> Couldn't have said it better. I'm not by any means a technical expert, but
> even I could see how much "basis" his posts had (or didn't)

Those posts were simply pointing out errors/assumptions in baseless
posts and you may not see my points if you haven't done any research on
the foundations of UNIX and/or security. It is easy to sell functions
like it's faster even when it is irrelevent. Security is only
considered in General when your bank is on the phone and for a few
weeks after.

--
__________________________________________________ ______

Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
__________________________________________________ ______

[2012-07-24 13:27:50 +0100] Kevin Chadwick:
> you may not see my points if you haven't done any research on
> the foundations of UNIX and/or security.

How more ridiculous can you get?

--
Gaetan

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Systemd is
>> > larger than init, so for embedded it may well quadruple boot time.
>>
>> What utter bullshit. Please, Kevin, if you are going to throw around
>> numbers, do some measurements first.
>
> You keep picking on other subjects too at one tiny part without
> considering all that I have said.

You win. I usually try to answer all emails aimed in my general
direction, however with the last onslaught of spam from you, I just
can't find it in me any more.

Anyone with the least bit of clue will by now have realised that you
don't know what you are talking about. So anything I add will just be
a waste of everyone's time.

-t

On 07/24/2012 08:37 AM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:

[2012-07-24 13:27:50 +0100] Kevin Chadwick:

you may not see my points if you haven't done any research on
the foundations of UNIX and/or security.

How more ridiculous can you get?


He is not being ridiculous.

He is stating his opinion and that should be valued....It is easy to
dismiss someones opinion but hard or complex to analyze. His insight
may keep one from doing something stupid simply because he has looked at
the problem from a different light and that should be valued. His view
does have merit.

On 07/24/2012 09:09 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Systemd is
larger than init, so for embedded it may well quadruple boot time.

What utter bullshit. Please, Kevin, if you are going to throw around
numbers, do some measurements first.

You keep picking on other subjects too at one tiny part without
considering all that I have said.

You win. I usually try to answer all emails aimed in my general
direction, however with the last onslaught of spam from you, I just
can't find it in me any more.

Anyone with the least bit of clue will by now have realised that you
don't know what you are talking about. So anything I add will just be
a waste of everyone's time.

-t


I am sorry you think any thing you have will be a waste of time.
I am looking at this "problem" of moving to systemd, staying with
current init scripts or moving in the LSB init scripts direction. In
order for one to make an informed decision one needs to consider all the
facts.

Without your insight or wisdom how would/will I do that?

Discussion is healthy

[2012-07-24 09:19:27 -0400] Baho Utot:
> He is stating his opinion and that should be valued....

Baseless opinions are not valuable, they are spam.

> His
> insight may keep one from doing something stupid simply because he
> has looked at the problem from a different light and that should be
> valued.

I am very sorry that you were lead to think that.

--
Gaetan

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> I am sorry you think any thing you have will be a waste of time.
> I am looking at this "problem" of moving to systemd, staying with current
> init scripts or moving in the LSB init scripts direction. In order for one
> to make an informed decision one needs to consider all the facts.
> Without your insight or wisdom how would/will I do that?
>
> Discussion is healthy

I'm happy to discuss and answer any questions. However, Kevin's emails
were: off-topic (this thread was not on systemd, but on rc.conf),
irrelevant (the kind of embedded systems he is talking about would
never run Arch), plain wrong (his descriptions of how systemd works
and how to use it has nothing to do with reality).

To give a couple of comments, for those who have not looked at systemd yet:

Firstly, systemd is bigger and does more than sysvinit. The reason for
this is that it moves functionality out of the individual daemons and
into init. This functionality is stuff that would otherwise have been
implemented over and over again in every daemon or rc script, each
time it is implemented it would be a potential for bugs. Now we have
it all in one place, where we can all work together to test and review
it. The kind of features implemented in this way are for the purposes
of security and reliability of the daemons on your system (i.e. it
will monitor them and deal with crashes, it will lock down the kinds
of things a daemon is allowed to do, what directories it can
read/write to, what system calls it can make, what user it is run as,
etc). I would not call this bloat, quite the opposite. It means that
the total amount of code on your system, and the total amount of
potential for bugs drastically decreases.

Secondly, most of the functionality of systemd is separated out in
separate processes/tools, and are not part of PID1. In fact, we use
these tools also in initscripts, and this is why I believe we will be
able to maintain initscripts, even if systemd should take over for
most users. Initscripts currently use the following systemd tools:

systemd-module-load
systemd-udevd
systemd-cryptsetup
systemd-tmpfiles
systemd-sysctl
systemd-binfmt
systemd-random-seed
systemd-vconsole-setup
systemd-remount-fs

HTH,

Tom

Am Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:40:51 +1000
schrieb Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org>:

> [2012-07-24 09:19:27 -0400] Baho Utot:
> > He is stating his opinion and that should be valued....
>
> Baseless opinions are not valuable, they are spam.

Actually they are not baseless even if he didn't explain every single
argument in detail.

But I think e.g. regarding the UNIX philosophy he is totally right. And
it actually shouldn't be necessary to explain in detail as the UNIX
philosophy should be very well known anyway.

Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too.

Everything is and should stay a file, and every tool should do only
one task but this should be done well. This is, btw., also the KISS
philosophy.

I really regularly wonder why people become offensive if other people
say their opinions and if other people's opinions doesn't match their
own opinions.

Well, yes, some of Kevin's e-mails have been a bit pointless. But he is
not really spamming. He just says his opinion. And it doesn't seem to
be unqualified.

Btw., in all those discussions about systemd as well as in all those
discussions about PulseAudio, I always read more or less
technical arguments from people who have objections against them or
have tried them and have seen that they don't really work. From the
people who like systemd and/or PulseAudio I only read arguments like
"it's faster", "it's an evolution", "it's new", "everybody
(distribution) uses it", "it has this and that feature", which actually
only makes sense and works in a very few cases or can easily be
achieved in other ways. But I haven't, yet, read any technical argument
for them, why it is technically better, why it doesn't break the UNIX
philosophy, why it is reliable enough etc.

Heiko

Am Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:07:50 +0200
schrieb Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de>:

> Btw., in all those discussions about systemd as well as in all those
> discussions about PulseAudio, I always read more or less
> technical arguments from people who have objections against them or
> have tried them and have seen that they don't really work. From the
> people who like systemd and/or PulseAudio I only read arguments like
> "it's faster", "it's an evolution", "it's new", "everybody
> (distribution) uses it", "it has this and that feature", which
> actually only makes sense and works in a very few cases or can easily
> be achieved in other ways. But I haven't, yet, read any technical
> argument for them, why it is technically better, why it doesn't break
> the UNIX philosophy, why it is reliable enough etc.

Well, now I must correct myself. I just read Tom's explanation about
some technical details of systemd. The first one so far, which
clarifies it a bit.

Heiko

[2012-07-24 16:07:50 +0200] Heiko Baums:
> Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too.
>
> Everything is and should stay a file, and every tool should do only
> one task but this should be done well.

How about having multiple files, each doing one thing and doing it well?
Wait, isn't that exactly what systemd does?

> This is, btw., also the KISS philosophy.

Any more platitudes coming? My /dev/null is feeling a bit empty.

--
Gaetan