4 ms·

I'm patiently waiting for systemd-kernel.

by rascul 11y ago

jlgaddis 11y ago
Please don't give them any ideas!
qznc 11y ago
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/VUzeRLf5g5m https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/... "German language source code comments are not acceptable in the systemd source tree, according to our coding style conventions. In preparation for merging LibreOffice into systemd I have thus started translating a few of their source code comments from German into English." - Lennart Poettering
pdkl95 11y ago
Too late, it's called "kdbus", which has been trying to get into the kernel for a while now. ( https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7767336.html#7767336 https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7767336.html#7767336 ) Quite a few kernel devs NAKed it on basic security issues, serious design flaws, unnecessary complexity, and unwillingness to explain why kdbus is necessary (that is, why existing features were not inadequate). Instead of taking that hint addressing the serious design problems, GHK (et al) did the usual systemd-cabal tactic of pretending design doesn't matter, indirectly implying their existing design must be perfect and not open for discussion. They patched a few superficial bugs, made some vague posts on LKML about how the finished most of the outstanding issues (wtf/), as if the NAKs never happened. It's currently unclear what will happen now. Then Lennart announces that the latest systemd has kdbus support force-enabled, while suggesting that distros should start testing kdbus with an out-of-tree patch to the kernel... Just like this NTP server issue, the only thing that matters to Lennart is his own world. The issues and concerns of other people are never his problem.
- JetSetWilly 11y ago
  This is a very distorted picture presented of kdbus. Like most systemd-hating posts, it focusses more on supposed personalities and "drama" than actual technology. kdbus is a new feature. It is normal that it takes time to develop and has bugs and issues along the way. Linus specifically requested that it be enabled in systemd so that it starts to get more testing and exposure. Constructing a grand conspiracy around kdbus is ludicrous.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > Like most systemd-hating posts, it focusses more on supposed personalities and "drama" than actual technology. Like most systemd apparatchik, this post uses incorrect assumptions, multiple disparaging remarks, and a lot of broad, non-specific claims to try and re-frame the discussion. > "drama" As others in this thread have pointed out, the NTP issue is NOT about technology. Quite a few of the higher-profile problems with the systemd "cabal" are social/management problems, and like clockwork, whenever they are brought up people like you try to force the conversation away from those problems by insisting that the conversation can only be about "technical" issues. Often this is accompanied with blatant straw-men arguments, which is, unfortunately, a common tactic in many internet arguments. I discussed Lennart's attitude, because that's the topic of the thread. Reputation matters, and the handling of this NTP issue is yet another data point. > kdbus is a new feature Obviously. > It is normal that it takes time to develop and has bugs and issues along the way. L Of course. Is it normal for the person submitting to completely ignore those issues? The fact that there were issues is not the problem. I'm talking about what happened afterwords, which was a confusing and unusual disregard of quite a few of the most serious issues brought up on LKML ( http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1504.1/03981.html http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1504.1/03981.html ), and a disregard for regular kernel submission process ( https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/23/281 https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/23/281 ). This is a side issue, though, as my point was that the systemd cabal already made a lot of headway towards the "systemd-kernel" joke. > grand conspiracy What grand conspiracy? I'm talking about widely-known public statements, like the recent systemd v221 announcement, where Lennart said, "We encourage all downstream distributions to begin testing kdbus by adding it to the kernel images in the development distributions..." This is especially amusing coming from someone who jsut accused me of focusing on "drama". > Linus specifically requested that it be enabled Unless I missed something, Linus only discussed that after Andy Lutomirski's question about systemd v221 (and the above quote requesting distributions to start testing now). > actual technology You want a discussion on the technology of kdbus? Then how about this question: why, exactly, is wrong with the already-existing TIPC plus a userspace library? It's been in the kernel for a while now? If it is indeed missing an imporant feature, would it not make more sense extend the features that already exist?
    - 11y ago

I'm patiently waiting for systemd-kernel.

by rascul 11y ago

I'm patiently waiting for systemd-kernel.

jlgaddis 11y ago

Please don't give them any ideas!

qznc 11y ago

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/VUzeRLf5g5m https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/... "German language source code comments are not acceptable in the systemd source tree, according to our coding style conventions. In preparation for merging LibreOffice into systemd I have thus started translating a few of their source code comments from German into English." - Lennart Poettering

pdkl95 11y ago

Too late, it's called "kdbus", which has been trying to get into the kernel for a while now. ( https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7767336.html#7767336 https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7767336.html#7767336 ) Quite a few kernel devs NAKed it on basic security issues, serious design flaws, unnecessary complexity, and unwillingness to explain why kdbus is necessary (that is, why existing features were not inadequate). Instead of taking that hint addressing the serious design problems, GHK (et al) did the usual systemd-cabal tactic of pretending design doesn't matter, indirectly implying their existing design must be perfect and not open for discussion. They patched a few superficial bugs, made some vague posts on LKML about how the finished most of the outstanding issues (wtf/), as if the NAKs never happened. It's currently unclear what will happen now. Then Lennart announces that the latest systemd has kdbus support force-enabled, while suggesting that distros should start testing kdbus with an out-of-tree patch to the kernel... Just like this NTP server issue, the only thing that matters to Lennart is his own world. The issues and concerns of other people are never his problem.

JetSetWilly 11y ago
This is a very distorted picture presented of kdbus. Like most systemd-hating posts, it focusses more on supposed personalities and "drama" than actual technology. kdbus is a new feature. It is normal that it takes time to develop and has bugs and issues along the way. Linus specifically requested that it be enabled in systemd so that it starts to get more testing and exposure. Constructing a grand conspiracy around kdbus is ludicrous.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > Like most systemd-hating posts, it focusses more on supposed personalities and "drama" than actual technology. Like most systemd apparatchik, this post uses incorrect assumptions, multiple disparaging remarks, and a lot of broad, non-specific claims to try and re-frame the discussion. > "drama" As others in this thread have pointed out, the NTP issue is NOT about technology. Quite a few of the higher-profile problems with the systemd "cabal" are social/management problems, and like clockwork, whenever they are brought up people like you try to force the conversation away from those problems by insisting that the conversation can only be about "technical" issues. Often this is accompanied with blatant straw-men arguments, which is, unfortunately, a common tactic in many internet arguments. I discussed Lennart's attitude, because that's the topic of the thread. Reputation matters, and the handling of this NTP issue is yet another data point. > kdbus is a new feature Obviously. > It is normal that it takes time to develop and has bugs and issues along the way. L Of course. Is it normal for the person submitting to completely ignore those issues? The fact that there were issues is not the problem. I'm talking about what happened afterwords, which was a confusing and unusual disregard of quite a few of the most serious issues brought up on LKML ( http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1504.1/03981.html http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1504.1/03981.html ), and a disregard for regular kernel submission process ( https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/23/281 https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/23/281 ). This is a side issue, though, as my point was that the systemd cabal already made a lot of headway towards the "systemd-kernel" joke. > grand conspiracy What grand conspiracy? I'm talking about widely-known public statements, like the recent systemd v221 announcement, where Lennart said, "We encourage all downstream distributions to begin testing kdbus by adding it to the kernel images in the development distributions..." This is especially amusing coming from someone who jsut accused me of focusing on "drama". > Linus specifically requested that it be enabled Unless I missed something, Linus only discussed that after Andy Lutomirski's question about systemd v221 (and the above quote requesting distributions to start testing now). > actual technology You want a discussion on the technology of kdbus? Then how about this question: why, exactly, is wrong with the already-existing TIPC plus a userspace library? It's been in the kernel for a while now? If it is indeed missing an imporant feature, would it not make more sense extend the features that already exist?
  - 11y ago