zxzax

33 ms·

301.
by zxzax 5y ago
No, it seems the specific hardware causing the issue was mentioned in the bug report.
302.
by zxzax 5y ago
That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater though, people who want large scale projects will continue to make projects with large scopes.
303.
by zxzax 5y ago
From what you were saying earlier, from the perspective of the bug triager, it sounds like there were multiple areas that maybe this could have been fixed in, not necessarily udev. So still that comes back to: the correct people to triage t
304.
by zxzax 5y ago
If plan 9 is what you want, I would encourage you to use 9front. I can't see why you would use Linux if you didn't like Red Hat, they have been a key contributor in Linux land for a long time, employing many long-time kernel devel
305.
by zxzax 5y ago
The code savings from including udev in systemd turned out to be greater, as there was more re-usable code already written in systemd. Please be the better person and don't revive this flamewar, it's not helpful, let's stick
306.
by zxzax 5y ago
I see people saying this kind of thing often in open source and I think you are missing the point here: who is going to fix this bug? You can say systemd developers shouldn't triage it, and then you're left with nobody to triage t
307.
by zxzax 5y ago
So that really seems to be the core of the problem to me: nobody really wants to seriously maintain udev as an individual project. It's not a fun or glamorous project to work on, it's boring, nobody will notice it unless it breaks
308.
by zxzax 5y ago
That's what I mean though, all of that seems to be just wild guessing as to what will actually work and sending random emails out to random people who may or may not be able to fix it (Disclaimer: I don't know anything about this
309.
by zxzax 5y ago
The issue is not with the actual udev device event logic itself, but with all the other bits I talked about. Those are the things that would need to be duplicated. >to force other distributions into using libsystemd, which would logicall
310.
by zxzax 5y ago
That doesn't really make any sense, libsystemd is just a library with some fairly generic functionality.
311.
by zxzax 5y ago
I'm just curious, how would you suggest they debug and maintain support for that hardware, without even owning that particular device? It seems like anything they do would just be a wild guess as to whether it actually works or not. In
312.
by zxzax 5y ago
Because that would not reduce code duplication. I don't know if you have ever worked on any of the low-level Linux libraries written in C, but the amount of unnecessary code duplication across them is awful. The standard library featur
313.
by zxzax 5y ago
Libsystemd is just a shared library with some common code used by various systemd daemons (an epoll-based event loop, the dbus protocol implementation, uuid generation, parsers for the binary logs, etc). I can understand why people don&#x27
314.
by zxzax 5y ago
I don't understand, is this not what you were asking for initially? libsystemd.so is just a shared library, it's not any more of a giant pain than any other library.
315.
by zxzax 5y ago
I don't see why you couldn't do that in systemd (or any other init), it's not hard to make a small unit that simply runs a shell script.
316.
by zxzax 5y ago
The udevd package in gentoo does exactly this, which is supported as an alternative to eudev: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-fs/udev I believe the reason for eudev is to avoid some of those other unwante
317.
by zxzax 5y ago
Not sure why you're saying that -- moving it to a library is basically what happened. The libudev code got moved to libsystemd, and now libudev is a wrapper around that.
318.
by zxzax 5y ago
According to Lennart that's correct, the reason it was done was to reduce the amount of duplicate code: https://lwn.net/Articles/490441/
319.
by zxzax 5y ago
>that decision [...] was done for purely anti-competitive reasons. This is not correct, I don't know where you got this idea. The systemd-udevd daemon still runs without systemd. The code has moved into the systemd repository, and i
320.
by zxzax 5y ago
I personally wouldn't take these incidents on twitter as indicative of anything, there is quite a lot of information missing there. You or I probably don't know the full history of the company or what transpired for it to get to t
321.
by zxzax 5y ago
Right, but Firefox is its own special case. I don't get that complaint in the context of GTK or Qt apps -- dbus is the native IPC there. Taking it out without a replacement is just going to break things, and any replacement has to happ
322.
by zxzax 5y ago
Those pieces can all be separated, but increasingly few people seem to be interested in putting in the work to do it. In particular, freedesktop is mostly just a set of standards for common protocols and file formats for an open source desk
323.
by zxzax 5y ago
>the vast majority aren't out to find people they can label as 'problematic' and chase them off the island. To me that it always the problem that has faced any minority groups anywhere -- it's never obvious to the maj
324.
by zxzax 5y ago
Practically speaking I don't think it's less loaded, for example if someone working on something decides suddenly that they're switching license to GPL, that has historically caused problems for BSD in the past (more than onc
325.
by zxzax 5y ago
What is the issue with dbus? I've seen a lot of complaints about it but I have yet to see anyone bother to create a viable replacement for it, after several years.
326.
by zxzax 5y ago
You would probably see people using it any time a lot of people feel alienated by the behavior. Usually I see good community managers as people who go out of their way to be agreeable to the whole community, helping to reach common ground a
327.
by zxzax 5y ago
I hate to say it, but wouldn't a jail orchestrator essentially be the BSD version of systemd, docker, k8s and friends? The (admittedly few) BSD people I've talked to seem to be hostile to this concept because it's too much of
328.
by zxzax 5y ago
I didn't make that comment, I agree that comment could have been worded better. I'm assuming by the use of past tense they didn't mean to suggest that they are inherently problematic for life. Edit: I don't have any addi
329.
by zxzax 5y ago
That's putting the cart before the horse -- in that context you would only see it used when the person's behavior already is super exclusionary. It's specifically used to describe that exclusionary behavior that has already h
330.
by zxzax 5y ago
For one, problematic refers to a behavior, not a person. If you find your behavior is causing problems for people, you can change that behavior (I encourage all employees/owners with a commitment to problem-solving to do this). For two

More ›