1 |
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:30:42 -0600 |
2 |
Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz <gevisz@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> [ snip ] |
6 |
> > How can you be sure if something is "large enough" if, as you say |
7 |
> > below, you do not care about probabilities? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> By writing correct code? |
10 |
|
11 |
No, by arguing that fixing bugs in a 200K line program is as easy as |
12 |
fixing a bug in 20 10K line programs. It is just not true, just the |
13 |
opposite. |
14 |
|
15 |
> >> > SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains |
16 |
> >> > about 13 000 lines, systemd — about 200 000 lines. |
17 |
> >> |
18 |
> >> If you take into account the thousands of shell code that SysV and |
19 |
> >> OpenRC need to fill the functionality of systemd, they use even |
20 |
> >> more. |
21 |
> >> |
22 |
> >> Also, again, systemd have a lot of little binaries, many of them |
23 |
> >> optional. The LOC of PID 1 is actually closer to SysV (although |
24 |
> >> still bigger). |
25 |
> >> |
26 |
> >> > Even assuming |
27 |
> >> > systemd code is as mature as sysvinit or openrc (though I doubt |
28 |
> >> > this) you can calculate probabilities of segfaults yourself |
29 |
> >> > easily. |
30 |
> >> |
31 |
> >> I don't care about probabilities; |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> > If you do not care (= do not now anything) about probabilities |
34 |
> > (and mathematics, in general), you just unable to understand |
35 |
> > that debugging a program with 200K lines of code take |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > 200000!/(10000!)^20 |
38 |
> > |
39 |
> > more time than debugging of 20 different programs with 10K lines of |
40 |
> > code. You can try to calculate that number yourself but I quite sure |
41 |
> > that if the latter can take, say, 20 days, the former can take |
42 |
> > millions of years. |
43 |
> > |
44 |
> > It is all the probability! Or, to be more precise, combinatorics. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> My PhD thesis (which I will defend in a few weeks) is in computer |
47 |
> science, specifically computational geometry and combinatorics. |
48 |
|
49 |
It is even more shameful for you to not understand such a simple facts |
50 |
from elementary probability theory (which is mostly based on |
51 |
combinatorics). |
52 |
|
53 |
And, believe me, here, in this mailing list, there are a lot people |
54 |
that have there PhD defended a long time ago. However, they do not |
55 |
thing it is appropriate to use such facts in their arguments about |
56 |
merits or "dismerits" of one or the other approach to computer |
57 |
programming. |
58 |
|
59 |
> But hey, thanks for the lesson. |
60 |
|
61 |
Not at all. |
62 |
|
63 |
> >> I care about facts: FACT, I've been using systemd since 2010, |
64 |
> >> in several machines, and I haven't had a single segfault. |
65 |
> > |
66 |
> > Have you ever tried forex? If yes, you should have been warned |
67 |
> > that "no past performance guarantee the future one." |
68 |
> |
69 |
> I never said that. I trust the quality of the code, measured by my own |
70 |
> judgment and bug reports, etc. Not past performance. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> And even if a bug goes by, then what? The world will end? |
73 |
> |
74 |
> No, the bug will be reported, and fixed. And life will go on. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> > And if you do not believe that (and do not care about probability |
77 |
> > and all the stuff like that), you should visit any of the forex |
78 |
> > forums where you will be suggested a magical money winning strategy |
79 |
> > that, in the past, behaved very well and earned 200 or even 500% a |
80 |
> > month. |
81 |
> |
82 |
> Thanks for the tip, but I have never understood the people that |
83 |
> believes economics is closer to mathematics than sociology. |
84 |
> |
85 |
> >> FACT: almost no bug report in systemd involves a |
86 |
> >> segfault in PID 1. |
87 |
> >> |
88 |
> >> >> >> All of them are different tools providing one capability to |
89 |
> >> >> >> systemd as a whole. So systemd is a collection of tools, |
90 |
> >> >> >> where each one does one thing, and it does it well. |
91 |
> >> >> >> |
92 |
> >> >> >> By your definition, systemd perfectly follows "the unix way". |
93 |
> >> >> >> |
94 |
> >> >> > |
95 |
> >> >> > no, it isn't. |
96 |
> >> >> > |
97 |
> >> >> > How are those binaries talk to each other? |
98 |
> >> >> |
99 |
> >> >> dbus, which is about to be integrated into the kernel with |
100 |
> >> >> kdbus. |
101 |
> >> > |
102 |
> >> > And this is a very, very bad idea. Looks like you don't know |
103 |
> >> > matter at all: to begin with kdbus protocol is NOT compatible |
104 |
> >> > dbus and special converter daemon will be needed to enable dbus |
105 |
> >> > to talk to kdbus. |
106 |
> >> |
107 |
> >> kdbus uses a different wire protocol than dbus; but for clients |
108 |
> >> that doesn't matter; libsystemd-dbus will offer a compatibility |
109 |
> >> layer (talk about "standard" and "replaceable"), so if your |
110 |
> >> application uses dbus today, it will work with kdbus. |
111 |
> >> |
112 |
> >> Of course, new applications will take advantage of the new features |
113 |
> >> of kdbus. |
114 |
> >> |
115 |
> >> > The |
116 |
> >> > whole kdbus technology is very questionable itself (and was |
117 |
> >> > forcefully pushed by RH devs), |
118 |
> >> |
119 |
> >> Sorry, but it's you who doesn't know the matter at hand: kdbus was |
120 |
> >> (and is) written by Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus' right hand, and who |
121 |
> >> works for the Linux Foundation. |
122 |
> > |
123 |
> > Lol, he seems to start to use the arguments like "You even do not |
124 |
> > know my elder brother/acquaintance from the street nearby who can |
125 |
> > easily hit you down!" |
126 |
> |
127 |
> If you don't think Greg's words have any weight in a Linux-related |
128 |
> technical discussion, then I'm afraid we will need to agree to |
129 |
> disagree on any technical subject. |
130 |
> |
131 |
> > So, here, I would like to thank everybody in this discussion who |
132 |
> > helped me to understand the danger of systemd and note that it is |
133 |
> > now became pointless to continue this discussion with this "unpayed |
134 |
> > systemd promoter." |
135 |
> |
136 |
> Getting personal, are we? |
137 |
|
138 |
I am really sorry for getting personal here, but it was only because |
139 |
your level of argumentation went far below any acceptable level and |
140 |
it became absolutely clear that you continue to argue only because |
141 |
you do not want to accept that you are wrong and, moreover, it already |
142 |
looks like you are trying to sell to others the thing that they do not |
143 |
want to buy. |
144 |
|
145 |
> >> > anyway it is possible to disable this |
146 |
> >> > stuff in kernel and guess what will be done on my systems. |
147 |
> >> |
148 |
> >> Good for you. Guess what will be done in mine? |
149 |
> >> |
150 |
> >> >> > Looks broken. Broken by design. The worst form of broken. |
151 |
> >> >> |
152 |
> >> >> By your opinion, not others. |
153 |
> >> > |
154 |
> >> > That is not just an opinion. There is a science and experience |
155 |
> >> > behind system's design. |
156 |
> >> |
157 |
> >> Yeah, what do you think about Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus' right |
158 |
> >> hand, or Keith Packard of X.org fame? None of them works for Red |
159 |
> >> Hat; both of them know more about Unix and Linux than you and me |
160 |
> >> together, and both of them promote systemd. |
161 |
> > |
162 |
> > Aha! How could you even doubt my understanding the words of these |
163 |
> > prophets! :-) |
164 |
> |
165 |
> They, contrary to you, actually give technical arguments instead of |
166 |
> splutter some nonsense about combinatorics that has nothing to do with |
167 |
> the subject at hand. |
168 |
> |
169 |
> >> I mean, I myself know a thing or two about computing and Linux, |
170 |
> >> and I promote systemd (and nobody pays me, BTW), but obviously you |
171 |
> >> don't need to believe in my credentials. |
172 |
> > |
173 |
> > I have said you, he is just an unpayed fanatic systemd promoter! |
174 |
> |
175 |
> OK, that's it; I actually thought for a moment that you wanted to have |
176 |
> a civil, intelligent and technical oriented conversation. I now see |
177 |
> you don't. |
178 |
|
179 |
Once more, I am really sorry for getting personal here, but it was only |
180 |
because your level of argumentation went far below any acceptable level |
181 |
and it became absolutely clear that you continue to argue only because |
182 |
you do not want to accept that you are wrong and, moreover, it already |
183 |
looks like you are trying to sell to others the thing that they do not |
184 |
want to buy. |
185 |
|
186 |
> >> And, no offense, but I will always give more weight to the words of |
187 |
> >> Greg Kroah-Hartman or Keith Packard (to name only two), instead of |
188 |
> >> a random user in gentoo-user. |
189 |
> >> |
190 |
> >> There are knowledgeable people who are against systemd. But usually |
191 |
> >> they don't give *technical* sound reasons. |
192 |
> >> |
193 |
> >> > And all that science was ignored during systemd |
194 |
> >> > architecture process if there was any at all. |
195 |
> >> |
196 |
> >> You should read systemd-devel and Lennart's blog posts |
197 |
> > |
198 |
> > And A Holy Words of our Mighty God! |
199 |
> |
200 |
> And that confirms it. Goodbye; I'm done with you in this thread. |
201 |
> |
202 |
> Regards. |