4 ms·

To the OP: why don't you do something about it? Judging by the comments to this post (and the links that the comments refer to), the author hasn't got all thei

by exDM69 12y ago

To the OP: why don't you do something about it? Judging by the comments to this post (and the links that the comments refer to), the author hasn't got all their facts straight. Also it seems like the author has some kind of personal hatred towards systemd, which doesn't seem to be based on real technical issues and has been writing similar vitriolic blog posts in the past. This anti-systemd bashing is a complete waste of time. Don't like systemd? Don't use it. Do you think there is something wrong with it? Go fix it. Do you think it's done all wrong from the bottom up? Write a better replacement. But please, stop writing crap like this.

makomk 12y ago
A lot of the comments are actually wrong though. For example, someone accused the author of lying for saying "There is no documented, stable way for a daemon to use either of these options without linking to D-Bus's library and/or systemd's library" - and as evidence, pointed to systemd's "stable interface" for startup notification, which is a C API that requires daemons to link against a systemd-provided library. Their own source confirms the blog poster's claims, and yet they accuse him of lying and having no scruples whatsoever for making them. Edit: Interestingly, it looks like one of the other Wiki pages[1] does specificially call out the underlying $NOTIFY_SOCKET protocol as a stable interface. (Then points to an authoritive chart that doesn't, presumably because the implementation details of the other sd-daemon.h APIs aren't stable despite being documented in the same way?) [1] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfaceStabilityPromise/ http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfaceSt...
- asdfaoeu 12y ago
  Include this. http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/libsystemd/sd-daemon/sd-daemon.c http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/libsyst...
  - mzs 12y ago
    ... systemd is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License... What if I can't?
- bkor 12y ago
  The code for that is stable, it is just that the recommended way is using that library. When people asked, the code was provided to do this without linking. Just that linking is way more reliable. The comment should've stated something like "the way to do this is not documented". The way it is currently worded implies something totally different.
  - rlpb 12y ago
    > Just that linking is way more reliable. Why? Is not linking somehow unreliable? You can't have it both ways. Either it is stable, or it is not.
    - bkor 12y ago
      Don't put words into my mouth to win an argument. I'm saying that linking to a function is more reliable than copy/pasting that stuff into your program. If you want to argue that copy/pasting is totally fine, go ahead. I'm sure enough people will respond to that :-P
baldfat 12y ago
I believe the hatred for systemd has a few sources. 1) The first round was. This guy wrote pulseaudio! 2) This goes against the Unix philosophy 3) Systemd is taking over everything. Why replace init?
- josteink 12y ago
  2) This goes against the Unix philosophy Just like ZFS, Btrfs and SANs and cloud-systems in general. And they are really suffering in popularity for these terrible violations, eh? After having fooled around with it, my only complaint as far as systemd goes is software needlessly making it a dependency. systemd itself is just fine.
  - pgeorgi 12y ago
    I remember ZFS being lambasted for its "layering violations" a lot. Also SMF for its binary formats. Now there's btrfs with the same type of "layering violations" and systemd ('s ecosystem) using binary formats. What's good for the goose, ...
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  1) The first round was. This guy wrote pulse audio! No argument there. 2) This goes against the Unix philosophy Not a valid argument, nor true. 3) Systemd is taking over everything. Why replace init? We all know what the problems with traditional init systems are, and they have to be replaced. Systemd currently appears to be the favourite option.
cthalupa 12y ago
>This anti-systemd bashing is a complete waste of time. Don't like systemd? Don't use it. This is increasingly becoming a completely unviable option. As more and more distros adopt it as the standard, and more and more software becomes dependent on it and it's various parts, it becomes increasingly difficult to just not use systemd. Particularly those of us in the enterprise world, where we have a limited number of distros that are acceptable for server related work, most of which are now set on systemd being their init system moving forward. >Do you think there is something wrong with it? Go fix it. Not everyone that uses Linux is a developer. Not every developer that uses Linux works in the realm of knowledge related to init systems. The group managing systemd is also known to be more than a bit vitriolic and opinionated - what you believe is wrong might be something they thing is right. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it does mean that the idea of just fixing it is impractical, even if you have the necessary skills to correct what you think is broken. >Do you think it's done all wrong from the bottom up? Write a better replacement. A fair amount of the people that think it's wrong from the bottom up think there are already perfectly acceptable replacements. >But please, stop writing crap like this. I haven't gone over the article in depth, but... why? Why are you so upset that people are using the avenue they have available to make their opinion known? The Linux community has far outgrown the days where it was a developer only playground, so your proposed ideas of just write some code to solve everything is ridiculous. Personally, I'm past caring on the systemd issue - I've long since replaced all of my servers with BSD or Illumos based distros, so I don't have a horse in this race anymore. I just don't understand the visceral reaction of some people in the Linux community to go "STOP SHARING YOUR OPINIONS, IF YOU THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG JUST MAKE IT BETTER"
- bkor 12y ago
  > Why are you so upset that people are using the avenue they have available > to make their opinion known? The Linux community has far outgrown the days > where it was a developer only playground, so your proposed ideas of just > write some code to solve everything is ridiculous. The author has the ability to write code. So his suggestion is relevant. But instead of writing code, he's writing highly opinionated "articles" full of claims that distort what is really going on. Opinions stated as facts, suggesting things by the way things are written, etc. That'll just get you nowhere. Constructive but harsh articles are good. This? No
4ad 12y ago
> why don't you do something about it? You've picked the wrong guy here. Rich Felker has done extremely valuable and useful work[1] for the Linux ecosystem. You know, unlike Lennart Poettering who brought us pain through PulseAudio and systemd. > the author hasn't got all their facts straight [...] > Also it seems like the author has some kind of personal hatred towards systemd, which doesn't seem to be based on real technical issues and has been writing similar vitriolic blog posts in the past. His posts are purely technical and of extremely high quality, and if you can't see that, then this forum has failed. [1] http://www.musl-libc.org/ http://www.musl-libc.org/
- ausjke 12y ago
  Fully agree here
- bkor 12y ago
  > His posts are purely technical and of extremely high quality Don't understand how you can claim this. The posts are highly emotional, very suggestive and a lot of things are plain wrong. > if you can't see that, then this forum has failed. Whatever. That's not an argument.

by exDM69 12y ago

makomk 12y ago

A lot of the comments are actually wrong though. For example, someone accused the author of lying for saying "There is no documented, stable way for a daemon to use either of these options without linking to D-Bus's library and/or systemd's library" - and as evidence, pointed to systemd's "stable interface" for startup notification, which is a C API that requires daemons to link against a systemd-provided library. Their own source confirms the blog poster's claims, and yet they accuse him of lying and having no scruples whatsoever for making them. Edit: Interestingly, it looks like one of the other Wiki pages[1] does specificially call out the underlying $NOTIFY_SOCKET protocol as a stable interface. (Then points to an authoritive chart that doesn't, presumably because the implementation details of the other sd-daemon.h APIs aren't stable despite being documented in the same way?) [1] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfaceStabilityPromise/ http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfaceSt...

asdfaoeu 12y ago
Include this. http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/libsystemd/sd-daemon/sd-daemon.c http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/libsyst...
- mzs 12y ago
  ... systemd is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License... What if I can't?
bkor 12y ago
The code for that is stable, it is just that the recommended way is using that library. When people asked, the code was provided to do this without linking. Just that linking is way more reliable. The comment should've stated something like "the way to do this is not documented". The way it is currently worded implies something totally different.
- rlpb 12y ago
  > Just that linking is way more reliable. Why? Is not linking somehow unreliable? You can't have it both ways. Either it is stable, or it is not.
  - bkor 12y ago
    Don't put words into my mouth to win an argument. I'm saying that linking to a function is more reliable than copy/pasting that stuff into your program. If you want to argue that copy/pasting is totally fine, go ahead. I'm sure enough people will respond to that :-P

baldfat 12y ago

I believe the hatred for systemd has a few sources. 1) The first round was. This guy wrote pulseaudio! 2) This goes against the Unix philosophy 3) Systemd is taking over everything. Why replace init?

josteink 12y ago
2) This goes against the Unix philosophy Just like ZFS, Btrfs and SANs and cloud-systems in general. And they are really suffering in popularity for these terrible violations, eh? After having fooled around with it, my only complaint as far as systemd goes is software needlessly making it a dependency. systemd itself is just fine.
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  I remember ZFS being lambasted for its "layering violations" a lot. Also SMF for its binary formats. Now there's btrfs with the same type of "layering violations" and systemd ('s ecosystem) using binary formats. What's good for the goose, ...
matthewmacleod 12y ago
1) The first round was. This guy wrote pulse audio! No argument there. 2) This goes against the Unix philosophy Not a valid argument, nor true. 3) Systemd is taking over everything. Why replace init? We all know what the problems with traditional init systems are, and they have to be replaced. Systemd currently appears to be the favourite option.

cthalupa 12y ago

>This anti-systemd bashing is a complete waste of time. Don't like systemd? Don't use it. This is increasingly becoming a completely unviable option. As more and more distros adopt it as the standard, and more and more software becomes dependent on it and it's various parts, it becomes increasingly difficult to just not use systemd. Particularly those of us in the enterprise world, where we have a limited number of distros that are acceptable for server related work, most of which are now set on systemd being their init system moving forward. >Do you think there is something wrong with it? Go fix it. Not everyone that uses Linux is a developer. Not every developer that uses Linux works in the realm of knowledge related to init systems. The group managing systemd is also known to be more than a bit vitriolic and opinionated - what you believe is wrong might be something they thing is right. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it does mean that the idea of just fixing it is impractical, even if you have the necessary skills to correct what you think is broken. >Do you think it's done all wrong from the bottom up? Write a better replacement. A fair amount of the people that think it's wrong from the bottom up think there are already perfectly acceptable replacements. >But please, stop writing crap like this. I haven't gone over the article in depth, but... why? Why are you so upset that people are using the avenue they have available to make their opinion known? The Linux community has far outgrown the days where it was a developer only playground, so your proposed ideas of just write some code to solve everything is ridiculous. Personally, I'm past caring on the systemd issue - I've long since replaced all of my servers with BSD or Illumos based distros, so I don't have a horse in this race anymore. I just don't understand the visceral reaction of some people in the Linux community to go "STOP SHARING YOUR OPINIONS, IF YOU THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG JUST MAKE IT BETTER"

bkor 12y ago
> Why are you so upset that people are using the avenue they have available > to make their opinion known? The Linux community has far outgrown the days > where it was a developer only playground, so your proposed ideas of just > write some code to solve everything is ridiculous. The author has the ability to write code. So his suggestion is relevant. But instead of writing code, he's writing highly opinionated "articles" full of claims that distort what is really going on. Opinions stated as facts, suggesting things by the way things are written, etc. That'll just get you nowhere. Constructive but harsh articles are good. This? No

4ad 12y ago

> why don't you do something about it? You've picked the wrong guy here. Rich Felker has done extremely valuable and useful work[1] for the Linux ecosystem. You know, unlike Lennart Poettering who brought us pain through PulseAudio and systemd. > the author hasn't got all their facts straight [...] > Also it seems like the author has some kind of personal hatred towards systemd, which doesn't seem to be based on real technical issues and has been writing similar vitriolic blog posts in the past. His posts are purely technical and of extremely high quality, and if you can't see that, then this forum has failed. [1] http://www.musl-libc.org/ http://www.musl-libc.org/

ausjke 12y ago
Fully agree here
bkor 12y ago
> His posts are purely technical and of extremely high quality Don't understand how you can claim this. The posts are highly emotional, very suggestive and a lot of things are plain wrong. > if you can't see that, then this forum has failed. Whatever. That's not an argument.