From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB234138BF3 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:37:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 602F0E0BD0; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:37:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com (mail-lb0-f175.google.com [209.85.217.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3F32E0BA2 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p9so12459285lbv.34 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:37:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:reply-to :mime-version:content-type; bh=FeYAjTY4xoPqYOxPWi2P4BpZ2z43oSjAlnYMrzoXeAA=; b=u05ZdXg2wzINXmGutMmcOdYOjKtldRACa8/eM1/Kk1Ft0uo4xg5AtfRQSyN37CgtAD RDcyxJNxbIKCcnfDOPXLTQSX2zcwN6+UblTp5WAXW6Sy4iMjCjt9YZOsf77B1rHwzceE 9krBgwU7oPh/wnZcJLiwAmBN4Fgrna7Cu6wE72KKYHxSszE1MkAYgr+E5mHeKJgfS2CS 1ZV9A+7Muty1o7o2aUTeOMKrKQZP0MO1c0myyJh/jiF7WwLwDMYK+6Xc5RktV6Qpe/vF 5vdDckfJrBgM0hYKnNI6pZcCDLW8WY9OYq5WubXp4gi0+5y52b533x/KeBB4RAWup4+W YhEQ== X-Received: by 10.112.33.108 with SMTP id q12mr21357962lbi.8.1392741438257; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([85.143.114.129]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e1sm32725665laa.8.2014.02.18.08.37.15 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:37:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:36:56 +0400 From: Andrew Savchenko To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie Message-Id: <20140218203656.abace1d77731d845bec62c62@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <52FF84CE.2050301@libertytrek.org> <52FF9D58.3000608@libertytrek.org> <201402152023.10543.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <5300DD51.5060207@libertytrek.org> <53010A8E.2050909@googlemail.com> <53012691.6040503@googlemail.com> <20140217215255.5766cb026df2f0b8002f8702@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.18; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA512"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__18_Feb_2014_20_36_56_+0400_EetONE_dlhQcKOWS" X-Archives-Salt: 8f4a8aa7-d258-4f5b-b3b1-2da264f3608a X-Archives-Hash: f98424605704b615f229ed9b1da2b9d5 --Signature=_Tue__18_Feb_2014_20_36_56_+0400_EetONE_dlhQcKOWS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:35:34 -0600 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: [...] > >> >>> Complexity means bugs. > >> >> Bugs get reported, bugs get fixes. Life goes on. > >> > >> You didn't answered this, did you? > > > > Bugs are different. >=20 > Bugs are bugs, period. And they get reported and fixed. Bugs are not equal. They differ in at least two dimensions: significance depending on the component affected and severity of the bug itself. > > Bugs in the critical system components are > > critical to the whole system. >=20 > Yeah, that's why we have unit testing and QA teams and stable and > unstable releases, etc. Every decent project has QA and unit tests one way or another. But the larger project is, the more bugs it has. And I do not want bugs in PID 1, that's why it should be small and sound, not bloated (even with some components split as separate binaries) and broken by design. > > If Libreoffice or browser > > segfaults, some data may be lost and inconvenience created, but the > > system will continue to run. If PID 1 segfaults =E2=80=94 everything is > > lost, you have a kernel panic. >=20 > And the world will end? The same happens if the kernel has an error. Kernel has mature error correction infrastructure (Oops handling) and much wider community. =20 > > That's why critical components should > > be as simple and clean as possible. >=20 > Like the kernel? You call that "simple"? Don't mix user space and kernel space, please. There are more secure by design micro kernels out there (like Hurd), but they're out of the scope of this discussion. > I'm sorry, but you are (IMO) wrong: critical components should be > thoroughly tested and debugged, and have integrated unit testing, and > a large enough group of volunteers to test new releases before they go > into the general public. You're pointing to valid issues, but not to the whole picture. Critical components should _start_ from good design, sound modular architecture and _then_ with QA and testing. You're omitting the most important stuff, though. > > SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains > > about 13 000 lines, systemd =E2=80=94 about 200 000 lines. >=20 > If you take into account the thousands of shell code that SysV and > OpenRC need to fill the functionality of systemd, they use even more. If that code will fail, this wouldn't be critical at system level. Thus scope of fatal error is limited. > > Even assuming > > systemd code is as mature as sysvinit or openrc (though I doubt this) > > you can calculate probabilities of segfaults yourself easily. >=20 > I don't care about probabilities; I care about facts: FACT, I've been > using systemd since 2010, in several machines, and I haven't had a > single segfault. FACT: almost no bug report in systemd involves a > segfault in PID 1. You need facts? Here is one for you (systemd-208): http://fly.osdn.org.ua/~mike/img/misc/systemd-segfault.jpg =20 > >> > Looks broken. Broken by design. The worst form of broken. > >> > >> By your opinion, not others. > > > > That is not just an opinion. There is a science and experience behind > > system's design. >=20 > Yeah, what do you think about Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus' right hand, > or Keith Packard of X.org fame? None of them works for Red Hat; both > of them know more about Unix and Linux than you and me together, and > both of them promote systemd. I respect Greg for most of his work, but this doesn't mean he is an oracle we need to adhere to. But in FOSS reputation is not that important, though clean technical reasons are. =20 > > And all that science was ignored during systemd > > architecture process if there was any at all. >=20 > You should read systemd-devel and Lennart's blog posts before saying > something like that. I did. I read that blog. No valid reason were found (if we're comparing systemd to what is outside of systemd's world, not only to bare sysvinit). But what I found it that blog is a lack of thorough project design (it looks like many components were added by the fly without preliminary planning) and a lot of religious statements. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko --Signature=_Tue__18_Feb_2014_20_36_56_+0400_EetONE_dlhQcKOWS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTA4w6AAoJEFZZU7lTcnVsF/wP/3itw3msYNOPOHA12+Ja+i8I EfXefiCat5nQ5DTIeWRcWxEOcX6X2aHm23Hp6h/uM2GNIN90LncPV6kXhpd4ZdRn Gca9spYWVLWEyV2OkYiDZkLLsljBV8+A9+3d6IyocmlOgaEFftoJ9C6hA0dnZMXx cGl88JIPfaHWo3fSNCJxwnIEtRDoA6BoV6Tpl8BwVYRwNQM9Vg3sK/NsUIFR33Qw nQ0beFn3mEQYsuBMtV+eRAtL5E/4Dnme/8ajQGimGJSATPo/2WWRCkBc4qQMHWHx GFRwlZtLzd40gSm8sAh0a7Uk3KNw6b8Sb0ehYLwozJE5yXS+m9KqbJeimPitoQ4P cwBNXFQ12Ev6oV7nuv9BC+ejj7fyjAzMnv+tp5y6HZTGF5d2m3/chZxQO6ZTbrh6 0T8EUSy3N1rQxMWEaYzsLiT4a6eRk6dCr/WfgfGrsOZChYX/F2uf1sJYTnbIYAkv qD/mFhVSE9vrhinxis24EttkZR8G7rPHzm019iJgI6tBxTwMgxTHZ5lcYPL+Miln 4Br6xfdvtuUYyf9R4GpIcwXvwV5sj2Y2leH5m0143SnXfEHPjao5kNdI7PRo9I33 oTcs7iDpAzKVtEf0Tm0YJcEaTkAwzr01I+8r3SV8E/41IpAlu+Iiq+Bmfrat5XVH ecmJMsUi4oQAL2dhoaYo =7ZVR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__18_Feb_2014_20_36_56_+0400_EetONE_dlhQcKOWS--