Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko <at> gmail.com> writes:
> This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want > your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it. I think this is very much "on Topic". > iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big > Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd. > The gist of it can be resumed in two lines: > "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and > laptop both run it." Here I diagree. I think Linux's position is, hey it's a BIG tent; can't we call get along? Kum_by_yah oh lord, Kum_by_yall...... Linus admits he rarely codes and does not have the skills he use to... > I post it here because several times in the last discussions about > systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd. > I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in > this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will > continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do > so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really* > like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits: > > • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days > more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the > situation." > > • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one > thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a > pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face > it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major > applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's > a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I > think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of > reality." > > • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX legacy." > > • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, > not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the > best of taste, but hey, details..[.]" > > • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are > digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of > software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either." Really? This is idiotic. Anything that breaks down a "fault tolerant" system, has to be removed, or the system is no long "fault tolerant" (pist, it a mathematical thing, no a linux/unix concept. Linus sounds like an *idiot* here. It's not the first time, nor could anyone in his shoes not sound like an idiot on something as fundamental as what cgroups hopes to eventually accomplish. By the way, just for the record, I like the "theory" behind systemd. It's going to take SYSTEMD A LONG TIME to MATURE and become ROBUST. cgroups are mature, flexible, robust, well-understood and this is absolutely no reason in hell that folks should ever be force to pick one of the other. If/when "linx" make that decision, it will be just as catastropic as the day Sun Microsystem consolidated ownership of most unix source licenses in a effort (conspiracy) that SCO unix tried to finish by kill the BSD efforts. That was when most folks on the internet migrated to Linux. I think Linux is trying to prevent another (reverse) watershed moment. If folks have the choice, then they will stay with Linux. If forced many will leave. The entire affair is AVOIDABLE. systemd, in all it's glory should never force anyone to choose. Choice is the greatest asset of all open source. Many would say, it is the only asset of the open source movement. > • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed > painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like > they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody > feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues > that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to > actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise > that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same > kind of mouth-time." Retarded comparision of vi vs emac and antoher application. systemd vs the traditional cgroups is an the lowest level of the kernel. Think aobut it by going to 'make menuconfig' in your local source dir. Look at the myriad of low level choices we have. Why the hell is systemd so special that it cannot stand up to other solutions and competition? > It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it. I agree. He sound more idiodic than Obama and his "red line". We all know how that turned out. CHOICE is EVERYTHING! My decision to run a lightweight desktop (lxde, lxqt) and have a mesos/spark cluser across several machines is my choice. Others like KDE becoming the cluster. CHOICE. Exclude cgroups and it will split the community, imho. That said, we all already split across windows, mac, androi, linux, bsd, etc etc so it really does not matter at all, imho. But comparing fights over editors and applications to fundamentally preventing cgroups, is beyond idiotic, it imbicilic, imho. Please dont get me wrong, I look very forward to systemd, when I choose to test/use it. I totally reject the idea of being force to use systemd; and for sure, systemd is quite whimiscal on many current issues, if you believe what you read. I file bug 517428 on Ftrace. I requested something that is not easy. Ftrace/trace-cmd/kernelshark. Why? Because this is the exact sort of tool combination that will explicitly allow one to collect data on performance and reliabling of systemd vs cgroups situations. When we get this (these) ebuilds we will all be able to test identical system, except for systemd vs cgroups. NOBODY is talking about the performance penaly for systemd, because the tools for such measurements, are not being put out to the user communities, imho. Please if I wrong, point me to the fair studies where systemd outperforms a well tuned cgroup system? Please point me to the tools so I can take 2 identical system, except for systemd and cgroups and compare with a wide variety of tests? Published data? Linus should make a clear, leadership statement that there will always be a path for folks to use another mechanism besides systemd in the linux kernel; This does not have to be a systemd vs cgroups discussion, but it being presented this way. A clear statement of multiplicity will put this issue to rest once and for all. By not stating clearly was is obvious, many technically astute folks are looking for options. Surely a fork is emminent and it will most likely be the best thing to happen to linux, as the entire kernel development process has become tainted by those with billions of dollars. Linus is a wussy, at best! > [1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd hth, Jaems
