1 |
Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko <at> gmail.com> writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
> This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want |
5 |
> your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it. |
6 |
|
7 |
I think this is very much "on Topic". |
8 |
|
9 |
> iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big |
10 |
> Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd. |
11 |
> The gist of it can be resumed in two lines: |
12 |
|
13 |
> "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and |
14 |
> laptop both run it." |
15 |
|
16 |
Here I diagree. I think Linux's position is, hey it's a BIG tent; |
17 |
can't we call get along? Kum_by_yah oh lord, Kum_by_yall...... |
18 |
|
19 |
Linus admits he rarely codes and does not have the skills he use to... |
20 |
|
21 |
> I post it here because several times in the last discussions about |
22 |
> systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd. |
23 |
> I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in |
24 |
> this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will |
25 |
> continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do |
26 |
> so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really* |
27 |
> like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits: |
28 |
> |
29 |
> • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days |
30 |
> more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the |
31 |
> situation." |
32 |
> |
33 |
> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one |
34 |
> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a |
35 |
> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face |
36 |
> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major |
37 |
> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's |
38 |
> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I |
39 |
> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of |
40 |
> reality." |
41 |
> |
42 |
> • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy." |
43 |
> |
44 |
> • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, |
45 |
> not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the |
46 |
> best of taste, but hey, details..[.]" |
47 |
> |
48 |
> • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are |
49 |
> digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of |
50 |
> software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either." |
51 |
|
52 |
Really? This is idiotic. Anything that breaks down a "fault tolerant" |
53 |
system, has to be removed, or the system is no long "fault tolerant" |
54 |
(pist, it a mathematical thing, no a linux/unix concept. Linus |
55 |
sounds like an *idiot* here. It's not the first time, nor could anyone |
56 |
in his shoes not sound like an idiot on something as fundamental as |
57 |
what cgroups hopes to eventually accomplish. By the way, just for the |
58 |
record, I like the "theory" behind systemd. It's going to take SYSTEMD |
59 |
A LONG TIME to MATURE and become ROBUST. |
60 |
|
61 |
cgroups are mature, flexible, robust, well-understood and this is |
62 |
absolutely no reason in hell that folks should ever be force to pick |
63 |
one of the other. If/when "linx" make that decision, it will be just |
64 |
as catastropic as the day Sun Microsystem consolidated ownership |
65 |
of most unix source licenses in a effort (conspiracy) that SCO |
66 |
unix tried to finish by kill the BSD efforts. That was when most |
67 |
folks on the internet migrated to Linux. I think Linux is trying |
68 |
to prevent another (reverse) watershed moment. |
69 |
|
70 |
If folks have the choice, then they will stay with Linux. If forced |
71 |
many will leave. The entire affair is AVOIDABLE. systemd, in all |
72 |
it's glory should never force anyone to choose. Choice is the greatest |
73 |
asset of all open source. Many would say, it is the only asset of |
74 |
the open source movement. |
75 |
|
76 |
|
77 |
> • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed |
78 |
> painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like |
79 |
> they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody |
80 |
> feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues |
81 |
> that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to |
82 |
> actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise |
83 |
> that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same |
84 |
> kind of mouth-time." |
85 |
|
86 |
Retarded comparision of vi vs emac and antoher application. systemd |
87 |
vs the traditional cgroups is an the lowest level of the kernel. |
88 |
Think aobut it by going to 'make menuconfig' in your local source dir. |
89 |
Look at the myriad of low level choices we have. Why the hell is |
90 |
systemd so special that it cannot stand up to other solutions and |
91 |
competition? |
92 |
|
93 |
|
94 |
> It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it. |
95 |
|
96 |
I agree. He sound more idiodic than Obama and his "red line". We |
97 |
all know how that turned out. |
98 |
|
99 |
CHOICE is EVERYTHING! |
100 |
|
101 |
My decision to run a lightweight desktop (lxde, lxqt) and have |
102 |
a mesos/spark cluser across several machines is my choice. |
103 |
Others like KDE becoming the cluster. CHOICE. Exclude cgroups |
104 |
and it will split the community, imho. That said, we all already |
105 |
split across windows, mac, androi, linux, bsd, etc etc so |
106 |
it really does not matter at all, imho. |
107 |
|
108 |
But comparing fights over editors and applications to fundamentally |
109 |
preventing cgroups, is beyond idiotic, it imbicilic, imho. |
110 |
|
111 |
|
112 |
Please dont get me wrong, I look very forward to systemd, when I |
113 |
choose to test/use it. I totally reject the idea of being |
114 |
force to use systemd; and for sure, systemd is quite whimiscal on |
115 |
many current issues, if you believe what you read. I file bug 517428 |
116 |
on Ftrace. I requested something that is not easy. |
117 |
Ftrace/trace-cmd/kernelshark. Why? Because this is the exact sort of tool |
118 |
combination |
119 |
that will explicitly allow one to collect data on performance and reliabling |
120 |
of systemd vs cgroups situations. When we get this (these) ebuilds |
121 |
we will all be able to test identical system, except for systemd vs cgroups. |
122 |
|
123 |
NOBODY is talking about the performance penaly for systemd, because |
124 |
the tools for such measurements, are not being put out to the user |
125 |
communities, imho. Please if I wrong, point me to the fair studies |
126 |
where systemd outperforms a well tuned cgroup system? Please point |
127 |
me to the tools so I can take 2 identical system, except for systemd |
128 |
and cgroups and compare with a wide variety of tests? Published data? |
129 |
|
130 |
Linus should make a clear, leadership statement that there will |
131 |
always be a path for folks to use another mechanism besides systemd |
132 |
in the linux kernel; This does not have to be a systemd vs cgroups |
133 |
discussion, but it being presented this way. A clear statement |
134 |
of multiplicity will put this issue to rest once and for all. By not stating |
135 |
clearly was is obvious, many technically astute folks are looking for |
136 |
options. Surely a fork is emminent and it will most likely be |
137 |
the best thing to happen to linux, as the entire kernel development |
138 |
process has become tainted by those with billions of dollars. |
139 |
|
140 |
Linus is a wussy, at best! |
141 |
|
142 |
> [1] |
143 |
http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd |
144 |
|
145 |
|
146 |
hth, |
147 |
Jaems |