Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 161

Thread: Systemd 199 Has Its Own D-Bus Client Library

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,321

    Default Systemd 199 Has Its Own D-Bus Client Library

    Phoronix: Systemd 199 Has Its Own D-Bus Client Library

    Lennart Poettering released systemd 199 on Tuesday and it brings with it a couple of new features...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTMzNjg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    179

    Default

    While many have bad things to say about Poettering, there is no denying the fact he is one of the most notable opensource developers currently. Not THE most notable, just one very prominent figure.

    I think the work he does is valuable; systemd was severely needed, and he delivered very well.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    349

    Default

    Iím surprised by the automatic setting of sysctl variablesÖ Is it the job of systemd to change default kernel settings? There must be a reason why the kernel devs didnít make them default, right? (I have no idea what the concerned options do.)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stqn View Post
    I’m surprised by the automatic setting of sysctl variables… Is it the job of systemd to change default kernel settings? There must be a reason why the kernel devs didn’t make them default, right? (I have no idea what the concerned options do.)
    I wondered that too and went to check (link!).
    - 50-coredump.conf changes the core dump location of files that have segfaulted. You might consider this a change in a standard path. Systemd apparently likes to handle these?
    - 50-default.conf contains several changes:
    - - Restricting sysrq through a bitmask
    - - Append pid to coredumps (I think it's related to 50-coredump.conf, but not sure why it's not in there)
    - - Enabling the default disabled source route verification (this might give me trouble)
    - - 'Do not accept source routing' not sure what this means
    - - 'Enable hard and soft link protection' this seems somewhat unconventional (link!) -> this is actually a security fix to prevent a whole class of vulnerability's. However it seems to induce standard (i.e. POSIX) behaviour...

    And it's not _bad_ to change sysctl value's from their default. Distributions have non-standard sysctl's since /etc/sysctl.conf is existing. So now systemd is doing it and the eyebrow's going up is kind of non logical.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,001

    Default

    systemd, D-Bus, kernel D-Bus?
    It sounds like a big dependency chain where everything is depending on each other and nothing is replacable.
    systemd seems very intrusive.

    Will it be possible to run a system without systemd?
    Will it be possible to replace systemd?
    Will it be possible to remove systemd?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    systemd, D-Bus, kernel D-Bus?
    It sounds like a big dependency chain where everything is depending on each other and nothing is replacable.
    systemd seems very intrusive.

    Will it be possible to run a system without systemd?
    Will it be possible to replace systemd?
    Will it be possible to remove systemd?
    Look here (link!) and here (link!).

    Furthermore, a kdbus is said to benefit over the current userspace implementation (if it ever materializes). So that is not systemd dependant.

    And what's wrong with dependencie's? If you want every program to bundle it's own stale pieces of software in the form of libraries, there is always Windows for you.



    (sorry couldn't resist)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Will it be possible to run a system without systemd?
    Will it be possible to replace systemd?
    Will it be possible to remove systemd?
    Yes, yes and yes. If you want to use dbus without systemd, you can. If you want to use kdbus without systemd then you have to implement a new systemd independent userspace for it (probably not that big of a feat).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    systemd, D-Bus, kernel D-Bus?
    It sounds like a big dependency chain where everything is depending on each other and nothing is replacable.
    systemd seems very intrusive.

    Will it be possible to run a system without systemd?
    Will it be possible to replace systemd?
    Will it be possible to remove systemd?
    Using Gentoo, I set it up so that I don't even need D-Bus on my system, so yes, it definitely is possible to go without systemd and dbus, given you are using none of the pre-setup distributions who _will_ require systemd (e.g. Ubuntu).
    Last edited by frign; 03-27-2013 at 11:47 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stqn View Post
    Iím surprised by the automatic setting of sysctl variablesÖ Is it the job of systemd to change default kernel settings? There must be a reason why the kernel devs didnít make them default, right? (I have no idea what the concerned options do.)
    Notice that systemd is merely shipping a file setting the defaults, this can (of course) be masked or overridden.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by varikonniemi View Post
    While many have bad things to say about Poettering, there is no denying the fact he is one of the most notable opensource developers currently. Not THE most notable, just one very prominent figure.

    I think the work he does is valuable; systemd was severely needed, and he delivered very well.
    Back that up please. And not with circular rhetoric. That is you can say it's "severely needed" because you SAY it's "severly needed'. I don't think that even Lennart would make such a statement. Lennart writes code. But his logic and reasoning are often based on his own motives and desires. Lennart isn't interested in making things necessarily "better"... he's much more interested in just... well... making things.... That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think if you can understand that, you won't necessarily want to crucify Lennart when your distro craps out (and it will, I promise) when you use his stuff (pre fixing by the overall community as a whole).

    Just because I person can spew forth a LOT of code and create massive scope creeping projects doesn't mean he's "most notable"... unless you mean notable going both ways (positive and negative). The guy can throw code like nobody's business.. that doesn't mean it's always a good thing.

    Since we're making baseless claims... here's mine. I wager that 90% of the problems that distributions will face over the next 2-3 years (things that affect the end user and their ability to have a functioning system without a ton of workaround and glueware) will be attributable directly and/or indirectly to systemd. In fact, I'll go over the top and say that the reputation of Linux will be damaged greatly over the next 2-3 years due to systemd and modifications made to support it's implementation. And that damage won't make people run to Ubuntu, etc.. it will make them run to either closed source systems with Linux at the core (which btw, is one of the end goals that systemd creates btw), or they run away from Linux entirely... and in all fairness that's unfair... but that's what I see happening (and it's already beginning).

    I'm not saying that an overhaul of init wasn't a good idea... but I think you can figure out what I am saying... In the next 2-3 years either Lennart will become the savior of the world (which I think is VERY unlikely) or we'll all curse the day that systemd (note: the pains of poorly designed software can be fixed and will be fixed over time) was created. It will be interesting...

    I'm sort of waiting for Linus to speak up... and he will when his Linux distro of choice stops working well....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •