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

[Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3765 bytes --]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:30:42 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> [ snip ]
> > How can you be sure if something is "large enough" if, as you say below,
> > you do not care about probabilities?
> 
> By writing correct code?

Real world code without mistakes and larger than "Hello, world!"
exercises is not possible. Large systems must have error suppression
and correction techniques, modular and replaceable design is one of
them, KISS is another one. Systemd has none known to me.
 
> >> I don't care about probabilities;
> >
> > If you do not care (= do not now anything) about probabilities
> > (and mathematics, in general), you just unable to understand
> > that debugging a program with 200K lines of code take
> >
> > 200000!/(10000!)^20
> >
> > more time than debugging of 20 different programs with 10K lines of
> > code. You can try to calculate that number yourself but I quite sure
> > that if the latter can take, say, 20 days, the former can take
> > millions of years.
> >
> > It is all the probability! Or, to be more precise, combinatorics.
> 
> My PhD thesis (which I will defend in a few weeks) is in computer
> science, specifically computational geometry and combinatorics.

You're not the one here on the list with PhD (either defended or
near its end). And argument "Listen to me! I'm PhD here!" looks
miserable. Please stop this. 

> >> I care about facts: FACT, I've been using systemd since 2010,
> >> in several machines, and I haven't had a single segfault.
> >
> > Have you ever tried forex? If yes, you should have been warned
> > that "no past performance guarantee the future one."
> 
> I never said that. I trust the quality of the code, measured by my own
> judgment and bug reports, etc. Not past performance.
> 
> And even if a bug goes by, then what? The world will end?

This depends on what bug at what component occurred. Just imagine
pid 1 segfault on medical life support equipment. With systemd going
into embedded this is not just pure speculation, though, of course
medical stuff should have extra safeguards. But any FT or at
least HA setup is a combination of multiple layers. I do not want to
allow badly broken core component on mine setups even if its faults
may be compensated by other means.

Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I ask
to respect mine as well. That's why I propose a separate systemd
profile for those willing to use it.

> >> Sorry, but it's you who doesn't know the matter at hand: kdbus was
> >> (and is) written by Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus' right hand, and who
> >> works for the Linux Foundation.
> >
> > Lol, he seems to start to use the arguments like "You even do not know
> > my elder brother/acquaintance from the street nearby who can easily
> > hit you down!"
> 
> If you don't think Greg's words have any weight in a Linux-related
> technical discussion, then I'm afraid we will need to agree to
> disagree on any technical subject.

You know, common sense should always override person's prestige.
History knows many examples. Sir Isaac Newton enforced corpuscular
point of view on the light's nature. And while he was genius in other
physical aspects, he was mistaken here. Albert Einstein was rejective
to probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and even proposed an
entangled particles paradox as an example of its "flawed" nature.
Though as we know these days such systems exist and are quite well
used in numerous experiments. My point is simple: do not blindly
adhere to someone's words, even if this person has high authority.
Common sense must prevail. Period.

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]