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

["Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com>]

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?

>> > SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains
>> > about 13 000 lines, systemd — about 200 000 lines.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Also, again, systemd have a lot of little binaries, many of them
>> optional. The LOC of PID 1 is actually closer to SysV (although still
>> bigger).
>>
>> > Even assuming
>> > systemd code is as mature as sysvinit or openrc (though I doubt
>> > this) you can calculate probabilities of segfaults yourself easily.
>>
>> 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.

But hey, thanks for the lesson.

>> 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?

No, the bug will be reported, and fixed. And life will go on.

> And if you do not believe that (and do not care about probability
> and all the stuff like that), you should visit any of the forex forums
> where you will be suggested a magical money winning strategy that, in
> the past, behaved very well and earned 200 or even 500% a month.

Thanks for the tip, but I have never understood the people that
believes economics is closer to mathematics than sociology.

>> FACT: almost no bug report in systemd involves a
>> segfault in PID 1.
>>
>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> kdbus uses a different wire protocol than dbus; but for clients that
>> doesn't matter; libsystemd-dbus will offer a compatibility layer (talk
>> about "standard" and "replaceable"), so if your application uses dbus
>> today, it will work with kdbus.
>>
>> Of course, new applications will take advantage of the new features
>> of kdbus.
>>
>> > The
>> > whole kdbus technology is very questionable itself (and was
>> > forcefully pushed by RH devs),
>>
>> 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.

> So, here, I would like to thank everybody in this discussion who
> helped me to understand the danger of systemd and note that it is
> now became pointless to continue this discussion with this "unpayed
> systemd promoter."

Getting personal, are we?

>> > anyway it is possible to disable this
>> > stuff in kernel and guess what will be done on my systems.
>>
>> Good for you. Guess what will be done in mine?
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Aha! How could you even doubt my understanding the words of these prophets! :-)

They, contrary to you, actually give technical arguments instead of
splutter some nonsense about combinatorics that has nothing to do with
the subject at hand.

>> I mean, I myself know a thing or two about computing and Linux, and I
>> promote systemd (and nobody pays me, BTW), but obviously you don't
>> need to believe in my credentials.
>
> I have said you, he is just an unpayed fanatic systemd promoter!

OK, that's it; I actually thought for a moment that you wanted to have
a civil, intelligent and technical oriented conversation. I now see
you don't.

>> And, no offense, but I will always give more weight to the words of
>> Greg Kroah-Hartman or Keith Packard (to name only two), instead of a
>> random user in gentoo-user.
>>
>> There are knowledgeable people who are against systemd. But usually
>> they don't give *technical* sound reasons.
>>
>> > And all that science was ignored during systemd
>> > architecture process if there was any at all.
>>
>> You should read systemd-devel and Lennart's blog posts
>
> And A Holy Words of our Mighty God!

And that confirms it. Goodbye; I'm done with you in this thread.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México