Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 657

Very few (very expensive) machines go all in on HA. By far, the most common case is RAID (which is implemented on x86 hardware all the time).

I wouldn't call RAID in and of itself HA. So I'm going to strongly disagree with a characterization of saying this "destroys HA". It does nothing of the kind. If you are using x86 non clustered you aren't HA. So at best it destroys booting by default a non-HA system on a damaged RAID.

In any case systemd is designed to handle error conditions. You tell it what to do on errors. In this case there is a flag to tell systemd to mount a degraded raid that can be added so you change the default behavior. I can see the argument that this is perhaps not the best default to just drop you to emergency shell, but I can also imagine the other side where systemd feels it is too dangerous to allow the system to risk total data loss by continuing to run. Pick the default you like.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 657

He didn't cheerfully refuse to fix it:

Well, cgroups-less kernels are explicitly not supported by systemd. However we added some hacks to allow it to boot to a certain degree even if a lot of things will not work correctly afterwards. In this mode when you boot you will actually get a warning on screen and bootup is delayed by 10s to make sure the user understands this.

Now, this mode recently broke, and it will segfault early on. I am happy to take a patch to 'fix' this again, but I will not work on this as i dont run kernels like this, and as mentioned its not really supported anyway...

Another option is to simply be honest amd stop supporting in entirely, and refuse booting completely. And I figure this is what I will eventually do if nobody cares enough to send me a patch to fix that segfault.

He's happy to accept a fix the segfault. He will take a patch or just have systemd refuse to boot. You were misrepresenting his position by saying he refused to fix the segfault.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 657

Again think of systemd as a process manager. Once you have process management you don't want an init system. Why would you want to distinguish the move from init to everything running from other process management? Whether you want a process manager or just want an init system is a different question than being able to break apart a process manager.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 657

No I'm saying that there is no difference between non sensible error messaging resulting in a crash and and just crashing. Obviously full error handling is better. But no system survives every possible case. Cases get logged they get fixed. That takes time and all software is vulnerable to being tricked into failing to boot properly.

As for the VM. If the VM doesn't have access and systemd is running on the VM then you are missing a hard dependency for your boot system. You wouldn't expect the kernel to boot without ram installed.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 657

Do we actually need two abstraction layers?

We wouldn't if the kernel provided sophisticated process management, logging... But since it doesn't yes you do need that.

So systemd is an operating system in itself, in this view. Why not. Not sure that how it has been sold, though.

It has. Pottering has always said that he wants systemd to be the interface for userspace the way the kernel is for kernel space. Every application that doesn't need low level interfaces with the kernel should would be using systemd to provide services. Effectively Linux kernel + systemd + X11/Wayland... become the OS.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 657

The primary use cases for Linux are embedded systems and very large server farms. Niche system admins running 1-100 boxes are an important constituency but not even 1% of 1% of the Linux out there. Linux as a cloud based OS is more important than Linux as a strictly hardware based OS. I don't agree that systemd creates problems for hardware, as you mention it is popular on desktop. But if ultimately one of the other has to go overboard...

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 657

I'll give you something you couldn't do in 2008 but can do today that I've been able to do on mainframes for 2 decades. Start running a process, take the node running that process and yank the plug, keep all session data fully intact as the process moves to another node. What systemd is doing is creating the application hooks so that this becomes possible in most rather than just a few applications.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 657

What you are missing is verb tenses. The decision to move to more modern architectures was being made around 2007. The specifics then got rolled out in 2010. Now the effects are being felt. The choice isn't starting to be taken away, that happened a long time ago.

There is going to be choice among modern configuration but not the choice to use "modern" software in 1990s style configurations. Same thing that happened to CP/M users.

Comment Re:Fuck Mozilla (Score 1) 313

W agree. My opinion is that IE4 is where IE crushed Netscape the transition happened then. Certainly sites had problems working with both browsers then. But the shift started happening quickly and the push for web standards would only start after Microsoft was dominant. Both of them were proprietary at at that point. Microsoft outspent Netscape, was more creative than Netscape and moved much faster than Netscape anticipated they could. The browser wars were over quickly. It was after Netscape lost that Mozilla, along with other players like Sun, the Linux community... became advocates of standards.

Comment Re:Fuck Mozilla (Score 1) 313

That seems a little one-sided. As I remember it, the biggest battle in the browser war of that generation was probably IE4 against Netscape 4

I'd put it a little earlier IE 3 vs. Netscape 3. IE 4 vs. Netscape 4, Netscape had already lost. The Mosaic era stuff had died out by IE 2. As far as Websites being more serious for communication that had already happened by the IE3 era. ActiveX was when web applications became more serious. As for standards... there was no serious push towards standards until years later. W3C as a formal organization doesn't even exist until the tail end of the browser wars, though there are a lot of European companies getting involved in the idea of web standards as early as 1994. Developing for IE and Netscape wasn't that hard. Java, Flash, ActiveX are all standards for web applications.

  They happen all within 5 years of one another but they aren't sequenced the way you have them.

Microsoft came in for increasing criticism over their embrace-and-extend strategy in the face of those standards.

Yes and no. Embrace-extend-extinguish is more a charge by the workstation guys. The internet is a "unix thing" and Microsoft is focusing on not internet networking technologies. So in some sense it is earlier. Its just as a much a play in things like the spreadsheets and Lotus was getting replaced by Excel, or more importantly hardware standards for other desktop platforms. When it hits the web, it is from Microsoft creating a defacto browser standard which is not OS/platform independent. So again overlapping and certainly the web is an important example but I'd disagree with the causation you have here. The attacks start before anyone really cares much about http/web and continue being about many issues.

There is also the small issue that those three sources represent close to 100% of preinstalled, default browsers today.

Absolutely. Firefox was able to thrive over IE only when it was much better than IE. People deliberately switched from IE to Firefox. The same way that people who had IE 2 installed bought Netscape 3. I'm writing to you on my Mac / Safari. My question is not "which is the best browser in Nov 2015" but rather "are any of the browsers better enough than Safari to be worth switching?". That's a harder battle for Firefox to win. They can't do deep OS integration.

If Mozilla team can get Servo out the door quickly they may have something far better.

  I find it hard to imagine that Google, Microsoft or Apple with the dominance that Firefox once had would not have made XUL based applications standard. In Gecko/XUL they had the same kind of stack as KHTML/Cocoa Webcore and chance to have invented WebKit. They didn't and as a result Apple and Google picked up Webkit.... They deserve blame for not having utilized the opportunity when they had it. OTOH I think they were overwhelmed by the complexity of keeping up as the web exploded in the age of Firefox dominance. As I said, not able to play at that level.

It's somewhat ironic that just as Microsoft have been paying a bit more respect to web standards with IE10-11, both Google and Apple have overly shunned them.

They are in the same boat now as IE was. What does it mean to be a "standard" that Webkit doesn't follow?

I think that was a huge strategic mistake that will probably lead to the collapse of their business within the next 3-5 years unless something dramatic happens to their product line.

Their business collapsed a long time ago as Firefox was being born. Mozilla was the open source core of Netscape. They failed to advance fast enough and the open source product was the living fragment of Netscape. Then AOL funded them for 5 years to maintain an alternative to IE. Once there were other alternatives... They don't really have a business now.

"Survey says..." -- Richard Dawson, weenie, on "Family Feud"