On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz <gev...@gmail.com> wrote: [ snip ] > How can you be sure if something is "large enough" if, as you say below, > you do not care about probabilities?
By writing correct code? >> > SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains >> > about 13 000 lines, systemd — about 200 000 lines. >> >> If you take into account the thousands of shell code that SysV and >> OpenRC need to fill the functionality of systemd, they use even more. >> >> Also, again, systemd have a lot of little binaries, many of them >> optional. The LOC of PID 1 is actually closer to SysV (although still >> bigger). >> >> > Even assuming >> > systemd code is as mature as sysvinit or openrc (though I doubt >> > this) you can calculate probabilities of segfaults yourself easily. >> >> I don't care about probabilities; > > If you do not care (= do not now anything) about probabilities > (and mathematics, in general), you just unable to understand > that debugging a program with 200K lines of code take > > 200000!/(10000!)^20 > > more time than debugging of 20 different programs with 10K lines of > code. You can try to calculate that number yourself but I quite sure > that if the latter can take, say, 20 days, the former can take > millions of years. > > It is all the probability! Or, to be more precise, combinatorics. My PhD thesis (which I will defend in a few weeks) is in computer science, specifically computational geometry and combinatorics. But hey, thanks for the lesson. >> I care about facts: FACT, I've been using systemd since 2010, >> in several machines, and I haven't had a single segfault. > > Have you ever tried forex? If yes, you should have been warned > that "no past performance guarantee the future one." I never said that. I trust the quality of the code, measured by my own judgment and bug reports, etc. Not past performance. And even if a bug goes by, then what? The world will end? No, the bug will be reported, and fixed. And life will go on. > And if you do not believe that (and do not care about probability > and all the stuff like that), you should visit any of the forex forums > where you will be suggested a magical money winning strategy that, in > the past, behaved very well and earned 200 or even 500% a month. Thanks for the tip, but I have never understood the people that believes economics is closer to mathematics than sociology. >> FACT: almost no bug report in systemd involves a >> segfault in PID 1. >> >> >> >> All of them are different tools providing one capability to >> >> >> systemd as a whole. So systemd is a collection of tools, where >> >> >> each one does one thing, and it does it well. >> >> >> >> >> >> By your definition, systemd perfectly follows "the unix way". >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > no, it isn't. >> >> > >> >> > How are those binaries talk to each other? >> >> >> >> dbus, which is about to be integrated into the kernel with kdbus. >> > >> > And this is a very, very bad idea. Looks like you don't know matter >> > at all: to begin with kdbus protocol is NOT compatible dbus and >> > special converter daemon will be needed to enable dbus to talk to >> > kdbus. >> >> kdbus uses a different wire protocol than dbus; but for clients that >> doesn't matter; libsystemd-dbus will offer a compatibility layer (talk >> about "standard" and "replaceable"), so if your application uses dbus >> today, it will work with kdbus. >> >> Of course, new applications will take advantage of the new features >> of kdbus. >> >> > The >> > whole kdbus technology is very questionable itself (and was >> > forcefully pushed by RH devs), >> >> Sorry, but it's you who doesn't know the matter at hand: kdbus was >> (and is) written by Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus' right hand, and who >> works for the Linux Foundation. > > Lol, he seems to start to use the arguments like "You even do not know > my elder brother/acquaintance from the street nearby who can easily > hit you down!" If you don't think Greg's words have any weight in a Linux-related technical discussion, then I'm afraid we will need to agree to disagree on any technical subject. > So, here, I would like to thank everybody in this discussion who > helped me to understand the danger of systemd and note that it is > now became pointless to continue this discussion with this "unpayed > systemd promoter." Getting personal, are we? >> > anyway it is possible to disable this >> > stuff in kernel and guess what will be done on my systems. >> >> Good for you. Guess what will be done in mine? >> >> >> > Looks broken. Broken by design. The worst form of broken. >> >> >> >> By your opinion, not others. >> > >> > That is not just an opinion. There is a science and experience >> > behind system's design. >> >> Yeah, what do you think about Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus' right hand, >> or Keith Packard of X.org fame? None of them works for Red Hat; both >> of them know more about Unix and Linux than you and me together, and >> both of them promote systemd. > > Aha! How could you even doubt my understanding the words of these prophets! > :-) They, contrary to you, actually give technical arguments instead of splutter some nonsense about combinatorics that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. >> I mean, I myself know a thing or two about computing and Linux, and I >> promote systemd (and nobody pays me, BTW), but obviously you don't >> need to believe in my credentials. > > I have said you, he is just an unpayed fanatic systemd promoter! OK, that's it; I actually thought for a moment that you wanted to have a civil, intelligent and technical oriented conversation. I now see you don't. >> And, no offense, but I will always give more weight to the words of >> Greg Kroah-Hartman or Keith Packard (to name only two), instead of a >> random user in gentoo-user. >> >> There are knowledgeable people who are against systemd. But usually >> they don't give *technical* sound reasons. >> >> > And all that science was ignored during systemd >> > architecture process if there was any at all. >> >> You should read systemd-devel and Lennart's blog posts > > And A Holy Words of our Mighty God! And that confirms it. Goodbye; I'm done with you in this thread. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
