1 |
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz <gevisz@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
[ snip ] |
3 |
> How can you be sure if something is "large enough" if, as you say below, |
4 |
> you do not care about probabilities? |
5 |
|
6 |
By writing correct code? |
7 |
|
8 |
>> > SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains |
9 |
>> > about 13 000 lines, systemd — about 200 000 lines. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> If you take into account the thousands of shell code that SysV and |
12 |
>> OpenRC need to fill the functionality of systemd, they use even more. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> Also, again, systemd have a lot of little binaries, many of them |
15 |
>> optional. The LOC of PID 1 is actually closer to SysV (although still |
16 |
>> bigger). |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> > Even assuming |
19 |
>> > systemd code is as mature as sysvinit or openrc (though I doubt |
20 |
>> > this) you can calculate probabilities of segfaults yourself easily. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> I don't care about probabilities; |
23 |
> |
24 |
> If you do not care (= do not now anything) about probabilities |
25 |
> (and mathematics, in general), you just unable to understand |
26 |
> that debugging a program with 200K lines of code take |
27 |
> |
28 |
> 200000!/(10000!)^20 |
29 |
> |
30 |
> more time than debugging of 20 different programs with 10K lines of |
31 |
> code. You can try to calculate that number yourself but I quite sure |
32 |
> that if the latter can take, say, 20 days, the former can take |
33 |
> millions of years. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> It is all the probability! Or, to be more precise, combinatorics. |
36 |
|
37 |
My PhD thesis (which I will defend in a few weeks) is in computer |
38 |
science, specifically computational geometry and combinatorics. |
39 |
|
40 |
But hey, thanks for the lesson. |
41 |
|
42 |
>> I care about facts: FACT, I've been using systemd since 2010, |
43 |
>> in several machines, and I haven't had a single segfault. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Have you ever tried forex? If yes, you should have been warned |
46 |
> that "no past performance guarantee the future one." |
47 |
|
48 |
I never said that. I trust the quality of the code, measured by my own |
49 |
judgment and bug reports, etc. Not past performance. |
50 |
|
51 |
And even if a bug goes by, then what? The world will end? |
52 |
|
53 |
No, the bug will be reported, and fixed. And life will go on. |
54 |
|
55 |
> And if you do not believe that (and do not care about probability |
56 |
> and all the stuff like that), you should visit any of the forex forums |
57 |
> where you will be suggested a magical money winning strategy that, in |
58 |
> the past, behaved very well and earned 200 or even 500% a month. |
59 |
|
60 |
Thanks for the tip, but I have never understood the people that |
61 |
believes economics is closer to mathematics than sociology. |
62 |
|
63 |
>> FACT: almost no bug report in systemd involves a |
64 |
>> segfault in PID 1. |
65 |
>> |
66 |
>> >> >> All of them are different tools providing one capability to |
67 |
>> >> >> systemd as a whole. So systemd is a collection of tools, where |
68 |
>> >> >> each one does one thing, and it does it well. |
69 |
>> >> >> |
70 |
>> >> >> By your definition, systemd perfectly follows "the unix way". |
71 |
>> >> >> |
72 |
>> >> > |
73 |
>> >> > no, it isn't. |
74 |
>> >> > |
75 |
>> >> > How are those binaries talk to each other? |
76 |
>> >> |
77 |
>> >> dbus, which is about to be integrated into the kernel with kdbus. |
78 |
>> > |
79 |
>> > And this is a very, very bad idea. Looks like you don't know matter |
80 |
>> > at all: to begin with kdbus protocol is NOT compatible dbus and |
81 |
>> > special converter daemon will be needed to enable dbus to talk to |
82 |
>> > kdbus. |
83 |
>> |
84 |
>> kdbus uses a different wire protocol than dbus; but for clients that |
85 |
>> doesn't matter; libsystemd-dbus will offer a compatibility layer (talk |
86 |
>> about "standard" and "replaceable"), so if your application uses dbus |
87 |
>> today, it will work with kdbus. |
88 |
>> |
89 |
>> Of course, new applications will take advantage of the new features |
90 |
>> of kdbus. |
91 |
>> |
92 |
>> > The |
93 |
>> > whole kdbus technology is very questionable itself (and was |
94 |
>> > forcefully pushed by RH devs), |
95 |
>> |
96 |
>> Sorry, but it's you who doesn't know the matter at hand: kdbus was |
97 |
>> (and is) written by Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus' right hand, and who |
98 |
>> works for the Linux Foundation. |
99 |
> |
100 |
> Lol, he seems to start to use the arguments like "You even do not know |
101 |
> my elder brother/acquaintance from the street nearby who can easily |
102 |
> hit you down!" |
103 |
|
104 |
If you don't think Greg's words have any weight in a Linux-related |
105 |
technical discussion, then I'm afraid we will need to agree to |
106 |
disagree on any technical subject. |
107 |
|
108 |
> So, here, I would like to thank everybody in this discussion who |
109 |
> helped me to understand the danger of systemd and note that it is |
110 |
> now became pointless to continue this discussion with this "unpayed |
111 |
> systemd promoter." |
112 |
|
113 |
Getting personal, are we? |
114 |
|
115 |
>> > anyway it is possible to disable this |
116 |
>> > stuff in kernel and guess what will be done on my systems. |
117 |
>> |
118 |
>> Good for you. Guess what will be done in mine? |
119 |
>> |
120 |
>> >> > Looks broken. Broken by design. The worst form of broken. |
121 |
>> >> |
122 |
>> >> By your opinion, not others. |
123 |
>> > |
124 |
>> > That is not just an opinion. There is a science and experience |
125 |
>> > behind system's design. |
126 |
>> |
127 |
>> Yeah, what do you think about Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus' right hand, |
128 |
>> or Keith Packard of X.org fame? None of them works for Red Hat; both |
129 |
>> of them know more about Unix and Linux than you and me together, and |
130 |
>> both of them promote systemd. |
131 |
> |
132 |
> Aha! How could you even doubt my understanding the words of these prophets! :-) |
133 |
|
134 |
They, contrary to you, actually give technical arguments instead of |
135 |
splutter some nonsense about combinatorics that has nothing to do with |
136 |
the subject at hand. |
137 |
|
138 |
>> I mean, I myself know a thing or two about computing and Linux, and I |
139 |
>> promote systemd (and nobody pays me, BTW), but obviously you don't |
140 |
>> need to believe in my credentials. |
141 |
> |
142 |
> I have said you, he is just an unpayed fanatic systemd promoter! |
143 |
|
144 |
OK, that's it; I actually thought for a moment that you wanted to have |
145 |
a civil, intelligent and technical oriented conversation. I now see |
146 |
you don't. |
147 |
|
148 |
>> And, no offense, but I will always give more weight to the words of |
149 |
>> Greg Kroah-Hartman or Keith Packard (to name only two), instead of a |
150 |
>> random user in gentoo-user. |
151 |
>> |
152 |
>> There are knowledgeable people who are against systemd. But usually |
153 |
>> they don't give *technical* sound reasons. |
154 |
>> |
155 |
>> > And all that science was ignored during systemd |
156 |
>> > architecture process if there was any at all. |
157 |
>> |
158 |
>> You should read systemd-devel and Lennart's blog posts |
159 |
> |
160 |
> And A Holy Words of our Mighty God! |
161 |
|
162 |
And that confirms it. Goodbye; I'm done with you in this thread. |
163 |
|
164 |
Regards. |
165 |
-- |
166 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
167 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
168 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |