5 ms·

The argument that XYZ has a portable interface therefor XYZ is portable is a bit of a head fake argument. OpenGL 4.5 is also a supposedly portable interface, so

The argument that XYZ has a portable interface therefor XYZ is portable is a bit of a head fake argument. OpenGL 4.5 is also a supposedly portable interface, so is the X Server protocol. To implement these takes years of work with large teams of full time engineers. Mesa has over 1.5 million lines of code and has been in constant development for over 10 years. At last count SystemD has over 40 "Interfaces". These are not publicly versioned standards. So there is no stable interface to even implement and there is no commitment that these "interfaces" will not change at any point in time. If the project estimate to actually implement XYZ interface takes years of full time engineers and millions of dollars to complete its basically out of the reach of any volunteer open source operating system project. I just find the argument disingenuous. Everyone making these claims knows that there is practically 0 chance that anyone but RedHat or another big Corporation like Google or Samsung has the resources to Implement something like this.

esarbe 11y ago
What you are stating here is not true. Take a look at https://wiki.freedesktop.org/www/Software/systemd/InterfacePortabilityAndStabilityChart/ https://wiki.freedesktop.org/www/Software/systemd/InterfaceP... and you'll see that there are indeed a plethora of systemd service apis. But almost all of them are covered by the systemd stability promise (https://wiki.freedesktop.org/www/Software/systemd/InterfaceStabilityPromise/ https://wiki.freedesktop.org/www/Software/systemd/InterfaceS...) and almost all of them are documented. So, there is a commitment that these interfaces will not change.
- generic_user 11y ago
  I am aware of the pages you linked to and have on a few occasions tried to look over things. Having read quite a few rather large standers and APIs my impression the "Portable Interfaces" is rather dim. They are disjoint and unversioned notes not presentable portable interface standards. There are also various internal protocols and interfaces which are not documented from what I have gathered. In short SystemD is an implementation. And as they say in there own documents there implementation is and never will be a portable implementation. The "Interface Stability Promise" is referring to the unit configuration file format and the command line interface. This is not stability of the implementation c interfaces. If you want to see a proper portable specification take a look at the Wayland Protocol Specification. There or perhaps POSIX.
  - yrro 11y ago
    > The "Interface Stability Promise" is referring to the unit configuration file format and the command line interface. This is not stability of the implementation c interfaces. This is not true.
gillianseed 11y ago
>So there is no stable interface to even implement and there is no commitment that these "interfaces" will not change at any point in time. Isn't this what the systemd 'Interface Stability Promise' does as listed here ? http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfacePortabilityAndStabilityChart/ http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfacePo... Judging by this chart, ~99% of the intefaces are stable.
yrro 11y ago
> At last count SystemD has over 40 "Interfaces". These are not publicly versioned standards. So there is no stable interface to even implement and there is no commitment that these "interfaces" will not change at any point in time. Have you truly made no effort to research what you're talking about? The most cursory of Googling would have dropped you at the Interface Stability Promise, saved you the time to post your completely worthless message, and saved me and others the time spent reading it.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  There's also the "Reimplementable independently" column. Rather important.
- geofft 11y ago
  Regardless of the validity of your point (which seems tenuous), your mockery is not conducive to reasoned, respectful discussion. Perhaps the parent, like me, has read the interface stability promise and found it wanting. Perhaps there was a useful discussion to have had there.
- generic_user 11y ago
  Its quite the opposite. Only after you seriously try to look at the documents and what they provide that you come the conclusion that the "Portable Interfaces" is simply blowing smoke.

esarbe 11y ago

What you are stating here is not true. Take a look at https://wiki.freedesktop.org/www/Software/systemd/InterfacePortabilityAndStabilityChart/ https://wiki.freedesktop.org/www/Software/systemd/InterfaceP... and you'll see that there are indeed a plethora of systemd service apis. But almost all of them are covered by the systemd stability promise (https://wiki.freedesktop.org/www/Software/systemd/InterfaceStabilityPromise/ https://wiki.freedesktop.org/www/Software/systemd/InterfaceS...) and almost all of them are documented. So, there is a commitment that these interfaces will not change.

generic_user 11y ago
I am aware of the pages you linked to and have on a few occasions tried to look over things. Having read quite a few rather large standers and APIs my impression the "Portable Interfaces" is rather dim. They are disjoint and unversioned notes not presentable portable interface standards. There are also various internal protocols and interfaces which are not documented from what I have gathered. In short SystemD is an implementation. And as they say in there own documents there implementation is and never will be a portable implementation. The "Interface Stability Promise" is referring to the unit configuration file format and the command line interface. This is not stability of the implementation c interfaces. If you want to see a proper portable specification take a look at the Wayland Protocol Specification. There or perhaps POSIX.
- yrro 11y ago
  > The "Interface Stability Promise" is referring to the unit configuration file format and the command line interface. This is not stability of the implementation c interfaces. This is not true.

gillianseed 11y ago

>So there is no stable interface to even implement and there is no commitment that these "interfaces" will not change at any point in time. Isn't this what the systemd 'Interface Stability Promise' does as listed here ? http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfacePortabilityAndStabilityChart/ http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfacePo... Judging by this chart, ~99% of the intefaces are stable.

yrro 11y ago

> At last count SystemD has over 40 "Interfaces". These are not publicly versioned standards. So there is no stable interface to even implement and there is no commitment that these "interfaces" will not change at any point in time. Have you truly made no effort to research what you're talking about? The most cursory of Googling would have dropped you at the Interface Stability Promise, saved you the time to post your completely worthless message, and saved me and others the time spent reading it.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
There's also the "Reimplementable independently" column. Rather important.
geofft 11y ago
Regardless of the validity of your point (which seems tenuous), your mockery is not conducive to reasoned, respectful discussion. Perhaps the parent, like me, has read the interface stability promise and found it wanting. Perhaps there was a useful discussion to have had there.
generic_user 11y ago
Its quite the opposite. Only after you seriously try to look at the documents and what they provide that you come the conclusion that the "Portable Interfaces" is simply blowing smoke.