Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

[Tom Wijsman]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:52:55 +0400
Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@×××××.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 15:16:36 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> > <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote:
> > > Am 16.02.2014 21:08, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> > >> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> > >> <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote:
> > >> [ snip ]
> > >>> or it is an idiotic decision. Because features means complexity.
> > >> Yeah, like the kernel.
> > >>
> > >>> Complexity means bugs.
> > >> Bugs get reported, bugs get fixes. Life goes on.
> >
> > You didn't answered this, did you?
>
> Bugs are different. Bugs in the critical system components are
> critical to the whole system. If Libreoffice or browser
> segfaults, some data may be lost and inconvenience created, but the
> system will continue to run. If PID 1 segfaults — everything is
> lost, you have a kernel panic. That's why critical components should
> be as simple and clean as possible.

If it does, but does it? We have run it for ages without a segfault.

> SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains
> about 13 000 lines, systemd — about 200 000 lines.

That is an unfair comparison, be fair and consider PID 1's code size.

> Even assuming systemd code is as mature as sysvinit or openrc (though
> I doubt this) you can calculate probabilities of segfaults yourself
> easily.

Practical statistics are more reliable than theoretical probabilities.

> > >> All of them are different tools providing one capability to
> > >> systemd as a whole. So systemd is a collection of tools, where
> > >> each one does one thing, and it does it well.
> > >>
> > >> By your definition, systemd perfectly follows "the unix way".
> > >>
> > >
> > > no, it isn't.
> > >
> > > How are those binaries talk to each other?
> >
> > dbus, which is about to be integrated into the kernel with kdbus.
>
> And this is a very, very bad idea. Looks like you don't know matter at
> all: to begin with kdbus protocol is NOT compatible dbus and special
> converter daemon will be needed to enable dbus to talk to kdbus.

That claims it to be a bad idea, but doesn't tell why; furthermore, no
technical reasoning as to why it is incompatible is given. Do you know?

> The whole kdbus technology is very questionable itself (and was
> forcefully pushed by RH devs), anyway it is possible to disable this
> stuff in kernel and guess what will be done on my systems.

Similar claims again, without any weight; that is subjective opinion.

> > > Looks broken. Broken by design. The worst form of broken.
> >
> > By your opinion, not others.
>
> That is not just an opinion.

It is due to the lack of science and experience in your response.

> And all that science was ignored during systemd architecture process
> if there was any at all.

For it to be claimed as "ignored", you need to know about the process;
given that you don't even know its presence, such claim can't be made.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D