FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-16-2012, 08:50 PM
Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
> <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Felipe Contreras
>> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins <bwat47@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it. Its
>>>> best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For most people
>>>> systemd seems to work fine and is production ready (also evidenced by the
>>>> fact that some other major distros have already made the switch some time
>>>> ago).
>>>
>>> It is best to do it sooner? Why? In order to maximize the breakage?
>>
>> You see, that's the attitude that really enfuriates me. Why post in
>> such a provocative tone? He gave his arguments, you didn't reply.
>
> No, he didn't, he made a totally unsupported claim with no evidence,
> and not even an argument "Its
> best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with.".
>
> The rest of his arguments are irrelevant, and in order to tackle them
> one would need to understand that it's impossible to prove a negative,
> but you seem to be unable to understand that, so I'm not going to try
> to explain it.
>
> But there's no point in even trying, because even if we assume he is
> right for the sake of argument (systemd is quite ready (it's not)),
> that still doesn't invalidate the first argument: the later the move,
> the safer.
>
>> You
>> just bitch cause you don't want to spend the time to fix your
>> problems. I sent you some hints to debug systemd boot process and you
>> ignored it. And now I will send you another one (see, I'm in a
>> pacifist mood today):
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems
>>
>> I've found it in the bottom of the Arch wiki page for systemd. So,
>> it's not hard to find information on how to solve problems.
>
> Please. Not even Lennart was able to help me with my problem. Stop
> assuming there was/is an easy solution.

Yeah, I'm a realy stupid guy, trying to help a very smart one. I
should know better.

--
A: Because it obfuscates the reading.
Q: Why is top posting so bad?
For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html

-------------------------------------------
Denis A. Altoe Falqueto
Linux user #524555
-------------------------------------------
 
Old 08-16-2012, 08:55 PM
Justin Strickland
 
Default Migration to systemd

heh I don't believe they fully understand how things work.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>wrote:

> Am 15.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
> >> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
> >> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them
> >
> > Here's one part
> >
> > A good design would make the init process which is always running and
> > everyone must run.
> >
> > 1./ Be a small simple binary
>
> The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's
> /sbin/init, but not by much).
>
> > 2./ Have no dependencies
>
> That is pure BS. If something has no dependencies, it has to do
> everything in the binary itself. You either end up with no features, or
> potential for tons of bugs.
>
> Having NO dependencies also means you have to bypass the C library and
> implement everything from scratch - that is the worst idea ever.
>
> > 3./ Be easy to follow, fix and lockdown, best fit being interpreted
> > languages.
>
> So, init should be a small binary in an interpreted language? Am I the
> only one who notices you are contradicting yourself.
>
> > 4./ be as fast as possible
> >
> > systemd meets 4. Sysvinit meets 1-3 well but OpenBSDs init meets 1-3
> > better
>
> Where are your AUR packages that provide OpenBSD's init? I haven't seen
> them.
>
>
>
 
Old 08-16-2012, 09:07 PM
Nicholas MIller
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <
denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
> > <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Felipe Contreras
> >> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins <bwat47@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do
> it. Its
> >>>> best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For most
> people
> >>>> systemd seems to work fine and is production ready (also evidenced by
> the
> >>>> fact that some other major distros have already made the switch some
> time
> >>>> ago).
> >>>
> >>> It is best to do it sooner? Why? In order to maximize the breakage?
> >>
> >> You see, that's the attitude that really enfuriates me. Why post in
> >> such a provocative tone? He gave his arguments, you didn't reply.
> >
> > No, he didn't, he made a totally unsupported claim with no evidence,
> > and not even an argument "Its
> > best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with.".
> >
> > The rest of his arguments are irrelevant, and in order to tackle them
> > one would need to understand that it's impossible to prove a negative,
> > but you seem to be unable to understand that, so I'm not going to try
> > to explain it.
> >
> > But there's no point in even trying, because even if we assume he is
> > right for the sake of argument (systemd is quite ready (it's not)),
> > that still doesn't invalidate the first argument: the later the move,
> > the safer.
> >
> >> You
> >> just bitch cause you don't want to spend the time to fix your
> >> problems. I sent you some hints to debug systemd boot process and you
> >> ignored it. And now I will send you another one (see, I'm in a
> >> pacifist mood today):
> >>
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems
> >>
> >> I've found it in the bottom of the Arch wiki page for systemd. So,
> >> it's not hard to find information on how to solve problems.
> >
> > Please. Not even Lennart was able to help me with my problem. Stop
> > assuming there was/is an easy solution.
>
> Yeah, I'm a realy stupid guy, trying to help a very smart one. I
> should know better.
>
>

+1
 
Old 08-17-2012, 05:43 AM
cesar de padua
 
Default Migration to systemd

Perhaps you're on the wrong distribution, Mr. Contreras. Based on the
wikipages on ArchLinux' philosophy, it's all about being simple, but
bleeding-edge, ahead-of-the-curve. According to one of the posts I've come
across, Systemd seems to be what other less-aggressive distributions are
using. Also, Arch has expressed clearly that it doesn't plan on being
user-friendly. Besides being explicitly stated in the wiki, it is quite
strongly implied at installation, with its lack of a user interface.

If you want something stable, you could probably go with Debian. I recall
reading that it isn't shifting to Systemd, and that its EXTREMELY stable.
 
Old 08-17-2012, 06:49 AM
Jayesh Badwaik
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Thursday 16 Aug 2012 22:37:25 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Brandon Watkins <bwat47@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Doing it later does not necessarily "minimize" problems, in fact it
> > can sometimes exacerbate problems.
>
> No it doesn't, quite the opposite actually.
>
> Here, I'm going to do something that you are not doing, not just make
> an unsupported statement, but actually show an argument: the more
> mature a piece of software is, the less likely it is you are going to
> hit a bug.
>
> Can you do the same? Not just say "X is true", but "X is true because
> Y", if you don't, then there's no value in your statements.

@Felipe
Brandon is saying from a developers perspective and you are saying from
a user perspective. But, in case of ArchLinux and other distributions,
its all the same.

In commercial software which people are using and testing, adopting
later is a good move because most of the bugs would have been ironed
about by either the testing team or by the team of early testers.

In a community like ArchLinux when compared to the bigger ecosystem of
linux, the complete archcommunity is a tester. Earlier they test,
earlier the problem can be found.

Of course, you are free to adopt as late as possible, especially on your
production system, and hence Tom has shown his intent to maintain
initscripts as long as udev works with it. So, while you may not want to
shift completely. you can try testing systemd everytime you have
maintainance on your servers. Or if you have a desktop, you can try
testing systemd once in a while and report errors, which can then be
resolved.

With the variety of computers existing, it is possible that every case
reported here will be unique.

--
Cheers and Regards
Jayesh Badwaik
stop html mail | always bottom-post
www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
 
Old 08-17-2012, 12:25 PM
Kevin Chadwick
 
Default Migration to systemd

> Of course, you are free to adopt as late as possible,

We are free to adopt never just with a lower chance of any support. It
may be difficult to keep a thousand packages in check, it should not be
difficult to keep the few each person uses in check and there will
always be other distros without systemd which means it is splitting
not unifying Linux and Unix-like systems in multiple ways.

I run a grsecurity kernel and if I choose I can disable some security
to run pulseaudio and flash, I work around it. I don't like the design
of polkit and have no trust in it or it's author for various reasons
that I won't start flames or spend time discussing. It's now powerless
without any issue for me or my users.

I wouldn't touch Avahi with a barge pole either. People stop
mis-informing the community that systemd is something we have no choice
but to use and better start learning it today.

The powerful message of the Giants which had to be taller in those days
and the code that Linus and others have built Linux upon of freedom
and ***COMPLETE*** control is here to stay. It's a beautiful thing.

Thankyou AT&T and especially it's companions who left us good rules
to follow (some of which are no longer with us), the government at the
time preventing a monopoly and the University of Berkely for re-writing
and creating BSD and going to court, stopping AT&T and anyone else
from ever controlling the code.

--
__________________________________________________ _____________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
__________________________________________________ _____________________
 
Old 08-17-2012, 12:54 PM
Jayesh Badwaik
 
Default Migration to systemd

Hi,

+1 for your post. I am really happy for the freedom too.

But what I feel is either systemd, GNOME and stuff would takeover linux
and drown. Or they will take over linux and flourish or they will be
separated into their own Linux space and isolated. I have got a big
feeling that they will not co-exist with other competing distributions.

And if other distribution really do not like systemd then they would
develop some other methods and it will be great for everyone.

Here, is my analysis.

Now on for something. First [1]. There Poettering says

" I'd like to propose systemd
(GPL2+,http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd) as blessed
external dependency for GNOME 3.2.

Currently the interfacing between GNOME and systemd is minimal. Bastien
has been implementing a UI for changing the host name via a
configuration UI in the control center which uses a tiny mechanism
daemon included in systemd as backend. GLib already exposes
g_get_user_runtime_dir() which is a frontend for XDG_RUNTIME_DIR whose
only implementation I know right now is in systemd."

Okay, now according to fd.o specs, the XDG_RUNTIME_DIR can be set by any
init process, so why should GNOME set systemd as a dependency, just
because right now systemd is the only one who does the job? (Not Cool)
He goes on more about how can systemd and GNOME interface more, but
still just because GNOME can use systemd does not mean it should have
it as its dependency, right? The dependency is init. Systemd is just
filling the role of init.

Doing a pacman -Qi on sysvinit gives initscripts depending on sysvinit
and doing pacman -Qi on initscripts give no package depending on
initscripts. Why should a package then depend on systemd?

And now if Ubuntu does not like systemd, and if GNOME makes it a
dependency, you will have a Unity-like fork. I am sure, there must be
some similar discussion with GNOME and PulseAudio people and hence the
problem we are not facing.

If GNOME, systemd and pulseaudio pull out more stuff like that, the guys
are either going to be isolated or have their way. Time will answer.

Now for some rant.

Next, we analyze LP's blog [1]. There he says
"systemd is also a big opportunity for Linux standardization. Since it
standardizes many interfaces of the system that previously have been
differing on every distribution, on every implementation, adopting it
helps to work against the balkanization of the Linux interfaces.
Choosing systemd means redefining more closely what the Linux platform is
about. This improves the lifes of programmers, users and administrators
alike."

Why should we standardize?
Ans by LP: adopting it helps to work against the balkanization of the
Linux interfaces. Choosing systemd means redefining more closely what the
Linux platform is about.

Balkanization in what space? It is not as if I could not use an app in
ArchLinux but could use it in fedora because fedora used a different init
system. I have not noticed this effect as an end-user, but probably
developers did. If yes, I would like to know and I will take back my
complaint. But people must remember the cost of throwing away the
diverse efforts at the cost of reduced work.

"Redefining what Linux platform is all about. "
Linux platform is all about diversity of different systems which can be
used as needed by a person. If systemd satisfies the multi-dimensional
requirement, then great. Else, no. And only time will tell the future,
so leave space for other init systems in future by not doing that
dependency stuff I just described at top. How do you expect someone to
develop a better init system that systemd if the person has to first be
compliant to all systemd things before even getting started.


--
Cheers and Regards
Jayesh Badwaik
stop html mail | always bottom-post
www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

[1] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-
May/msg00427.html

[2] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
 
Old 08-17-2012, 01:14 PM
gt
 
Default Migration to systemd

<offtopic>

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:25:46PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> I wouldn't touch Avahi with a barge pole either.

Unfortunately I don't see any alternative to it. Can you point one out,
if any? I use it for bonjour protocol support.

</offtopic>
 
Old 08-18-2012, 12:15 AM
Leon Feng
 
Default Migration to systemd

2012/8/17 Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk>:
>> Of course, you are free to adopt as late as possible,
>
> We are free to adopt never just with a lower chance of any support. It
> may be difficult to keep a thousand packages in check, it should not be
> difficult to keep the few each person uses in check and there will
> always be other distros without systemd which means it is splitting
> not unifying Linux and Unix-like systems in multiple ways.
>

If their are 1000 users, for example.
This is a split: 100 use Arch init script, 200 use Fedora init script,
300 use Debian init script, 400 use Megeia init script
This is a unify: 980 use Systemd and the same service files, 20% Arch
users chose to stay with initscripts.

You can see the clear difference.

Leon

>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _____________________
>
> 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
> together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
> universal interface'
>
> (Doug McIlroy)
> __________________________________________________ _____________________
 
Old 08-18-2012, 12:39 AM
Kevin Chadwick
 
Default Migration to systemd

> If their are 1000 users, for example.
> This is a split: 100 use Arch init script, 200 use Fedora init script,
> 300 use Debian init script, 400 use Megeia init script
> This is a unify: 980 use Systemd and the same service files, 20% Arch
> users chose to stay with initscripts.
>
> You can see the clear difference.

I want some of whatever you are on.

I guess you meant 800 use systemd. Except Systemd is a fraction of
Unix users and likely always will be.

--
__________________________________________________ _____________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
__________________________________________________ _____________________
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:51 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org