1 |
On 10/19/2013 06:35 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
2 |
> Am 19.10.2013 17:02, schrieb Daniel Campbell: |
3 |
>> On 10/17/2013 11:27 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
4 |
>>> https://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/200-libby-clark/733595-all-about-the-linux-kernel-cgroups-redesign |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> Not sure if I read that just right... but since nobody is doing cgroup |
7 |
>>> management besides systemd, in practice the cgroups implementation in |
8 |
>>> Linux wasn't very consistent. So since systemd is doing it, their work |
9 |
>>> is helping shape the kernel's cgroups api? |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> Interesting... |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>> >From my perspective it looks like systemd developers are trying to push |
14 |
>> their ideas into the kernel, almost like they intend to merge systemd |
15 |
>> *with* the kernel. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> from what I read in the article cgroups are a mess and are cleaned up |
18 |
> anyway. The only real user of cgroups at the moment is systemd. |
19 |
> Others are welcome to make use of cgroups too. But in the current state |
20 |
> nobody blames them for not jumping in. |
21 |
No complaints here in improving something, but consider the source is |
22 |
all I'm saying. |
23 |
|
24 |
> |
25 |
>> If systemd is the only implementation of cgroups and |
26 |
>> their developers are working on cgroup support in the kernel, it spells |
27 |
>> calamity given their history of evangelism and zealotry. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> well, going over some old ml threads on fedora mailing lists all I could |
30 |
> find was that Poettering and Sievers DID listen and DID make changes if |
31 |
> the demand was high enough. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Sure, I dislike systemd. Sure what happened with udev was a dick move. |
34 |
> But their 'zealotry' is a lot less developed than the zealotry of those |
35 |
> who exploded about using an 'init-thingy' in the future. |
36 |
> |
37 |
I'd say their zealotry is less loud and more persistent. Their way is |
38 |
best, UNIX (and its philosophy) is outmoded, people are thinking 30 |
39 |
years behind where we are, etc etc etc. Those who have separate /usr and |
40 |
blame systemd for pushing them to use an initramfs aren't seeing the |
41 |
real problem (upstreams not putting things where they belong, FHS no |
42 |
longer *really* being worked on, generally just the filesystem being |
43 |
played with like a toy) |
44 |
|
45 |
>> |
46 |
>> I truly wish I understood why a single userland program and its |
47 |
>> developers are being given the keys to an entire subsystem of the |
48 |
>> kernel. |
49 |
> they aren't. |
50 |
Of the people who have committed to the cgroup subsystem of the kernel, |
51 |
how many are not members of the systemd, GNOME, or Red Hat projects? |
52 |
I'll let that speak for itself. |
53 |
|
54 |
> |
55 |
>> Their changes to udev have proven to be a headache for users, |
56 |
> |
57 |
> yes? which ones? |
58 |
Persistent NIC naming, for starters. The former maintainer's idea to |
59 |
merge with systemd (which was influenced by Mr. Poettering in the first |
60 |
place) when the two are completely separate pieces of software that do |
61 |
two completely different jobs, and various other troubles with udev > |
62 |
175 that one can Google for and find tons of results. |
63 |
> |
64 |
>> and the kernel is held to a much higher standard of stability and |
65 |
>> interoperability. In addition, the top-level developers of systemd (and |
66 |
>> GNOME, and the now-deprecated consolekit/polkit/udisks/etc) are employed |
67 |
>> by a for-profit company (Red Hat), which has a vested interest in |
68 |
>> shaping Linux as a platform. They and other corporations cannot be |
69 |
>> trusted with stuff like this... |
70 |
> |
71 |
> hm, Redhat is one of the companies investing the most money into linux |
72 |
> kernel, userland, graphics... if you 'don't trust them' you are pretty |
73 |
> much 20 years too late. |
74 |
Investing money does not make them any more qualified or deserving of |
75 |
making decisions. Red Hat is not the sole user of Linux. They should |
76 |
consider themselves lucky that they are even able to profit from |
77 |
something that's free. |
78 |
|
79 |
You're right, though. They've been around for a while, and I've never |
80 |
trusted them or any other corporate interest in *nix. There's always a |
81 |
catch when dealing with a business. |
82 |
|
83 |
> |
84 |
>> |
85 |
>> I'd like to see what Linus has to say about this if/when he finds out. |
86 |
>> He's not impressed with Sievers or Poettering. Personally I'd like to |
87 |
>> see them ostracized from the community and contained to their own |
88 |
>> distro, where they belong. |
89 |
>> |
90 |
> so much about zealotry. |
91 |
> |
92 |
> |
93 |
When a tumor is growing, if you cannot excise it, you must make its |
94 |
environment so harsh that it recedes. I have strong opinions, but I |
95 |
don't go around shoving my software in peoples' faces or tell people |
96 |
they're wrong to not use my software. Even Linus, who's known for his |
97 |
ego, wouldn't cross that line. |
98 |
|
99 |
If I'm a zealot of anything, it's freedom of choice. |