4 ms·

If you want some unnecessary inflammatory comments, take a look at how the issue was "closed".

by beedogs 11y ago

scrollaway 11y ago
I did, and I see people throwing words like "Absurd" and calling lennart "stupid", while he's providing a reasonable explanation. I disagree with Lennart and I don't think Google should be default but his reasoning is still good.
- AdieuToLogic 11y ago
  So that this thread accurately reflects the "stupid" statement, here are some of the comments using this term: @poettering You're being kind of absurd and stupid here. Supplying a broken timeserver as a default is inane and silly. Please accept the pull request. #439 (pull request located at: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/439 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/439) To which Poettering responded: Id be willing to take a patch that adds a big warning to configure if the default ntp server to use is not set when invoking configure. People who ignore that warning are then on their own. Which was followed up two minutes later with: The issue is that the google time servers shouldn't be used as a default, period. How does adding a warning if you use the defaults fix the underlying issue? Addressed by Poettering with: As i read what is written above google just says the servers are crap but doesnt explicitly deny us to use them. Which is why id like to leave them in place because they are at least googd enough for testing purposes. And followed up with: @poettering Then how about we delete the server list entirely and let systemd crash and burn loudly when ntp servers are not supplied. This seems preferable to silent failures or silent hard to find issues. --- Characterizations of "absurd" and "stupid" may sound harsh, yet could be explained as commenters frustrated in the presence of unreasonable obstinance. Poettering needs to either step up and stand behind the "we are going to make as many decisions for people who install systemd as we can" OR he can play the: Systemd upstream is not a product Card. But it cannot be both. EDIT: Inserted newlines into the quotes to eliminate horizontal scroll bars and refined the characterization explanation to better convey original intent.
  - belorn 11y ago
    Why did you exclude the comment where he said that the google servers are bad and he would accept any servers which is better? shitty servers as default are better than none. If you let me know a set of servers that are openly accessible, that do not require registration as a vendor or product and are better then the shitty servers then let me know and we can switch over.
    - AdieuToLogic 11y ago
      > Why did you exclude the comment where he said that the google servers are bad and he would accept any servers which is better? Because the quotes I presented were done so in context to provide a summary of why the caustic terms were used. I added my own opinion after a demarcation so that the duality would be clear. It's funny that the quote you present both supports many people's belief that "he makes whatever decisions he can and everyone has to live with it", while still trying to play the "gee wiz, systemd isn't a product" card.
  - ifdefdebug 11y ago
    I find LP's argumentation in those lines you reproduced quite reasonable. Specifically, nobody tries to refute "google just says the servers are crap but doesnt explicitly deny us to use them". If that holds true, then half of the argument people use to get the servers removed is false. The other half seems to be "Supplying a broken timeserver as a default is inane and silly". In my opinion, this is successfully addressed by "willing to take a patch that adds a big warning" and make clear that those servers are meant exclusively for some build-and-test bots to have something to pull from - where one leap second more or less doesn't matter. So in my opinion, unless someone refutes "google (...) doesnt explicitly deny us to use them" they might not have a valid argument.
    - jrochkind1 11y ago
      The original PR message from a google engineer says: > People should definitely /not/ be using these time servers by default without realising it. Please change systemd's default time servers to some service that is designed to provide a reliable public NTP service. I guess it's not totally clear if this is "google" speaking, or just some google engineer's opinion. It's of course hard to get an "officially from google" answer to just about anything. But, whoever is speaking on wheover's behalf, does seem to be explicitly denying the use of the ntp servers, just doing so politely. Including the word 'please' does not make it less explicit.

If you want some unnecessary inflammatory comments, take a look at how the issue was "closed".

by beedogs 11y ago

If you want some unnecessary inflammatory comments, take a look at how the issue was "closed".

I did, and I see people throwing words like "Absurd" and calling lennart "stupid", while he's providing a reasonable explanation. I disagree with Lennart and I don't think Google should be default but his reasoning is still good.

AdieuToLogic 11y ago
So that this thread accurately reflects the "stupid" statement, here are some of the comments using this term: @poettering You're being kind of absurd and stupid here. Supplying a broken timeserver as a default is inane and silly. Please accept the pull request. #439 (pull request located at: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/439 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/439) To which Poettering responded: Id be willing to take a patch that adds a big warning to configure if the default ntp server to use is not set when invoking configure. People who ignore that warning are then on their own. Which was followed up two minutes later with: The issue is that the google time servers shouldn't be used as a default, period. How does adding a warning if you use the defaults fix the underlying issue? Addressed by Poettering with: As i read what is written above google just says the servers are crap but doesnt explicitly deny us to use them. Which is why id like to leave them in place because they are at least googd enough for testing purposes. And followed up with: @poettering Then how about we delete the server list entirely and let systemd crash and burn loudly when ntp servers are not supplied. This seems preferable to silent failures or silent hard to find issues. --- Characterizations of "absurd" and "stupid" may sound harsh, yet could be explained as commenters frustrated in the presence of unreasonable obstinance. Poettering needs to either step up and stand behind the "we are going to make as many decisions for people who install systemd as we can" OR he can play the: Systemd upstream is not a product Card. But it cannot be both. EDIT: Inserted newlines into the quotes to eliminate horizontal scroll bars and refined the characterization explanation to better convey original intent.
- belorn 11y ago
  Why did you exclude the comment where he said that the google servers are bad and he would accept any servers which is better? shitty servers as default are better than none. If you let me know a set of servers that are openly accessible, that do not require registration as a vendor or product and are better then the shitty servers then let me know and we can switch over.
  - AdieuToLogic 11y ago
    > Why did you exclude the comment where he said that the google servers are bad and he would accept any servers which is better? Because the quotes I presented were done so in context to provide a summary of why the caustic terms were used. I added my own opinion after a demarcation so that the duality would be clear. It's funny that the quote you present both supports many people's belief that "he makes whatever decisions he can and everyone has to live with it", while still trying to play the "gee wiz, systemd isn't a product" card.
- ifdefdebug 11y ago
  I find LP's argumentation in those lines you reproduced quite reasonable. Specifically, nobody tries to refute "google just says the servers are crap but doesnt explicitly deny us to use them". If that holds true, then half of the argument people use to get the servers removed is false. The other half seems to be "Supplying a broken timeserver as a default is inane and silly". In my opinion, this is successfully addressed by "willing to take a patch that adds a big warning" and make clear that those servers are meant exclusively for some build-and-test bots to have something to pull from - where one leap second more or less doesn't matter. So in my opinion, unless someone refutes "google (...) doesnt explicitly deny us to use them" they might not have a valid argument.
  - jrochkind1 11y ago
    The original PR message from a google engineer says: > People should definitely /not/ be using these time servers by default without realising it. Please change systemd's default time servers to some service that is designed to provide a reliable public NTP service. I guess it's not totally clear if this is "google" speaking, or just some google engineer's opinion. It's of course hard to get an "officially from google" answer to just about anything. But, whoever is speaking on wheover's behalf, does seem to be explicitly denying the use of the ntp servers, just doing so politely. Including the word 'please' does not make it less explicit.