Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
Am 17.09.2014 20:36, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. Gentoo is still all about choice, right? And we still have that choice. If you dislike Systemd, then just don't use it. Period. Contrary to many other distributions, like Debian or Arch Linux, we still have that kind of choice.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On 09/21/2014 07:23 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Canek Peláez Valdés: On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: • There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX do one thing and do it well model where many workflows can be done as a pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done in complex systems. He doesn't need to; Sure he does. No, he does not, because the link I posted was not an argument, was an interview and he was asked for his opinion, and in no moment was he asked to justify his opinion. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing. I don't know exactly with whom, because surely is not with me. Then please just refrain from answering if you don't understand how my point matters in terms of systemd development, thanks.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
Canek Peláez Valdés: On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: • There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX do one thing and do it well model where many workflows can be done as a pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done in complex systems. He doesn't need to; Sure he does. He made a statement that needs technical arguments (not stuff like people do it these days) and didn't even answer the reporters question. I think this is not a problem about complex systems, but rather about development models. But no wonder a C programmer in one of the highest commit rate projects in the world thinks like that. And it's probably even true in that CASE.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Canek Peláez Valdés: On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: • There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX do one thing and do it well model where many workflows can be done as a pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done in complex systems. He doesn't need to; Sure he does. No, he does not, because the link I posted was not an argument, was an interview and he was asked for his opinion, and in no moment was he asked to justify his opinion. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing. I don't know exactly with whom, because surely is not with me. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
• There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX do one thing and do it well model where many workflows can be done as a pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done in complex systems.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: • There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX do one thing and do it well model where many workflows can be done as a pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done in complex systems. He doesn't need to; he's not trying to convince anyone of anything. The reported asked: Systemd seems to depart to a large extent from the original idea of simplicity that was a hallmark of UNIX systems. Would you agree? And is this a good or a bad thing? Linus just answered the question. As for arguments, I think (and of course I could be wrong) he would say code talks; go on and make a complex system with 'useful' abstractions, and then we'll talk. And BTW, a complex system with useful abstractions was the whole idea of HAL, I think. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:34:01 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: AFAIR dcop was replaced, because of the freedesktop-gnome guys. Not because anything was wrong with it. And look where it got us. No improvement at all. It wasn't really replaced as dbus was derived from DCOP, so it was more of an evolution. -- Neil Bothwick Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it. Indeed. Thanks for the link!
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 23:03 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: [snip] Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it happily. So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously. Thanks for the laugh. Regards. you will stop laughing when redhatpoettering abandon systemd because it is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else. Probably as soon as everybody got used to it. And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind it. Because history loves repetition. Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it. What are you willing to bet? Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy. Regards. I am not betting anything. I figured it. But I want you to think about something: devfs was the best thing since sliced bread. As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced. hal was the best thing since sliced bread. As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned. *kit? The same. Yeah. So it happened with XFree86, aRts, esd, gnome-vfs, DCOP, sendmail, and it will happen again with dbus (I'm willing to bet it will be replaced, at least in Linux, with kdbus). And, BTW, it's happening with SysV being replaced in Linux with systemd. It happens all the time. It's a good thing. And it happened for *VERY* different reasons in each case. Also, the transition has been sometimes somewhat difficult (HAL comes to mind), but most of the times really easy: we used devfs when I switched to Gentoo more than 10 years ago, and I don't remember being difficult the switch to udev. XFree86 = X.org was also basically trivial. Of course systemd can be replaced; if something cooler gets written, we'll switch to it. But given the team behind systemd, and the design it has, it's gonna be very difficult. Using Linus words, you are making excuses. You can compare systemd to HAL, but doing so only shows that you don't know the code, the design, and the history behind both projects. Regards. there was no breakage with xfree-to-xorg. True. But hal, yes. No upower breakage. *kit breakage. The list is too long to ignore. There was no really breakage; some distributions dealed with those change without issues. Gentoo is special; we didn't had the tools to rebuild all the required dependencies some years ago. Heck, sometimes we didn't had the dependencies right. Arts was not something whole systems depended upon. And whatever gnome-thingy you depend upon, you are fucked, because those guys are infected with the same mindset. As soon as the bugs are ironed out and everybody is using it: abandom it for something else. Oh, Volker. You really make me laugh with your ignorance. That has nothing to do with 'improvement', or 'development' it is just stupid. It's improvement; it's just your bigotry against GNOME/systemd, your small mindedness and your myopic vision that makes you not notice it. HAL is special; it was a (IMO misguided) attempt to be portable to the *BSDs and similar systems. The natural conclusion was that those guys need to take care of themselves, and that's one of the reasons why systemd is not portable and only works in Linux. In all the other cases, it's evolutiion: • gnome-vfs begat GVFS, which works great. • static /dev begat devfs, which begat udev, which works great. • DCOP and gconf begat dbus, which works great, and it will beget kdbus, which *will* be greater. • aRts and esd begat PulseAudio, which works great. • SysV begat Upstart, and together with ideas from launchd and SMF begat systemd, which works great. You just don't get it, because as Rich says it you aren't really involved with the development of these technologies. It's a continous evolution of software, sometimes using the old code, sometimes just taking ideas, design, or learning from mistakes. AFAIR dcop was replaced, because of the freedesktop-gnome guys. Oh my god; did they put a gun on their heads? It could not possible be that dbus is so much better, right? Not because anything was wrong with it. And look where it got us. No improvement at all. You just keep showing your ignorance. Go to the
[gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it. iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd. The gist of it can be resumed in two lines: I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and laptop both run it. I post it here because several times in the last discussions about systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd. I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really* like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits: • So I think many of the original ideals of UNIX are these days more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the situation. • There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX do one thing and do it well model where many workflows can be done as a pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. • ...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy. • I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the best of taste, but hey, details..[.] • (About the single-point-of-failure argument) I think people are digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either. • And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: bikeshed painting, which is very much about how random people can feel like they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same kind of mouth-time. It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it. [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd -- Canek Peláez Valdés Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it. iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd. The gist of it can be resumed in two lines: I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and laptop both run it. I post it here because several times in the last discussions about systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd. I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really* like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits: • So I think many of the original ideals of UNIX are these days more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the situation. • There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX do one thing and do it well model where many workflows can be done as a pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. • ...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy. • I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the best of taste, but hey, details..[.] • (About the single-point-of-failure argument) I think people are digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either. • And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: bikeshed painting, which is very much about how random people can feel like they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same kind of mouth-time. It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it. [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd thanks for the pointer ;-) S
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it. iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd. The gist of it can be resumed in two lines: I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and laptop both run it. I post it here because several times in the last discussions about systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd. I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really* like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits: • So I think many of the original ideals of UNIX are these days more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the situation. • There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX do one thing and do it well model where many workflows can be done as a pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. • ...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy. • I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the best of taste, but hey, details..[.] • (About the single-point-of-failure argument) I think people are digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either. • And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: bikeshed painting, which is very much about how random people can feel like they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same kind of mouth-time. It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it. [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On 09/17/14 20:36, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: [snip] It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it. [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. I'll second it. I tried systemd and did not like it at all. -- Joseph
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: [snip] Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it happily. So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously. Thanks for the laugh. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: [snip] Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it happily. So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously. Thanks for the laugh. Regards. you will stop laughing when redhatpoettering abandon systemd because it is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else. Probably as soon as everybody got used to it. And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind it. Because history loves repetition.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: [snip] Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it happily. So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously. Thanks for the laugh. Regards. you will stop laughing when redhatpoettering abandon systemd because it is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else. Probably as soon as everybody got used to it. And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind it. Because history loves repetition. Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it. What are you willing to bet? Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: [snip] Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it happily. So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously. Thanks for the laugh. Regards. you will stop laughing when redhatpoettering abandon systemd because it is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else. Probably as soon as everybody got used to it. And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind it. Because history loves repetition. Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it. What are you willing to bet? Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy. Regards. I am not betting anything. But I want you to think about something: devfs was the best thing since sliced bread. As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced. hal was the best thing since sliced bread. As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned. *kit? The same.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On Sep 18, 2014 2:37 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it. iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd. The gist of it can be resumed in two lines: I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and laptop both run it. I post it here because several times in the last discussions about systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd. I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really* like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits: • So I think many of the original ideals of UNIX are these days more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the situation. • There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX do one thing and do it well model where many workflows can be done as a pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. • ...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy. • I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the best of taste, but hey, details..[.] • (About the single-point-of-failure argument) I think people are digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either. • And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: bikeshed painting, which is very much about how random people can feel like they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same kind of mouth-time. It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it. [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. Oh give it a rest volker. its been obvious for years on this list that when it really came down to it, many systemd critics (and i airquote that because the amount of critical thinking is imaginary) were almost entirely devoid of technical arguments when or even background knowledge, to the point of embarassing themselves on the amount of unix knowledge they purport to know. theres been a terrible history of being blatantly ignorant about what a software does and yet running the mouth about why its wrong, as if you had a better idea on how to coordinate hundreds of disparate develeoper projects on how to run their own ships. blatantly refusing to give a crap what an init thingy is, or showing a hilarious understanding of what fhs is supposed to do or solve, to downright manufacturing what the /usr split was supposed to be about, or denying that boot up race conditions were a thing... the list goes on and it only betrays the haters' biases. fact of the matter is running to Linus' latest flame on udev or systemd or fhs etc has been a standard go-to for haters t bring up for years past... and now that Linus is like well its okay blablabla now the systemd peeps are desperate? no, you are. go read yourself some fucking man pages, maybe youll learn a little unix.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: [snip] Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it happily. So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously. Thanks for the laugh. Regards. you will stop laughing when redhatpoettering abandon systemd because it is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else. Probably as soon as everybody got used to it. And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind it. Because history loves repetition. Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it. What are you willing to bet? Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy. Regards. I am not betting anything. I figured it. But I want you to think about something: devfs was the best thing since sliced bread. As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced. hal was the best thing since sliced bread. As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned. *kit? The same. Yeah. So it happened with XFree86, aRts, esd, gnome-vfs, DCOP, sendmail, and it will happen again with dbus (I'm willing to bet it will be replaced, at least in Linux, with kdbus). And, BTW, it's happening with SysV being replaced in Linux with systemd. It happens all the time. It's a good thing. And it happened for *VERY* different reasons in each case. Also, the transition has been sometimes somewhat difficult (HAL comes to mind), but most of the times really easy: we used devfs when I switched to Gentoo more than 10 years ago, and I don't remember being difficult the switch to udev. XFree86 = X.org was also basically trivial. Of course systemd can be replaced; if something cooler gets written, we'll switch to it. But given the team behind systemd, and the design it has, it's gonna be very difficult. Using Linus words, you are making excuses. You can compare systemd to HAL, but doing so only shows that you don't know the code, the design, and the history behind both projects. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On Wednesday 17 Sep 2014 22:03:14 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: Yeah. So it happened with XFree86, aRts, esd, gnome-vfs, DCOP, sendmail, Aheam! Excuse me, but there's nothing wrong with sendmail! :-p -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
Am 17.09.2014 um 23:03 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: [snip] Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it happily. So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously. Thanks for the laugh. Regards. you will stop laughing when redhatpoettering abandon systemd because it is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else. Probably as soon as everybody got used to it. And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind it. Because history loves repetition. Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it. What are you willing to bet? Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy. Regards. I am not betting anything. I figured it. But I want you to think about something: devfs was the best thing since sliced bread. As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced. hal was the best thing since sliced bread. As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned. *kit? The same. Yeah. So it happened with XFree86, aRts, esd, gnome-vfs, DCOP, sendmail, and it will happen again with dbus (I'm willing to bet it will be replaced, at least in Linux, with kdbus). And, BTW, it's happening with SysV being replaced in Linux with systemd. It happens all the time. It's a good thing. And it happened for *VERY* different reasons in each case. Also, the transition has been sometimes somewhat difficult (HAL comes to mind), but most of the times really easy: we used devfs when I switched to Gentoo more than 10 years ago, and I don't remember being difficult the switch to udev. XFree86 = X.org was also basically trivial. Of course systemd can be replaced; if something cooler gets written, we'll switch to it. But given the team behind systemd, and the design it has, it's gonna be very difficult. Using Linus words, you are making excuses. You can compare systemd to HAL, but doing so only shows that you don't know the code, the design, and the history behind both projects. Regards. there was no breakage with xfree-to-xorg. True. But hal, yes. No upower breakage. *kit breakage. The list is too long to ignore. Arts was not something whole systems depended upon. And whatever gnome-thingy you depend upon, you are fucked, because those guys are infected with the same mindset. As soon as the bugs are ironed out and everybody is using it: abandom it for something else. That has nothing to do with 'improvement', or 'development' it is just stupid. AFAIR dcop was replaced, because of the freedesktop-gnome guys. Not because anything was wrong with it. And look where it got us. No improvement at all.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
Am 17.09.2014 um 22:58 schrieb Mark David Dumlao: On Sep 18, 2014 2:37 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com mailto:volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it. iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd. The gist of it can be resumed in two lines: I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and laptop both run it. I post it here because several times in the last discussions about systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd. I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really* like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits: • So I think many of the original ideals of UNIX are these days more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the situation. • There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX do one thing and do it well model where many workflows can be done as a pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. • ...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy. • I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the best of taste, but hey, details..[.] • (About the single-point-of-failure argument) I think people are digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either. • And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: bikeshed painting, which is very much about how random people can feel like they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same kind of mouth-time. It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it. [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. Oh give it a rest volker. its been obvious for years on this list that when it really came down to it, many systemd critics (and i airquote that because the amount of critical thinking is imaginary) were almost entirely devoid of technical arguments when or even background knowledge, to the point of embarassing themselves on the amount of unix knowledge they purport to know. theres been a terrible history of being blatantly ignorant about what a software does and yet running the mouth about why its wrong, as if you had a better idea on how to coordinate hundreds of disparate develeoper projects on how to run their own ships. blatantly refusing to give a crap what an init thingy is, or showing a hilarious understanding of what fhs is supposed to do or solve, to downright manufacturing what the /usr split was supposed to be about, or denying that boot up race conditions were a thing... the list goes on and it only betrays the haters' biases. fact of the matter is running to Linus' latest flame on udev or systemd or fhs etc has been a standard go-to for haters t bring up for years past... and now that Linus is like well its okay blablabla now the systemd peeps are desperate? no, you are. go read yourself some fucking man pages, maybe youll learn a little unix. oh give it a rest Mark. Its been obvious for years on this list that systemd fanbois are constantly advocating their crap. From 'it boots so much faster' to 'Linus does not hate it'. Do we really have to endure it? With all the fuckups that had happened in the past and the systemd-devs were unable to admit? Seriously, keep the kindergarten away, ok? There are enough mailing lists where you can pat each others back and tell yourselves how great systemd is. You don't need to advertise it EVERYWHERE.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd
On 17/09/14 23:43, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 21:52 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.09.2014 um 21:02 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: [snip] Now you use this to advertise for systemd? Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. So, systemd is used (or it has been announced that is going to be used) by default in all the major distributions, is available and working great in Gentoo, and many Gentoo users and developers use it happily. So, yeah, we are *really* desperate, obviously. Thanks for the laugh. Regards. you will stop laughing when redhatpoettering abandon systemd because it is 'fundamentally broken' and must be replaced with something else. Probably as soon as everybody got used to it. And if I guess correctly, pulseaudio will be the driving force behind it. Because history loves repetition. Sure Volker, whatever you say. I'm willing to bet the future stability of my desktop and server machines that your doomsday-scenario will not happen. Actually, I'm already betting on it. What are you willing to bet? Again, thanks for the laughs. You are a funny guy. Regards. I am not betting anything. But I want you to think about something: devfs was the best thing since sliced bread. As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and replaced. There was no problem with this development. hal was the best thing since sliced bread. As soon as everybody used it, it was broken and abandoned. That's untrue. HAL was responsibly replaced with UDisks. As in, when Gentoo got rid of sys-apps/hal, we made sure everything was ported to UDisks or that unported applications that were removed with sys-apps/hal, had a direct replacement available. It was a logical development, that's all. *kit? The same. FUD.
