for their faults, the good ones come regularly to the ML to see their problem fixed.
Fortunately systemd is part of the fix for this mess.

Comment: Re: Why does John shut down all systemd talk? (Score 1) 716

by ookaze (#49038745) Attached to: Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?

>When a computer is less useful today than it was last year thanks to systemd getting installed, the problem is solely with systemd.

In the OP, it's the opposite: the computer is more useful today than it was before thanks to systemd getting installed, so the problem is solely with something else.
Which makes sense since a distro upgrade is not just systemd being upgraded, contrary to belief of non proficient people.

Comment: Re:Why does John shut down all systemd talk? (Score 1) 716

by ookaze (#49038723) Attached to: Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?

I was reading through the article's comments and saw this thread of discussion. Well, it's hard to call it a thread of discussion because John apparently put an end to it right away. The first comment in that thread is totally right though. It is systemd and Gnome 3 that are causing so many of these problems with Linux today.

perhaps he shuts them down because he specifically said that installing systemd solved his problem but he doesn't know why.
Yet people with logic problems claim systemd is the problem, despite the fact that it wasn't installed on the systems experiencing the problem.

Comment: Re: Yes (Score 1) 716

by ookaze (#49038333) Attached to: Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?

Systemd has been the most divisive force in the Linux community lately, and perhaps ever.

As it has been adopted by most distro, you're obviously wrong with your rhetoric. It has been one of the most cohesive force actually.

It has been foisted upon many unwilling victims. It has torn apart the Debian community. It has forced many long-time Linux users to the BSDs, just so they can get systems that boot properly.

systemd doesn't have the power to force anyone to do anything, people that went to BSD did this on their own will.
Debian community has not been torn by systemd but by trolls actually, systemd was the point used by the trolls.
And usually, victims are unwilling to be victims, or so I heard.

Systemd has harmed the overall Linux community more than anything else has. Microsoft and SCO, for example, couldn't have dreamed of harming Linux as much as systemd has managed to do, and in such a short amount of time, too.

I won't take your word for it on this, only time will tell but I'm pretty sure what you say is just plain hyperbole.
Competent sysadmins actually have no problem with systemd, on the contrary.

Comment: Re:So roll your own. (Score 2) 716

by ookaze (#49038259) Attached to: Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?

Rolling your own 'Just like Linus did' may be a little extreme. I don't think you need a whole new kernel!

Just install Linux from scratch and don't put all that *kit, etc.. crap in it. I would imagine you could even get rid of udev and all that stuff if you are willing to run mknode yourself. Roll it like it's 1995.

You will lose out on some convenience if you are using a portable device such as a laptop but on a desktop with fairly static hardware everything should work just fine.

If having your own custom simple Linux isn't good enough for you then take it to the next step and start your own distro that leaves all that stuff out.

I've run my own Linux From Scratch like system since 2001, and I can say your advice is a very bad one.
The problem is that the kernel provides dynamic interfaces since a long time. If you do what you say here, you will have a very limited setup that must not be a moving target, or take the risk of seeing your OS not boot very often, or even lose data (I had several of these problems before systemd). Your setup also has to be a very basic one.
Even your network interfaces or your disks can appear too late for your script on a very basic setup.
systemd is an answer to all this actually: it finally puts the dynamic parts in userspace needed to correctly handle the dynamic kernel.

The problems the OP is seeing, I've crashed into several years ago, and it's basically a documentation problem.
Some of the plumbing tools used for DE (like polkit or accountsservice) are badly documented, sometimes badly designed, sometimes with incomplete options (fixed in the latest versions of accountsservice) and the worst is that there is no howto that I could find explaining the big picture of how it all works together: everything is buried in various development ML. I had to basically reverse engineer nearly everything to understand how it works, mostly because as I compile everything from upstream, the DE like Gnome and KDE would just not start without everything in the right place and well configured.
Gnome 3 and KDE 4 were the worst upgrades for me, I delayed them a lot.
So what the OP discovered is actually nothing new, and I agree but only for security related plumbing needed for DE and user sessions.

Comment: Re:Yes (Score 1) 716

by ookaze (#49038161) Attached to: Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?

So... the middle. This thread referenced "/etc/network/interfaces". That does NOT exist on all distributes (ex. redhat based systems don't have this). Personally, I like /etc/network/interfaces, but it's a good example of fragmentation of "standard" ways/interfaces to configure the kernel networking subsystem. Is it bad that debian and redhat both do it different? IMO, the "becoming too complex" question would imply that this is NOT bad, since this has been this way FOR A LONG LONG LONG TIME, and I'd agree that this amount of differentiation is ok and even good, but this could easily be argued is and firmly into the grey area.

This /etc/network/interfaces which is distro specific that you talk about, is exactly one of the configuration for which a replacement is proposed by the systemd you talk about below:

The part that I have very large concerns with is what is currently happening with the low-level just above kernel... specifically, systemd and its related parts. Networking is an example here, as one of its goals is to provide one unified/common way to configure the network.... but doesn't that already exist!?!?

Yes, in systemd it exists, nowhere else for now.

It's called the kernel!

No it's not, you don't understand what you're talking about. The kernel doesn't configure your network interface for you, it just manages the device.

On the other hand, maybe it will prove to be a useful shim? The fact that a single framework is going in above the kernel, which some direct ties to the kernel, and is casting a very wide net in terms of things it is, or can, control (logging, network, dhcp, login, init, sessions, mounts, consoles/vte, timedated/ntp, devices/udevd)... we'd better hope and pray it's designed well cause everything and the kitchen sink will soon have direct dependencies on the interfaces it's implementing.

It sure enough removes complexity from the OS if you use every control systemd allows.

Comment: Re:You're joking, right? (Score 0) 471

by ookaze (#48969587) Attached to: Systemd Getting UEFI Boot Loader

3-4 naysayers? More like the majority of the linux community. As for a new init process, sure , there's room for *improvement*. Systemd is not an improvement - its a bug ridden overly complex dogs dinner that is one mans ego trip being ridden roughshod through the whole linux/unix principal of KISS and do one thing well. Now you might not give a stuff about that principal but most of us do and we do not want to see this POS being installed by default.

Who is "us"?
I sure enough am not part of the people you're talking about, and most of the Linux community, those that develop software and manage most distributions, have switched to systemd. If you care about the linux community, then you should come join us in the real world and quit your fantasy land.
Linux never had this principal of doing one thing well, that's a laughable statement.Linux actually does lots of things well and even better, as is systemd.
If Debian unstable is above your proficiency level, then wait for the stable releases.
It's not even about Debian here, it's about upstream systemd, that you won't see before long unless you run your own OS and compile everything from upstream like I do, or use a distro like Gentoo which is very up to date.

Comment: Re:Can someone explain what the huge debate is? (Score 1) 551

by ookaze (#48849529) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

Consider, RAID and similar are high availability features. Their whole reason to be is making sure the system is available even if a drive fails. Systemd single-handedly defeats that whole purpose by refusing to even try to mount the root filesystem.

At first reading, I was mislead by thinking you were talking about RAID and similar high availability features in general, which work far better with systemd and LVM than with sysvinit where it was a nightmare prone to break on any boot.
Then I understood you were talking about these features inside btrfs.
And that's where you're yet again one of these people spreading FUD on systemd by being ignorant, be it on purpose or not.
How is software RAID and other features like it (like snapshots) handled on Linux? Yes, by one of several daemon, in the LVM package, that manage the state of the virtual devices. That's because, like was explained by the systemd developers, despite these features being implemented inside btrfs, the kernel still doesn't have enough states to give to userspace : the disk is either plugged or not.
And this is not at all driven by systemd but by udev, which yes, is in the systemd repository.
The issue here is that btrfs lacks the daemon to manage the virtual devices in userspace, and the kernel, if your btrfs RAID is degraded, say the disk is dead, thus why udev doesn't show the btrfs RAID as plugged, and thus why systemd doesn't mount it.
All of this was explained, but you chose to spread FUD by blaming systemd as being shit and breaking userspace.
It works with sysvinit because your script doesn't care for which disks are up or not, and will just break your setup any time some disk doesn't show up.

That's really a poor showing, but the insight it gives me into the project is even worse. It tells me that in spite of the importance of redundancy (some enterprises spend gadzillions on it) and the fact that it has worked well under SysVinit for over a decade, not one person on the systemd team even considered it.

This is a lie, btrfs didn't work well for a decade to begin with, btrfs is not even a decade old.
This just shows up to what ends systemd haters are willing to go to spread FUD.
And don't tell me RAID and SAN worked well with sysvinit, this would be another blatant lie.

Now that it has been brought to their attention, they can't even come up with a workaround for it (see what I said above about do what I say and do it now). All I need is an unconditional 'mount -a' and apparently it can't be done. In spite of that, the various systemd boosters refuse to admit the problem even exists. I have even had a few claim it's a feature meant to protect my data.

So there it is. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a simple boolean: "Did my system boot" and the objective answer is no. There is the followup, "how then, can I make systemd boot it" and the answer is [crickets].

I described the real situation up there, and everything can be found in ML archives, so everyone can see that eveything you wrote there are blatant lies. It's scary at this point.
Even the situation you described is wrong. You actually asked "Did my broken system boot?" and the objective answer is no. A good btrfs RAID would have booted, then even if a disk failed, it would stay functional. But it wouldn't boot in degraded state, just as most hardware RAID by default in fact.

Comment: Re:and when BSD moves to systemd... (Score 1) 403

by ookaze (#48828659) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Migrating a Router From Linux To *BSD?

Now I'm starting to believe in a conspiracy against Free Software.
I find it odd to see such nonsense written here, being modded up.
Because what is described here (making the product closed source) is just not possible to do for Free Software like systemd, but is entirely possible (and has been done before and up to this day) with BSD.
Yet, this explanation of why a free software liecensed init system (systemd) is like a closed source operating system (Windows) appears here, is based on nothing solid, but people seem to believe this nonsense nonetheless.
And there have been a big amount of articles about moving from Linux to BSD since six months ago, and I'm now starting to believe this is astroturfing.
Even the move to BSD because of an init system makes no sense to me.

What I'm sure about, is that to this day I'm unable to make my own Windows OS, but I'm still able to do my own Linux systems (all my Linux systems at home are custom made from upstream sources) even today despite having moved to systemd years ago.
Though it's not a bad thing to go learn other OS out there for an admin, I more or less know most of the Unix and Windows systems, but not Mac OS.

Comment: Re:Fuck Me (Score 1) 553

by ookaze (#48828051) Attached to: SystemD Gains New Networking Features

Whether or not you like it, it's not unfair to classify systemd as being "forced" on its users.

Users of systemd include distribution builders, daemon makers and administrators. It's clearly wrong and unfair to say systemd has been forced on these people, unless they're incompetent. Actually, most of these people are happy with the change. Not all administrators obviously as it requires some work and learning to switch your init daemon and its accompanying system startup, shutdown and live management process.

For a start, it's wildly popular with distribution builders, but this doesn't mean jack with anyone else.

This is plain wrong, I've seen popularity and interests among daemon makers and administrators too : the only people that had to deal with sysvinit and suffered decades from its insanity, especially for low level stuff like network and storage management.

Secondly, for a while (thought they've promised to me that they're trying to and maybe have by now fixed it), GNOME had a hard dependency of systemd. Being the most popular desktop environment more or less forced the hand of many of the distro builders too.

Again a lie. Gnome has a hard dependancy on systemd-logind API, this is like that because Gnome asked for a replacement of consolekit for months, and there was two sides : those that did the work (only systemd) and those that said "You just have to do this" without any work done.
The same applies with the console on userspace and the linux kernel.

To me, the whole thing seems odd. I've never seen a massive infrastructure change sweep so rapidly through the community of distributions. Especially such a major component, and double especially when things did actually work successfully before.

To me, what's odd is the time it took (15 years since I've seen the problem) for a solution to the problem to appear, and also the 5 years it took since I discovered systemd for it to be adopted.
Things didn't work successfully before, the people believing that are those that never had to fight their way through init scripts for all these years. The massive adoption is not at all surprising to me, this was needed for years.
An evidence is the fact that even those against systemd are afraid, among other things, of the cost of maintenance of init scripts, because they don't work successully to this day, are full of hacks, and so require lots of maintenance that "you just have to do" talk won't do.

Comment: Re:systemd is hypocritical (Score 1) 553

by ookaze (#48821113) Attached to: SystemD Gains New Networking Features

It annoys me that someone like Poettering, who only had PulseAudio come into use because of the ability distributions had to easily change core operating system components (and wouldn't have had the existing audio-subsystem been entrenched), would then proceed to develop something specifically intended to lock down its own existence and prevent its replacement by something else. It's hypocritical.

While I totally understand why he did it -- nobody wants to put a great amount of time into something only to have it superseded -- it flies in the face of open source in general, where you contribute to an evolving 'thing', and that while your specific contribution may not exist in the future, you can be happy that you took part in the evolution of the whole, and not feel the need to stamp your face on it for perpetuity.

What flies in the face of open source is actually people like you that waste time whining about people that actually code open source.
Complaining is all you're able to do, just go help the Devuan project instead.
Since Devuan appeared, there's still lots of people complaining and others dedicating efforts to go to BSD, and these people love to advertise that they're moving to BSD. But we don't care ! Just move to BSD already and leave the people on Linux alone.

It also sets a dangerous precedent. What's going to be locked down next, in the name of stability, or speed, or whatever else (when it's really about someone trying to 'make their mark'?) Do we lock down the file system? Only one file system for Linux, full stop? Do we lock down the network transports? The window manager? The terminal? The command-line applications?

What's this hyperbolic nonsense ? Nothing has been locked down here. Actually with systemd, nothing is locked down at all, I even have more power over my Linux now than ever. These doom and gloom stories for Linux because of systemd are just ignorant rants. People that actually use and understand systemd don't care because these rants make no sense.

Computer Science is the only discipline in which we view adding a new wing to a building as being maintenance -- Jim Horning