Linus Torvalds Suspends Key Linux Developer 641
alphadogg writes: "An argument between developers of some of the most basic parts of Linux turned heated this week, resulting in a prominent Red Hat employee and code contributor being banned from working on the Linux kernel. Kay Sievers, a well-known open-source software engineer, is a key developer of systemd, a system management framework for Linux-based operating systems. Systemd is currently used by several prominent Linux distributions, including two of the most prominent enterprise distros, Red Hat and SUSE. It was recently announced that Ubuntu would adopt systemd in future versions as well. Sievers was banned by kernel maintainer Linus Torvalds on Wednesday for failing to address an issue that caused systemd to interact with the Linux kernel in negative ways."
Linus is being Linus. (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is good.
Quote from the Linus email:
Kay - one more time: you caused the problem, you need to fix it. None of this "I can do whatever I want, others have to clean up after me" crap.
Being Kay a Red Hat paid developer, perhaps it's not his entirely fault what's happening. But it's his name on the table, so it's his responsability nevertheless.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Linus is being Linus. (Score:5, Informative)
I read the mailing list thread as well as the bugzilla report [freedesktop.org]...Kay certainly was certainly being a complete dick here. Too many people will see this as "an asshole being an asshole" w/respect to Linus, but he actually had a reason [this time, lol].
Re:Linus is being Linus. (Score:5, Insightful)
but he actually had a reason [this time, lol]
I've read about quite a few of these "Linux blow-ups" over the years, and I can't think of a single instance where I cam away thinking Linus was anything short of fully justified once you actually looked at the context.
Re:Linus is being Linus. (Score:4, Interesting)
Blowing up at Andrew Tridgdell [theregister.co.uk] after he "reverse engineered" (i.e. - sent "help" on a telnet connection) the bitkeeper protocol, causing bitkeeper to withdraw support from the kernel.
Personally, I think bitkeeper were just waiting for an excuse to do that. Their business justification was quickly eroding. The needs of the kernel and the needs of their commercial customers were drifting apart. Supporting the kernel was becoming a liability, rather than an asset, to them. That's also the reason, I think, that they were so quick to withdraw all support after such a minor infraction.
Shachar
Re:Linus is being Linus. (Score:5, Insightful)
Being Kay a Red Hat paid developer, perhaps it's not his entirely fault what's happening. But it's his name on the table, so it's his responsability nevertheless.
Somehow I doubt RedHat is paying him to abuse people in their bugzilla. I suspect they tolerate him because he is a rock star. In some sense Linus just put them at a disadvantage competitively so it is now more in their interest to reign things in.
If I posted something like that on a forum owned by my employer or using an email address that named my employer I'd get a strong reprimand at the very least. I'd like to think that they wouldn't fire me over it on a first offense, but no doubt it would cross their mind, and if I kept it up I'd be gone for sure (and rightly so). Kay's reputation isn't the only one at stake.
Re:Linus is being Linus. (Score:5, Informative)
Because the code that needs "fixing" is in systemd, not in the Linux codebase. therefore Linus cannot revert.
Re:Linus is being Linus. (Score:4, Informative)
because it's a bug in *systemd*, not in the kernel, but it prevents the kernel from loading in debug mode.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, if Kay doesn't want to fix it, why doesn't Linus simply revert his buggy commit/branch?
I don't understand.
Because having "debug" on the kernel command line has worked for years/decades with the Linux kernel, and now suddently systemD is doing something /proc/cmdline that causes systems to stop booting when it is present.
Nothing is broken with the kernel: it boots, finds devices, and starts PID 1. It's only when systemD is PID 1 that having "debug" causes a problem. The change occurred with systemD, and so the reversion should occur with systemD because it breaks backwards compatibility with a well-known API (in
Re:Linus is being Linus. (Score:5, Informative)
Someone has to be in charge (Score:5, Interesting)
his complaint about systemd has been widely echoed in the Linux world, with prominent contributors like Ingo Molnar, slamming the “excessively passive/aggressive” attitude of the project’s maintainers.
If you ignore requests you piss people off. Sounds like banning the guy was the right thing to do.
Re:Someone has to be in charge (Score:5, Informative)
Kay's been a kernel developer for years, and has clashed with Linux many times in the past, all for the same reasons: Kay patches something, breaks a lot of things, says everyone else has to fix their code to work around the things he broke as it's "not his problem". Linux has finally had enough of that attitude.
Re:Someone has to be in charge (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that after years of polite "you need to fix this" requests and no follow-up from Kay ... what do you consider the appropriate response? This isn't the first time Linus has called him out. But it's the final time; the time that broke the proverbial camel's back.
Re:Someone has to be in charge (Score:4, Interesting)
You Ban him, but you don't need to vent and throw mud at him in the process. There is no need to publicly shame someone, just stop pulling patches from him and/or assign somebody else to fix it. Torvolds lacks class when he does stuff like this.
Look, I don't have a dog in this hunt, I don't do kernel development or work with Torvolds, and I don't want his job. Torvolds can do what he wants with his project and treat his developers how he wants. Apparently this behavior works for him well enough to keep the project going. I just don't think his approach is the best. But, in the long run, my opinion doesn't matter. I'm sure Torvolds doesn't care what I think and he's made it clear to others in the past he doesn't plan to change. IMHO It's a shame that he runs off potential developers by doing stuff like this, but I don't suppose he sees it that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes there is in fact a need for public shaming, I think. Kay asked for it, Kay got it delivered. It's as simple as that. Doing it in private would be a disservice to everyone. It's a developer community, there's no point for keeping this sort of thing private. It goes against the very grain of things, I think.
Re: (Score:3)
You did follow the rest of the story, where it is stated that Kay repeatedly fucks over other people by making unilateral changes, and then telling others he won't fix his crap and other people need to fix their stuff?
Keyword: repeatedly.
In other words, Kay is an asshole.
Why are you defending him?
Re: (Score:3)
Kay is paid by Redhat to develop systemd and interact with the kernel developers.
He's be doing the same thing for years and continues to develop code that breaks otherwise working systems, he then refuses to fix his broken code, claiming everyone else has the broken code, and they should fix theirs. Forgetting that all their code was working flawlessly until his patch came along
Re:Someone has to be in charge (Score:4, Insightful)
Much better than working for some bureaucrat or politician who *thinks* he knows what he is doing.
Re:Someone has to be in charge (Score:5, Informative)
> Yea, but if you mess up and do something he declares "STUPID"
And if HE messes up he calls it moronic.
http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/... [iu.edu]
And Linus isn't afraid to admit something is complex.
http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/... [iu.edu]
Re:Someone has to be in charge (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, but if you mess up and do something he declares "STUPID", it's off to the public stocks for you in a flurry of expletives. IMHO Stuff like that just lacks class and reflects badly on him.
On the contrary, I think this doesn't reflect badly on him. Kay has been pushing it for ages, and there was nothing else to be done. It's in everyone's best interest that the public is warned a) not to try such tricks, b) to stay away from Kay until he improves his behavior. Remember, Linux kernel is developed in the open. Public scorn is to be expected. You don't like it, maintain your own fork, that's what git is for, you know.
Re:Someone has to be in charge (Score:4, Insightful)
But either way, Torvalds is not somebody I would like working for. I find some of his antics and language unacceptable and unnecessary. You can say things like this without the four letter words and without poking folks in the eyes in full public view.
Having worked for someone who discretely and privately and calmly attempts to diffuse all situations I disagree. Some people just need to be told off in a stern and very overt way. I have witnessed passive managers tell people over and over again about their grievances only to have them come back and do the same thing over and over again because they believe the manager is a pushover.
You want to look at Linus's language? Follow him on Google+ and see that most of the time he's actually quite a calm collected and nice guy who doesn't run off his mouth at every situation. We only hear about extreme cases here on Slashdot. Personally I think Kay is lucky at the response he got. He could be working for a different boss who throws chairs.
Re: (Score:3)
Is he actually a volunteer? I thought he was a Red Hat employee.
Benevolent Dictator For Life, yes. After a certain point, the health of the product overrules the feelings of a programmer who is perpetually breaking the build.
Misleading title... (Score:5, Informative)
"I'm not accepting any patches until you fix your bugs" is hardly suspending someone, it's re-focusing them. This is an important part in any software project, and Linus is doing it well here. There's no ambiguity or hyperbole, just straightforward communication identifying issues and prompting action to correct them.
"Start fixing your shit" isn't even remotely the same thing as "stop doing things".
Re: (Score:3)
Only because that's an inaccurate misquote. Let's try the real thing:
"I will *not* be merging any code from Kay into the kernel until this constant pattern is fixed. This has been going on for *years*, and doesn't seem to be getting any better."
That's not a "fix this bug first" message... That's a much more general and sweeping "you suck, so you're fired," message.
Of course both Kay and Linus reserve the right to change
Doesn't really surprise me. (Score:2)
Inaccurate summary (Score:5, Informative)
First the idea of "Suspending" a kernel developer is inane. Kernel developers don't work for Linus. Anyone can fork the kernel and work on his own version of it. Furthermore, Kay can write code that other people audit, modify and submit further.
Secondly, it's not an 'indefinite, unconditional ban' as suggested by the summary. Here's the specific line from Linus' email:
Greg - just for your information, I will *not* be merging any code
from Kay into the kernel until this constant pattern is fixed.
In other words he might start accepting patches from him if he changed his style of operating.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can fork the kernel and work on his own version of it
Yes, only hardly anyone ever does it with projects as massive as the Linux Kernel. Just look at how many years it took for X.org to split from X11 - or heck, even the many half-assed and failed attempts at forking off Slashdot over the Beta issue.
It takes a lot of fustration building up for many years in many talented and dedicated people to pull off a big fork successfully.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, only hardly anyone ever does it with projects as massive as the Linux Kernel.
Massive ... Kernel
Seems like a contradiction.
or heck, even the many half-assed and failed attempts at forking off Slashdot over the Beta issue.
http://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org] seems to be working just fine. Neither half-assed, nor failed. Fewer posters, for sure. But a far more friendly vibe than today's Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
First the idea of "Suspending" a kernel developer is inane.
Of course. It just means that Red Hat got a ... red card?
Way to feed the trolls with a poor summary (Score:5, Informative)
Greg - just for your information, I will *not* be merging any code from Kay into the kernel until this constant pattern is fixed.
Short story: See to what Linus responds (Score:5, Informative)
The message [iu.edu] to which Linus responds is also interesting:
Short story:
The systemd guy uses the debug keyword on kernel command line to spool a huge log - which can hang the boot process, and that is the problem.
Then the same guy claims that the debug keyword is generic so it can't be reserved by the kernel, even if it's been used first by it since a long time...
I can say that Linus is right there, for sure. He's maybe too kind...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Please correct me if I misunderstand the problem, it'e been years since I worked on this stuff)
It seems to be both guys are right. That is, in an ideal world starting with a black sheet of paper then it seems to me Kay is almost certainly correct.
But, this does not mean Torvalds is wrong - breaking legacy systems because of a code change that interprets existing config files is "a bad thing".
So, we fall (ONCE AGAIN) into the trap of living with cruft to support legacy stuff. Just like we have to live with
Re:Short story: See to what Linus responds (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is systemd is a johnny-come-lately and is violating the standard way of doing things, even if the standard way isn't the most optimal. Think of it like a court of law, no court is going to accept a junior lawyer changing terminology that has been in use for centuries just because the lawyer has read a thesaurus. The impact is just too large.
To take it further, apparently all but two parameters (debug and quiet) that systemd recognizes are prefixed by systemd.xxxxxx, so they know how to work within the kernel standard.
The kernel has for a long time had a protocol of parameter naming. Direct kernel parameters are plain, module-specific parameters have mod.xxxx format and that was designed to pass driver-specific parameters in. SystemD, being a child process and not even part of the kernel should respect the existing protocol and ignore any parameters not passed without a leading systemd.
Re:Short story: See to what Linus responds (Score:4, Insightful)
(Please correct me if I misunderstand the problem, it'e been years since I worked on this stuff) It seems to be both guys are right. That is, in an ideal world starting with a black sheet of paper then it seems to me Kay is almost certainly correct.
No, there's no sane world where Kay is right. There can only be one user of a global namespace, if everything made switches or settings there it would be chaos like in this case where it's impossible to turn on kernel debugging without turning on systemd debugging (though you can redirect systemd to a null log target as a workaround). If anyone is to use it, it is clearly the kernel since it's the kernel's command line and it has 20+ years of claim to it. And without any standard as to what those switches or settings should to, it's meaningless to have the global namespace act as global variables and move the kernel's parameters to a namespace. But even if the kernel moved debug to kernel.debug it still means systemd should use systemd.debug, under no circumstances should it use the plain "debug" like it does now. He's doing it wrong and even if he was right, he'd still be doing it wrong.
Re:Short story: See to what Linus responds (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the fact is that Kay wants an exception to standard kernel behaviour merely in order to suit his "vision" for systemd. Except it sounds more like pure rationalisation/unwillingness to admit that he fucked up big time.
I'm not a kernel dev, yet I still know that non-namespaced arguments to the kernel belong to the kernel. Kernel debug is "debug"; systemd is not part of the kernel and thus its debug should be "systemd.debug".
Re: (Score:3)
It's a *kernel parameter* to enable debug log printing, not "some legacy cruft" that's been deprecated or supported for whatever (er, what backwards compatibility would it preserve? Kernel developers would change it if they would think there were any good reasons for *debug* *kernel* *parameter* to enable debug printing).
systemd is outside kernel, but it is launched by kernel and as such the developers can pass parameters to it only via kernel command line - However there is specifically a method meant for
Re:Short story: See to what Linus responds (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the same guy claims that the debug keyword is generic so it can't be reserved by the kernel, even if it's been used first by it since a long time...
Linus made this argument in a different forum yesterday (paraphrasing from memory): "Look, something has to be authoratitive when it comes to parameters. On a linux system, that's the kernel".
Which is aribitrary, but not without merit.
Here's the rub, that causes Kay's downfall: he's arguing for namespaces (systemd.debug, kernel.debug, etc.) but he's consuming 'debug' without a namespace and complaining that the kernel isn't using namespaces, even though he knows the linux policy is "don't break people's programs".
Kay could simply take his own advice, only consume systemd.foo parameters, and lead by example, without trying to claim the null namespace for systemd. One is left to conclude that he's doubling down on a bad decision rather than actually wanting to fix things.
Linus is not the only kernel developer who is torqued at the systemd guys. It appears to many players that they're trying to become the userspace kernel but haven't quite earned their stripes yet and are leaving a trail of unhappy developers and sysadmins in their wake, as legitimate complaints about breakage are handwaved away.
systemd isn't perfect, but it's not terrible either, and there's no good reason for such a level of discontent in the community. Many proponents say, "those dinosaurs don't want change", but that's not at all what the trouble is about. It would be silly to fork systemd at this point, but that's what some people are talking about, and it's purely for personnel reasons. A mutually beneficial resolution to this and other problems with systemd is in everybodys' best interest.
Re: (Score:3)
Just pointing out that Linus is usually fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus is generally fair from what I can tell, and does not except himself from criticism. In that very thread:
Yeah, what Andrew said. My suggestion of per-task or per-cred is
obviously moronic in comparison.
Linus "hangs head in shame" Torvalds
Someone proposed a better idea and Linus immediately admits his idea was worse and moves on. That was also one of Steve Jobs' greatest talents, even though it's in a completely different sphere. He originally said "no" to iPods for Windows and the iOS app store. People presented their case and he changed his mind.
We should all be so willing to admit when someone else has a better idea or we were wrong.
Re:Just pointing out that Linus is usually fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone proposed a better idea and Linus immediately admits his idea was worse and moves on. That was also one of Steve Jobs' greatest talents,
That statement is laughable. When Steve Jobs was in control of NeXT he decreed that the cube must be a perfect cube. Pressing, the most efficient way to create the case, works best with the side a couple of degrees off. Most people would not notice the difference but it allows the cube to be pulled out of the die much easier. Even though only one company in the US was able to press a perfect cube and it would add a couple hundred dollars to each machine, Jobs insisted on it. That was one of the reasons the NeXT was so expensive.
He originally said "no" to iPods for Windows and the iOS app store. People presented their case and he changed his mind.
When Jobs came back to Apple they had a Board that could stand up to Jobs and make decisions counter to Jobs' wishes. The Board had been doing it for years while Jobs was failing at NeXT. I doubt Jobs "changed his mind". More likely the Board overrode him.
Re:Just pointing out that Linus is usually fair (Score:5, Informative)
But hey, a hater has to hate, eh?
And a fanboy has to worship.
If Jobs was so great then why did NeXT, a company completely controlled by Jobs, do so poorly?
According to this article [maclife.com] the decision on iPod for Windows came about exactly as I described. From the article:
"We argued with Steve a bunch [about putting iTunes on Windows], and he said no," Rubenstein recalls. "Finally, Phil Schiller and I said 'we're going to do it.' And Steve said, 'F#@k you guys, do whatever you want. You're responsible.' And he stormed out of the room."
That does not sound like Jobs changed his mind. Schiller and Rubenstein did it in spite of what Jobs wanted.
Jobs was brilliant but not perfect. Jobs combined with a strong Board that can override some of his decisions is why Apple did so well. With Jobs alone you get NeXT; a failure.
Bullshit Summary (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bullshit Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it is a paradox. He can't fix stuff if it is never accepted.
The fix needed is in the systemd code, not the kernel. He can fix it, in less than a minute of editing probably two constants. (from "debug" and "quiet" to "systemd.debug" and "systemd.quiet")
Spongeworthy? (Score:4, Funny)
This story somehow reminds me of the Seinfeld Spongeworthy episode. Elaine finds out that the contraceptive sponge is no longer manufactured so she hoards them and then chooses her lovers based on the fact of whether or not she thinks they're Spongeworthy. I think in this case Linus doesn't have enough sponges left to waste.
Linus is interested in quality (Score:3)
I really and truly respect that.
I have had more than enough experience in dealing with "this is how I do it!" developers. We're talking about writing code -- a set of instructions to accomplish things usually performed by an electronic machine. Things definitely become complex and even confusing at times, but it's NOT MAGIC. And when people need to work with developers and developers with developers and all that, I have run short on patience where some developers believe they are the thing and not the project or the community affected by the project.
To me, the community which uses the project or is affected by the project is the thing. If you write for results, then you agree. If you write to make yourself proud? You're just a bit too self-absorbed. (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being happy and proud of your work, but what you want should never be the thing.)
I just wish Linus would go kick some GNOME team ass and share some wisdom with GIMP developers as well.
systemd Architecture (Score:5, Informative)
Let's take a step back and consider what systemd has given us compared to what we had before.
Before systemd, configuring what gets started on Linux systems was standard across all distributions, dating back to before 1995, when I started developing software with Linux. There was /etc/rc.d/init.d or in some cases /etc/init.d and in most cases there were links in rc1.d, rc2.d, rc3.d, etc. It was that simple. Nothing ever broke.
With systemd, a solution in search of a problem, everything changed. Now you have all of these directory hierarchies and countless old bugs that take years to get resolved. For example, "network restart" was broken in Fedora for ages for a machine of mine with one DHCP Ethernet interface and two static Ethernet interfaces (with nothing fancy like wireless). "network restart" fails on a variety of machines I have access to; forget about "network reload." ifcfg-eth0 and the like are simple things, some of the most basic boot-related operations. I've tried to open bugs but the problem seems to be buried somewhere in the guts of systemd.
I've had systems rendered unbootable during upgrades because of silent failures trying to make a good initrd. It's too complex to get everything right with systemd. For a long, long time when the boot scripts died with systemd there was no obvious way to see any errors. Recently they added some more debugging output suggesting that you use journalctl. Why didn't they tell us about that earlier? The reason? No documentation. They wrote an entirely new way to boot the system but kept the design in their heads. Maybe, many years later, there is some scant documentation available (except for that one old useless design document justifying systemd's existence that everyone has read). Of course, nobody writes man pages anymore but they were sure to remove the man pages for the old boot system.
So what new things does systemd give us? Pretty much nothing except for bugs. Maybe there are a few oddball use cases like booting off of weird media, but most people today boot off of a fixed hard drive that doesn't change in years. 19 years later it might be an SSD, but that is the same use case.
Re:systemd Architecture (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. I am still puzzled about why there are so many systemd fanbois. It basically has no merit at all and causes a hot of severe problems. There does seem to be an aggressive, emotionally manipulative campaign by Red Hat to get it into every major distribution and that seems to unfortunately have succeeded. The same strategy is used against critics of systemd and the tactics used have an eerily similar ring to it. Just like if it was paid shills working from a PsyOps manual. There also seem to be indications that the Occupy movement was attacked in a similar fashion.
Re: (Score:3)
It is obvious from the internals of systemd that it's designed and written by B grade talent.
Re: (Score:3)
It is obvious from the internals of systemd that it's designed and written by B grade talent.
I represent that!!
Re:systemd Architecture (Score:4, Interesting)
I adopted Linux and various other open source programs because I was frustrated with the attitude of the vendors I was dealing with, SCO, AT&T, NCR, Sperry, etc. They were all jockeying for position and creating incompatibilities with each other. I had to support a program that ran on a lot on Unices. I discovered the GNU tools that would run the same way on various platforms then toyed with Linux and eventually started using it in production.
The big difference with GNU and Linux was is seemed to be all about the users. Users creating software for other users without "vendor goals" as baggage. I was a very loyal Red Hat users for years but GNOME 3 drove me to Mint and now I keep seeing more examples where they and other "open source" companies have become like the old Unix vendors.
Glad to see Linus pushing back against it.
Re:systemd Architecture (Score:5, Interesting)
It gets even more "fun" if you're trying to netboot since you never get to see any of the output. When I whined about this problem on Slashdot before, someone suggested adding a parameter to drop to a shell. Which is great, only then systemd didn't get far enough to actually *hit* the problem so I could debug it. So then I tried the flag to systemd that is supposed to get it to tell you what order stuff starts in, but it won't let you run that as root.... Googling got me nowhere. Eventually, I discovered that DBus (another solution in search of a problem, IMO) wasn't functioning correctly because somehow the DHCP server had the wrong MAC address for the host so the network didn't come up right (why isn't DBus talking over 127.0.0.1!!??!).
In short, systemd has me looking into how quickly I can switch to NetBSD. Although I should investigate Slackware as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Although I should investigate Slackware as well.
It makes you feel so good. It's set up simply and flexibly. The entire list of processes running on your machine fits on one page, for example.
The only problem is a lack of apt-get or ports (also, Ubuntu might do better at handling WiFi, I haven't checked), but if that doesn't bother you it's great.
Re: (Score:3)
There's slackbuilds.org for your ports equivalent.
Re:systemd Architecture (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only a good idea sticking all of that in PID1 until there's a problem. When PID1 crashes, so does your box. The more stuff in PID1, the more likely there is to be a bug somewhere in there. Now stuffing all of that in PID2, and having PID1 take care of itself and restarting PID2 might be a different story.
Discipline (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus is providing that which is severely lacking in open source projects. Discipline. No you don't get to do whatever you want neither is there any excuse for breaking shit. Without people like Linus ABI back compat would have been shattered into little bits by now.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you persist in leaving out huge chunks of the story?
Linus did not just suddenly blow up at this guy with no prior warning and for no reason. Did you even read the mail thread? This was persistent misbehaviour (it had been going on for years) from a systemd dev who seems to believe that the kernel should adapt itself to whatever systemd happens to do. And I saw lots of mails there from kernel devs fully supporting Linus' view and complaining about recurring issues of this nature with systemd.
Who cares about systemd anyway? (Score:3)
Who cares about systemd anyway? Slackware user here...
The "perhaps less Unix like" part is funny:
http://forums.scotsnewsletter.... [scotsnewsletter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with systemd has been the steamroller attitude of its developers and advocates. They seem to want systemd to be the one true init system, accept no substitutes. RedHat, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, and Arch have all gone to systemd, and I'm not sure what other distros have as well. As far as I know Slackware, Gentoo, and Funtoo are the only distros that haven't, though Gentoo offers it.
I don't mind if systemd is an option. But I feel that there is some bad design in there, and would rather not us
Is it wise to use Systemd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linus is getting old and cranky (Score:5, Informative)
Time for that boy to move along and let someone with fresh ideas take over.
- oh yeah, fresh ideas like: "you didn't build that".
Fresh ideas like: "the consumer created those jobs".
Fresh ideas like: "all responsibility is shared".
----
I think Linus is 100% spot on with his comment:
Key, I'm f*cking tired of the fact that you don't fix problems in the ....
code *you* write, so that the kernel then has to work around the
problems you cause.
But I'm not willing to merge something where the maintainer is known to not care about bugs and regressions and then forces people in other projects to fix their project. Because I am *not* willing to take patches from people who don't clean up after their problems, and don't admit that it's their problem to fix.
Kay - one more time: you caused the problem, you need to fix it. None of this "I can do whatever I want, others have to clean up after me" crap. .....
Linus
Re:Linus is getting old and cranky (Score:5, Interesting)
Kay is either an arrogant asshat or an aspberger's victim. Either way, he hasn't demonstrated an interest in collaborating on a solution for the whole forest, over the pure vision of his one, true tree.
Without Linus, Linux is doomed.
Re:Linus is getting old and cranky (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a feature, not a bug.
It's Kay's fault I didn't get First Post (Score:5, Funny)
I would have gotten first post if I wasn't running both the base kernel’s debugging routine and that of systemd.
Re:It's Kay's fault I didn't get First Post (Score:4, Informative)
Re:First Post (Score:5, Informative)
From the previous message in the thread, to which Linus was reacting:
It has come to our attention that a system running a specific user
space init program will not boot if you add "debug" to the kernel
command line. What happens is that the user space tool parses the
kernel command line, and if it sees "debug" it will spit out so much
information that the system fails to boot. This basically renders the
"debug" option for the kernel useless.
This bug has been reported to the developers of said tool
here:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/s... [freedesktop.org]
The response is:
"Generic terms are generic, not the first user owns them."
That is, the "debug" statement on the *kernel* command line is not
owned by the kernel just because it was the first user of it, and
they refuse to fix their bug.
I don't care if Kay wrote "Jesus 2.0". He broke kernel debugging for all development and responded to this with arrogant platitudes based on architecture principle, rather than join with cooperative interest to seek a solution.
Linus was restrained, in response to such a "community contributor". This is the Linux kernel, not Oxford dons, vying for college chairs.
Re:First Post (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the actual bug and arguement: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/s... [freedesktop.org]
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
One thing you can't say about him - that he's slow to act on bugs...
Re:First Post (Score:5, Informative)
Another response from Linus...
http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/... [iu.edu]
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
For those of us lacking in perspective on how Fun! kernel debugging is, here is a voice from the MS side of things. Dangerous curveballs ahead.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mickens/thenightwatch.pdf
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
For those of us lacking in perspective on how Fun! kernel debugging is, here is a voice from the MS side of things. Dangerous curveballs ahead.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mickens/thenightwatch.pdf [microsoft.com]
OK. That was GREAT!
Re:First Post (Score:5, Informative)
I used to work with a guy who was a MS kernel hacker. He knew the debugger setup in all it's arcanity backwards and forwards, and had a lot of code knowledge there too, despite never working at MS. It was great fun to watch IT try to manage his machine through normal tools (to push updates and reboots and whatnot). He was having none of that, but he wasn't going to pick a fight with IT, instead he just ensured that the IT client tools were kept happy, that the kernel always told them what they needed to hear.
Never pick a geek-fight on a machine that your opponent has a kernel debugger attached to. Ahh, old-school hacking. How I miss the art.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I run Linux as my primary OS on my home PC.
It has dual boot with Win7 (rarely used) and VirtualBox with WinXP (used somewhat often for a couple of programs).
Re: (Score:2)
I've been running Linux on my desktop more than any other OS since 1998, and only sometimes do I set up dual booting. Usually Wine or VMs are enough compatibility, and I would rather code on a Linux machine than Mac or Windows anyday.
Re: (Score:3)
Debian Sid @ home on my laptop & desktop
CentOS 5/6 @ work on my cluster/desktop
Android on my phone & tablet
Synology @ home for storage, so basically Linux there, too...
OpenWRT on my wireless routers (yes, plural) @ home, so Linux there *too*.
I guess you could say I run Linux...
quite a set-up (Score:2)
n/t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I currently run openSUSE for its relatively up-to-date programs, working wireless drivers (especially for my previous system with a POS Broadcom chip), etc. I now have a system with slightly more Linux-friendly drivers (Intel wireless), I just have to wait for the major distros to support it because it's so new (Debian Testing supposedly does, I just don't want to run Testing...). I might then switch to another distro, but I'm staying with Linux. I primarily use the i3 window manager, except on occasion
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: I'm moving the goalposts wayyyyy over there! Now tell me, who can make it to the goalposts?
Re: (Score:2)
I use Linux at work and at home. So does my wife on her own laptop. I also maintain a Linux distro on my parents' laptop, which spares them the hassle of dealing with malware/viruses/adwares.
Despite having had trouble with trojans and adware on their Windows PC, and the fact that Linux would cover 100% of their computing needs, I still haven't convinced my inlaws to migrate to Linux, and they've had their PC unusable for a few weeks now, once again, due to adware.
YMMV.
Re:informal poll (Score:5, Funny)
who runs Linux these days?
Linux is 25 years old now. You don't run it, you walk it slowly with a leash and let it have a pee on the front lawn.
*gasp* (Score:2)
dude...you were in the shit...
activeX...browser wars...holy crap it brings nightmares
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't get why anyone runs Windows.
Because it works just fine and it is what most people are familiar with? Plus out-of-the-box support for things like games and a wide array of mainstream consumer software.
I don't really get why anyone can be puzzled as to how Windows is a popular OS.
Re:informal poll (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. I would probably be using it too if I had come to computers late. Back in the 80's when I wanted to upgrade from my Commodore 128 I looked at the PC clones and compared them to the Commodore Amiga and it was no question at all for me. The clones were a fucking joke. Once Mehdi Ali and Irving Gould decided to bankrupt Commodore and then Win 95 came out the only other active system was Apple which was a joke at that time. Everyone was buying Win 95 like it was going out of style. Later when I wanted new hardware I looked at Windows and went "ugh!" and then read about Linux. I bought a dual pentium II server and installed Linux on it in '99 and never looked back. I've never actually used windows much outside of work but I can see why people that never used anything else use it. You can buy anything at all for it. If it's all you ever used you wouldn't know that it sucks.
Re:informal poll (Score:5, Insightful)
A pirated copy of Win7.
Re: (Score:3)
The same install of XP, minus the annoying constant stream of patches?
Unless you're talking about large business, then they'll be (and are) switching to Win7.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
because the bulk of the software i use isnt available on linux. because the games i like arent available on linux. because it works pretty much out of the box for me. because my clients need me to develop software for windows and thats much easier to do in windows. because much of the peripheral hardware i use is only available for windows (or is a giant pain to get running anywhere else. and, yes, i have tried). and lastly, there is no incentive for me to move away from windows.
if linux is what you p
Re:informal poll (Score:5, Funny)
I sometimes run Linux and sometimes run Windows. Why? Because it's nice for my OS to piss me off in different ways instead of always the same ways. :-)
Re:informal poll (Score:5, Insightful)
I currently run software on Linux, Windows and OS X simultaneously on a single machine. It's true: the issue is not about the best OS but choosing the best tools regardless. The whole question of which OS is the best is so 90s. There really are no borders these days.
Re:informal poll (Score:5, Insightful)
People run windows, because, ummm, maybe it has software that is usable?
Ah! So you're saying that its applications that people use computers for, not OSs! I agree. You now must realize that it costs nothing extra to the developers to select a cross platform development toolchain instead of a platform specific one which may tie them to OSs that have uncertain futures. AND if they go "cross platform or bust" then they get free money via increased market share.
Unfortunately if their codebase started out with a vendor-lock-in solution then their products will be hard to "port". However, it takes me only a single "git pull && make" to port my changes from my application's GNU/Linux development environment to GNU/BSD, GNU/Mac or GNU/Windows, and indeed with my cross complier toolchain that single command builds all targets. The uniform userspace reduces changes required of my build system and code. LLVM is another option, but I've had this build setup prior to even mingw, and see no real benefit to change as my C/C++ platform abstraction layer allows me to deploy as even JAVA bytecode with GCC. In my continuous build-test-deploy setups recompiles are done periodically as I push changes to the server and any build errors appear on a webpage in my issue tracker detecting regressions across all platforms without me doing anything extra than a single "git push".
So, really, it is not Windows that keeps people on Windows, it is application developers who haven't yet been sufficiently pressured by their publishers into increasing their install base.
means you probably are very limited in your understanding of how people use computers in general.
Most people use the OS that's installed for them for the lifetime of the hardware, and use the applications available for it. Most people select the hardware with the OS that supports the applications they want to run. When XP came out I was selling PCs and the #1 question asked was "Can I install $APPLICATION on it?", this is still the prime question in the mind of the consumer: What apps can it run?
MS is shooting themselves in the foot with the whole Metro App Store thing. That's another vendor lock-in strategy. I've seen plenty of devs now reconsidering their codebase and dev platform and asking, "Well, I don't want to lose W7 installbase, and if I'm going to put in an abstraction layer for W7 and Win8 UI Style API, then I might as well spend a little more effort to go full cross platform, reach for additional market share, and no longer be tied to W8."
Not saying your comment is wrong, I'm just saying it won't be right for very much longer. It's 2014, the OS is irrelevant. It's merely a means for the platform abstraction layer to talk to the underlying hardware. Hell, my meta-language compiler has even made most languages irrelevant to me, they are just interfaces to the OS for re-implementation of the platform abstraction layer's "runtime". In 18 months I will have my entire codebase cross compiling against Android and even iOS.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct, such people must have missed things like Dmitry Sklyarov showing that a breakfast cereal code wheel style letter substitution method was used by Adobe as "encryption". Julius Caesar famously wrote a description of that method, that's how old and well know it is.
OSS software in that league would get laughed at and not taken seriously at all.
Re:informal poll (Score:5, Funny)
A kid'll use Ubuntu, too.
Wouldn't you?
Re:hold on (Score:4, Funny)
Linus just talks like a sailor.
Arrh, I dun think so me shiverin' matey!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite. From TFE:
Greg - just for your information, I will *not* be merging any code from Kay into the kernel until this constant pattern is fixed.
More like "Correct your previous assignments until you can turn in more assignments."
Re: (Score:2)
No - it's saying since you did your project wrong, we aren't changing how ours works so that you don't have to correct yours.
Re: (Score:3)
At best you are stupid. At worst (and that I expect), you are a paid shill of the US intelligence community. What you claim is totally disconnected from reality and a nice example of disinformation tactics.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm...who would fire Linus? He's in charge.
Personally, the more of these articles attacking his dealing with a situation in a way which seems reasonable to me from a programming project perspective appear, the more faith I have in his leadership.
Re: (Score:3)
As noted, it wasn't Linus that started the blow-up. It got to this point because Sievers was ignoring more professional, less blunt instructions about it. And yes I'd rather deal with Linus. Because if I pulled the kind of crap Sievers had I'd've expected to have my manager drop my final paycheck on my desk and tell me I had 5 minutes to pack my things and the nice gentlemen from Security would be escorting me out of the building, and no I wouldn't be receiving a separation package because I was being termi
Can't edit comments I just posted (Score:3)
Let me put it this way: when I read Linus messages, I see a human behind them that believes what he is saying. It feels genuine and real. The alternative sometimes sounds like a prepared speech from somebody who may or may not care. Like a politician.