4 ms·

This is a very distorted picture presented of kdbus. Like most systemd-hating posts, it focusses more on supposed personalities and "drama" than actual technolo

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?
- crististm 11y ago
  It starts to look like Greg and others have vested interests in Red Hat. This would certainly explain their "go away - we know better" attitude.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    kdbus seems to be all over the place. https://lwn.net/Articles/551969/ https://lwn.net/Articles/551969/ has GregKH talk about both Gnome's plans for a Android-like app containerization system, as well as the automobile industry wanting a higher performance dbus so they can replace QNX with embedded Linux. Frankly i have come to read anything coming out of Gnome and Freedesktop as coming out of RH via a sock puppet. Thing is that it may not be a willed plan inside RH. But they have enough people on payroll involved in both projects, and others, that it becomes a subconscious lockstep.

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?

crististm 11y ago
It starts to look like Greg and others have vested interests in Red Hat. This would certainly explain their "go away - we know better" attitude.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  kdbus seems to be all over the place. https://lwn.net/Articles/551969/ https://lwn.net/Articles/551969/ has GregKH talk about both Gnome's plans for a Android-like app containerization system, as well as the automobile industry wanting a higher performance dbus so they can replace QNX with embedded Linux. Frankly i have come to read anything coming out of Gnome and Freedesktop as coming out of RH via a sock puppet. Thing is that it may not be a willed plan inside RH. But they have enough people on payroll involved in both projects, and others, that it becomes a subconscious lockstep.