[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev



Also, the people who write udev and systemd really know what they are
doing, and especially systemd is documented perfectly well - everyone
who does not feel comfortable with systemd should read at least the
basic docs. (and then think again, and then probably dislike it on a
basis of facts)
Also, systemd hasn't anything to do with udev, there is no systemd
dependency in udev.
If you have some time for entertainment, you might want to read this
thread on G+:
https://plus.google.com/111049168280159033135/posts/R387kQb1zxc
(GKH, Lennart, Kay and several others falsify every reason for a full
udev fork (vs. just maintaining a small patch))
Cheers,
    Matthias

2012/11/19 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>:
> Hello Kevin,
>
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 09:51:22PM -0600, Kevin Toppins wrote:
>> Just because something is very old, does not necessarily make it
>> wrong, obsolete, or require that it be changed.
>
> Correct. But on the other hand, just because something is 40 years
> old, doesn't mean we're not allowed to rethink the idea and start from
> scratch. A fresh breeze is always needed from time to time.
>
>> The unix model stemmed from when computers were mainframes and single
>> user systems had not been conceived.
>
> Thank you for your lesson, but I think I already know that.
>
>> Unix's design of minimal permissions was/is a good idea. Since not
>> everything running reflects the mindset of just one person, it makes
>> sense to isolate users from messing with one another. Or, to allow for
>> some relative sanctuary while using the system with others logged in.
>
> And this has to do with replacing sysvinit with a modern alternative
> how? We still have user separation. In fact, we have even more
> possibilities by being able to control what ressources single users
> can use (cgroups) which is very important if you have a big cluster
> with dozens of concurrent users.
>
>> It worked well to keep the peace.
>
> Again, that doesn't mean we're not allowed to rethink the idea. CRT
> television sets, analogue broadcasting, steam engines, mechanic
> typewriters, analogue photography, audio and video cassettes also
> worked well for decades. Still, people have upgraded to newer
> technologies when they became available.
>
>> Computer viruses (really) emerged when microsoft threw that notion to
>> the wind and made their os a single user system with unlimited power
>> and no layers of permissions to protect the integrity of the system.
>
> Well, no. You can have a single user operating system and still be
> perfectly free of virusses. On the other hand, you can even have
> virusses on Linux machines. An important factor of a successful virus
> infection is social engineering. Even Windows can be safe when taking
> the proper precautions and even without a virus scanner.
>
>> It's like if the pentagon upgraded every united states government
>> employee with the highest security clearance. Sure the spec ops guy
>> has clearance. So does the janitor and the delivery guy as well. It's
>> defcon 1 24/7.
>
> Again, how is this related to systemd vs sysvinit? As I mentioned
> already, systemd has even more features to ensure resource control and
> security (fine-grained permissions for journalctl, for example).
>
>> That is why viruses are so prevalent. That is the real reason.
>
> No, virusses are prevalent because people open every file without
> extra precautions. Even advanced users and administrators sometimes
> happen to do that.
>
>> So unix stayed with the idea of minimal permissions for 40 years. They
>> still stay with it. So does linux.
>
> It's getting tiresome. I suggest you just read up on systemd a bit
> before you start your discussion. systemd is actually a huge
> improvement over sysvinit regarding reliability and security. It's
> designed with these considerations in mind.
>
>> Just about every os I can think of that has some resistance to malware
>> uses a security model somehow based on separation of permissions.
>
> Well, Windows NT uses separation of permissions. Yet there is
> malware. Same applies for MacOS X.
>
>> If something makes sense, has a sound foundation, is concrete in its
>> logic...... and does not involve some specific point in time in some
>> way.....
>>
>> ...... then the passage of time does not invalidate that idea.
>>
>> That idea should be succeeded by a better idea.
>>
>> That idea should not be obsoleted simply because it's 30 years old.
>
> sysvinit is not being replaced because it's 30 years old. It is being
> replaced because it lacks features we need nowadays and it's simply
> not reliable enough.
>
> For example, sysvinit cannot prevent a process from forking away. Once
> sysvinit has started a daemon, the daemon can pretty much do whatever
> it wants provided it has enough permissions. On systemd, there are
> means to prevent that.
>
> Another thing is making sure that a daemon is actually
> running. systemd always knows the state of a daemon and can restart
> it, if necessary. I probably don't need to explain you why this is
> important. You cannot do that with sysvinit. As an example, we're
> using autofs5 here at the department and we constantly are having
> trouble when the machine is rebooting and autofs was already started
> before NIS was ready even after sysvinit has started it. The result is
> that none of the autofs mounts work until autofs has been manually
> restarted. On systemd, this won't happen, because systemd is aware of
> the fact that NIS and rpcbind need to be up and running before autofs
> can do anything sensible.
>
> And thirdly, if you have very large file systems (we have a 30TB
> hardware raid here, for example), filesystem checks can take
> forever. If you reboot such a server and it needs to do an fs check,
> it will be unavailable until the check has finished. With systemd, you
> can just declare the filesystem as an automount [1] and the system
> still boots while the filesystem checks are performed.
>
>> We use the mathematics of relativity and trigonometry to make GPS work, btw.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem#History
>
> Sticking to your chain of arguments: If physicists had been happy with
> the theory aether [2], Einstein had never come up with special
> relativity and GPS actually would never be able to work. The math
> behind special relativity is just a little older than 100 years (annus
> mirabilis is dated back to 1905), so it's actually something NEW.
>
> The fact that GPS works is a result of PROGRESS.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>> [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd#Automount
>> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
>
> --
>  .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
> `. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
>   `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 20121119102344.GA7924@physik.fu-berlin.de">http://lists.debian.org/20121119102344.GA7924@physik.fu-berlin.de
>


Reply to: