4 ms·

A guarantee is only as good as the willingness to honor it. There are great ideas and some good implementations in systemd, but when the people behind it have a

A guarantee is only as good as the willingness to honor it. There are great ideas and some good implementations in systemd, but when the people behind it have a pattern of refusing to fix (and sometimes even acknowledge) show-stopping bugs, it makes me apprehensive about relying on it. Again, I didn't want my comment to start a heated discussion about systemd, but inevitably that happens. If I had praised it someone else would have come along to tell me how much it sucks (I don't think it sucks, personally, I just have issues with its current development process).

SSLy 5y ago
You can't just leave accusations like that without links to concrete issues. The discourse becomes Kafkaesque.
- morganvachon 5y ago
  https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019664.html https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-Ma... https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935#c10 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935#c10 ----- Adding "hacks" but not testing to ensure said hacks don't cause issues: Lennart Poettering 2014-02-21 13:49:25 UTC To make this work we'd need a patch, as nobody of us tests this. Comment 3 Michael Shigorin 2014-04-04 06:30:57 UTC Hope all of you either test all the combinations or do not break at will those you don't have the time and inclination to test, at least in system-wide components that are not specific to systemd, while pushing the latter hard. Comment 4 Lennart Poettering 2014-04-04 14:56:43 UTC Well, cgroups-less kernels are explicitly not supported by systemd. However we added some hacks to allow it to boot to a certain degree even if a lot of things will not work correctly afterwards. In this mode when you boot you will actually get a warning on screen and bootup is delayed by 10s to make sure the user understands this. Now, this mode recently broke, and it will segfault early on. I am happy to take a patch to 'fix' this again, but I will not work on this as i dont run kernels like this, and as mentioned its not really supported anyway... Another option is to simply be honest amd stop supporting in entirely, and refuse booting completely. And I figure this is what I will eventually do if nobody cares enough to send me a patch to fix that segfault. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74589 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74589
  - throwawaysysd 5y ago
    I can't figure out what the problem here is, are you trying to run systemd with a kernel with cgroups compiled out? I don't see how that's a show stopping bug, from the discussion there it was never supported.
    - morganvachon 5y ago
      No, I'm not. I'm satisfying the other person's request for sources with examples I've come across in the past. In this case it was not about cgroup-less kernels but about Poettering's and Sievers' attitudes towards fixing the issue. This is why I don't like to talk about systemd on any internet forum; it always leads to people like you ready to attack any position around the subject, and me having to defend a position I don't even hold (I don't think systemd sucks, I think its developers could do better though). I am done with this thread.
      - throwawaysysd 5y ago
        I'm not attacking you or asking you to defend a position, I'm asking for clarification because I legitimately do not understand what the issue is. I totally agree with you, it is not helping anyone to become defensive over this. I don't understand what the attitude was, it seems to have been fixed 8 years ago? Did I miss something?

SSLy 5y ago

You can't just leave accusations like that without links to concrete issues. The discourse becomes Kafkaesque.

morganvachon 5y ago
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019664.html https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-Ma... https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935#c10 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935#c10 ----- Adding "hacks" but not testing to ensure said hacks don't cause issues: Lennart Poettering 2014-02-21 13:49:25 UTC To make this work we'd need a patch, as nobody of us tests this. Comment 3 Michael Shigorin 2014-04-04 06:30:57 UTC Hope all of you either test all the combinations or do not break at will those you don't have the time and inclination to test, at least in system-wide components that are not specific to systemd, while pushing the latter hard. Comment 4 Lennart Poettering 2014-04-04 14:56:43 UTC Well, cgroups-less kernels are explicitly not supported by systemd. However we added some hacks to allow it to boot to a certain degree even if a lot of things will not work correctly afterwards. In this mode when you boot you will actually get a warning on screen and bootup is delayed by 10s to make sure the user understands this. Now, this mode recently broke, and it will segfault early on. I am happy to take a patch to 'fix' this again, but I will not work on this as i dont run kernels like this, and as mentioned its not really supported anyway... Another option is to simply be honest amd stop supporting in entirely, and refuse booting completely. And I figure this is what I will eventually do if nobody cares enough to send me a patch to fix that segfault. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74589 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74589
- throwawaysysd 5y ago
  I can't figure out what the problem here is, are you trying to run systemd with a kernel with cgroups compiled out? I don't see how that's a show stopping bug, from the discussion there it was never supported.
  - morganvachon 5y ago
    No, I'm not. I'm satisfying the other person's request for sources with examples I've come across in the past. In this case it was not about cgroup-less kernels but about Poettering's and Sievers' attitudes towards fixing the issue. This is why I don't like to talk about systemd on any internet forum; it always leads to people like you ready to attack any position around the subject, and me having to defend a position I don't even hold (I don't think systemd sucks, I think its developers could do better though). I am done with this thread.
    - throwawaysysd 5y ago
      I'm not attacking you or asking you to defend a position, I'm asking for clarification because I legitimately do not understand what the issue is. I totally agree with you, it is not helping anyone to become defensive over this. I don't understand what the attitude was, it seems to have been fixed 8 years ago? Did I miss something?