Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kernel DBus Now Boots With Systemd On Fedora

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the trying-new-things dept.

Operating Systems 341

An anonymous reader writes "Red Hat developers doing some holiday hacking have managed to get a bootable system with systemd + KDBUS on Fedora 20. KDBUS is a new DBus implementation for the Linux kernel that provides greater security and better performance than the DBus daemon in user-space. Systemd in turn interfaces with KDBUS for user-space interaction. Testing was done on Fedora 20 but the systemd + KDBUS configuration should work on any modern distribution when using the newest code."

cancel ×

341 comments

"Slashmirrored" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813271)

So do we just mirror phoronix on slashdot, now?

Re: "Slashmirrored" (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813353)

KDBUS!

The same group of Prople behind

Wayland
Gnome3
Pulseaudio
Systemd
Journald
Alienating Udev
Alienating 95% of their Userbase

If you all have so much problems with the ideology of Unix then why do you use a Unix based System. Why don't you move on and create your shabby world elsewhere ? Without causing more damage to ours ?

Btw: Why is KDBUS code full with 'goto' calls ?

Re: "Slashmirrored" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813423)

The KDBUS source is in BASIC? Well there's your problem!

Re: "Slashmirrored" (4, Interesting)

SumDog (466607) | about 7 months ago | (#45813431)

My first experience with systemd was on OpenSUSE. Although it seems like a good idea, it seems to add some unneeded complexity. /etc/init.d/someservice restart now redirect to systemctl, with no real output. Oh I have to run status to see if it succeeded. Now I have to use journalctl to see why it failed.

I'm all for dependency based init systems, but I feel Gentoo got that right with OpenRC. It gets rid of all that rc1,2,3,4,5 crap while keeping the /etc/init.d/ structure we're familiar with.

Gentoo can not be setup to use systemd too. I guess it's now the future; better get use to it.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813531)

Actually, overall I would prefer sticking with /etc/rc[1-5]. It is simple and functional.

All the new crap strikes me as some combination of fixing what's not broken and a solution desperately seeking a problem.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (3, Insightful)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 7 months ago | (#45813715)

because RC[1-5] works so well with sleep and hibernate states on Laptops....oh wait....no it doesn't.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813775)

All that was required was to either wake from sleep OR go through the usual rc[1-5] scripts.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813721)

Then maintain the old stuff. If you aren't going to put any effort in beyond whining then shut fuck up.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (2)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813785)

What makes you think I don't? Of course, that's on my own systems since once the pollution is allowed in, the old stuff doesn't work so well anymore.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813823)

Your lack of commits to /etc/init.d and you not being the maintainer?

Re: "Slashmirrored" (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813875)

So what you're saying is that there is already a maintainer? Me not being from the universe with a bearded Spock, I figured I probably shouldn't kill anyone to take their place.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (2)

JSG (82708) | about 7 months ago | (#45814025)

>> Gentoo can not be setup to use systemd too

Are you sure? My laptop begs to differ:
$uname -a
Linux jglaptop 3.12.6-gentoo #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Dec 28 11:22:53 GMT 2013 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

and spits out things like this:

gerdesj@jglaptop:~$ systemctl status apache2
apache2.service - Apache Web Server
      Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/apache2.service; enabled)
      Active: active (running) since Sat 2013-12-28 12:18:03 GMT; 1 day 10h ago
    Process: 2719 ExecStart=/usr/sbin/apache2 $APACHE2_OPTS -k start (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
  Main PID: 2796 (/usr/sbin/apach)
      CGroup: /system.slice/apache2.service
                      2796 /usr/sbin/apache2 -D INFO -D MANUAL -D SSL -D SUEXEC -D LANGUAGE -D PHP5 -D DEFAULT_VHOST -D SSL_DEFAULT_VHOST -D SECURITY -D PERL -k start
                      2797 /usr/sbin/apache2 -D INFO -D MANUAL -D SSL -D SUEXEC -D LANGUAGE -D PHP5 -D DEFAULT_VHOST -D SSL_DEFAULT_VHOST -D

Cheers
Jon

Re: "Slashmirrored" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45814139)

The unneeded complexity, moreover, does not befit a Unix. If you want one of those, you need to steer clear of most everything the freedesktop crowd, most notably mister Poettering, come up with. Otherwise, what you get is a sort of linux in windows-like sauce, compatible with nobody like a good little redmond product. If that's what you want, go for it. But software developed for this environment will no longer play well with other Unices. In fact, it is no longer a Unix, certainly not in spirit.

Note that I'm not condemning this per se, but it does have far-reaching implications that honesty compels you to be aware of.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (4, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 7 months ago | (#45813507)

Btw: Why is KDBUS code full with 'goto' calls ?

For the same reason the kernel uses them. Because they aren't mindless ideologues.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (0)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 7 months ago | (#45813727)

here I thought it was because it was created by a bunch of self taught garage hackers.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (5, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 7 months ago | (#45813771)

Nope, it's because gotos are very nice for error handling over rats nests of if/else. Which is what its predominate use in the kernel is.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (3, Insightful)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | about 7 months ago | (#45813675)

You realize that a lot of systemd is supported by kernel developers. These things just don't get integrated by accident. The kernel has features, kernel devs want them used. If you want classic Unix, go head over to the BSD world.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (1)

armanox (826486) | about 7 months ago | (#45813981)

Don't tempt us. The users, admins, and engineers that have to keep these systems running are not happy.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (3, Insightful)

jcdr (178250) | about 7 months ago | (#45814183)

I am a user, an admin of a few systems, and an engineer of a numbers of systems.
And I am really very happy by the KDBUS and systemd move.

Not only there are technically good, but I hope that others concurrent projects will fork this common code base and start talking together what will be valuable to merge, instead of creating a yet another pointless unconnected project that will never gain enough audience to change anything but increasing the number of choice problems for a lot of distributions.

Re: "Slashmirrored" (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 7 months ago | (#45813975)

Hi Theo!

Re:"Slashmirrored" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813647)

phoronix is phor phaggots.

Why, oh why? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813275)

Why do we need in-kernel DBUS implementation. And please don't tell me about performance, lot's of software with much higher performance requirements is more than happy in userland...

Re:Why, oh why? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813311)

To tie more crap into systemd until Canonical adopts the One True Init Replacement?

Re:Why, oh why? (4, Informative)

armanox (826486) | about 7 months ago | (#45813347)

Canonical is innocent - it's Red Hat's doing. Just like Pulseaudio and a million other innovations (some good, some less then good). But Red Hat has had a hand in most of the desktop development that people see.

Re: Why, oh why? (1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813379)

Most of those people are hired and paid by Red Hat to code what Red Hat envision.

What happens right now is the biggest and most agressive consolidations process since the existance of Linux.

systemd and jounald as coreOS that consolidates all we had known. Logging, inetd, sysvinit, timed, udevd, ipc etc.

Gnome3 for dumb people as main Desktop dealing a lot with systems.
Kernel that now implemented kdbus to explicitly communicate to systemd.

Wayland to replace X11 to work close to Gnome3.

All a big consolidation!

linux (kdbus) -> systemd -> wayland / gnome3

What remains from what we know ? Nothing!

I am not against consolidation but I am against this sort of agressive behaviour!

In 2-3 years nothing remains that reminds of Linux to be Unix related.
Even worse there are talks to have some sort of iPhone or Android like package mechanism to place apps with all deps (libs etc) in a sandbox within an apps directory. Even systemd already provides dealing with that.

What kind of OS is that?

Re: Why, oh why? (1, Interesting)

epyT-R (613989) | about 7 months ago | (#45813425)

What kind of OS is that?

An OS ready for the radiant fascist/socialist future where the user has no control over the computer driven devices he supposedly owns.

Re: Why, oh why? (2)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813597)

Windows.

Re: Why, oh why? (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 7 months ago | (#45813707)

A sandbox would be a good idea. If I install software to interface to a printer, or read a spreadsheet I should reasonably expect that the software should only be permitted to what it claims to do. A good, working sandbox for drivers and applications would be good for the user and a significant advantage over windows.

Re: Why, oh why? (1)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | about 7 months ago | (#45814133)

Most of those people are hired and paid by Red Hat to code what Red Hat envision.

What happens right now is the biggest and most agressive consolidations process since the existance of Linux.

systemd and jounald as coreOS that consolidates all we had known. Logging, inetd, sysvinit, timed, udevd, ipc etc.

Gnome3 for dumb people as main Desktop dealing a lot with systems. Kernel that now implemented kdbus to explicitly communicate to systemd.

Wayland to replace X11 to work close to Gnome3.

All a big consolidation!

linux (kdbus) -> systemd -> wayland / gnome3

What remains from what we know ? Nothing!

I am not against consolidation but I am against this sort of agressive behaviour!

In 2-3 years nothing remains that reminds of Linux to be Unix related. Even worse there are talks to have some sort of iPhone or Android like package mechanism to place apps with all deps (libs etc) in a sandbox within an apps directory. Even systemd already provides dealing with that.

What kind of OS is that?

What's wrong with a sandbox? For application developers it is now easier to target only one platform "Linux" regardless of distribution. Are you telling me you never ran into a problem when you ran across a tool or application and find out that the only packages available are for Ubuntu, and you had to go and compile the thing yourself? Then spend about 2 hours because it didn't quite work right. Come on...

Re:Why, oh why? (4, Informative)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | about 7 months ago | (#45813687)

KDbus is being done by Greg K-H of Linux Foundation. There are some good reasons for having a kernel bus. The first rev was killed, but the second rev is being worked on. Linus has already signed off on getting this integrated. It's just a matter of working out the details. A lot of this is driven by desktop projects, so things like smooth transition to a login screen, wayland, application sandboxing are good reasons to have it.

Re: Why, oh why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813853)

What else does your crystal ball tell you ?

Wayland is no where finished and people need to be convinced - not forced - to use it.

Sanddboxed Installations (Like Apple) needs convinced people to adopt it. The current approaches aren't broken (rpm/deb/txz) so why fix it?

Gnome3 - The desktop - has caised a big infarct in the community. Once Gnome loyalists have shown their back.

Powerful old GTK+2 Apps either ported to Qt or abandoned by their developers. Thats why we continue using them in their current state.

Developers have no ideas of the real requirements and demands of systems engineers, administrators, network specialisty or users.

Even I had shits time recently providing a simple log output to bugzilla because I had to deal with journalctl rather than grep.

So please STFU!

Re:Why, oh why? (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 7 months ago | (#45814059)

Why do those features need a kernel dbus?

Re:Why, oh why? (-1, Troll)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | about 7 months ago | (#45814153)

GNOME 3 is doing quite fine. There are plenty of people who like it. It's not perfect, but software never is. But like most software, it evolves. What power old GTK2 apps were ported to QT or abandoned? Just curious. Gosh, developers don't know the needs for systems administrators, eh? Well, sounds like you volunteered to show how it is done. I look forward to your contribution in this space. You clearly need to read the man page for jounralctl, you can spit out nice text stuff just fine.

Re:Why, oh why? (1)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | about 7 months ago | (#45814073)

I thought the idea for a kernel dbus came out of Nokia's Maemo team originally?

Re:Why, oh why? (2, Funny)

fisted (2295862) | about 7 months ago | (#45813363)

Because GNU!

Fortunately, the BSD world is much less insane.

Re:Why, oh why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813417)

Yeah, seriously.

I switched to OpenBSD years ago because I stopped being able to really understand the linux kernel. The BSD world is so much more simple and easy to understand. I think you could still teach a college level course using the BSD kernels. In Linux-land I think it could easily take the length of time to get your PhD before you even really started grokking the basics of what the kernel is doing....

I'm glad I made the BSD switch. I've never looked back since doing it.

Re:Why, oh why? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 7 months ago | (#45813465)

Is OpenBSD really suitable for typical desktop uses? Does it perform well?

Re: Why, oh why? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813499)

I recently tried NetBSD but it had an ancient version of XFCE (4.6 from 2009). There is an experimental 4.8 version in -WIP bur I haven't tried it.

Compares to Linux, NetBSD shops a lot of really outdated packages. But I was told that the reason behind it are mainly the huge dependencies that Linux uses. ConsoleKit. PulseAudio, PolicyKit, PoetterKit etc.

Re: Why, oh why? (3, Interesting)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | about 7 months ago | (#45813827)

Surely, all you really need is something like fvwm2 or something right? I mean, two bars, some extra stuff, and you're good right? The only thing is that you don't have compiz effects. But otherwise, you'll probably have a pretty useful desktop with full control.

Re: Why, oh why? (1)

armanox (826486) | about 7 months ago | (#45813967)

Honestly, I was happy with KDE 3 + compiz. And still am on some days (TDE is great!). I was not happy that I had to move my old work laptops (Dell C400 and D510, I needed the serial ports) back to Windows because they're no longer supported in Linux (and I was required to run 'supported and up to date' software and such by workplace requirements at the time).

Re:Why, oh why? (2)

x_t0ken_407 (2716535) | about 7 months ago | (#45813913)

Can't speak of OpenBSD, but I currently use FreeBSD + KDE4 on my gaming desktop (when I'm not gaming), and it's phenomenal. More stable than Arch Linux ever ran on this machine, but I suppose I can't speak much to performance since pretty much anything should run very well on this beast.

Re:Why, oh why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45814185)

Yeah, OpenBSD is decent for desktop use. I find that the ports system (3rd party applications -- ie. things like chrome/mozille/etc/etc) are really up to date and more stable than netbsd/freebsd (not trying to bash those BSD's but that's my experience). OpenBSD is probably not a bad starting choice to try out BSD world. It's easy to try it out too, the install can be done in On the other hand, the intended users had better be programmers. The OpenBSD community sometimes can seem downright hostile to newbies/non-programmers.

On the desktop, although I can do pretty much everything I need, I'll admit that there there are certain things that need more work to get going than you'd want (the typical example is flash or youtube or java). But on the other hand, these days with Chrome taking over the world with javascript, etc that's less of an issue.

(p.s. i love how all the anti-bsd moderators voted the comment about OpenBSD -1).

Re:Why, oh why? (3, Insightful)

x_t0ken_407 (2716535) | about 7 months ago | (#45813945)

Amen to that. I was mildly irritated when I first saw systemd take over Fedora (I forget what release it was), so I moved to Arch Linux -- which I figured I could count on to be the Unix-like system I always loved and forever adhere to the K.I.S.S. philosophy...then they ALSO shoved systemd down our throats. Have been using FreeBSD on the desktop [where practical] ever since; it was already what I used on my servers.

Re:Why, oh why? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813383)

We don't need in-kernel DBUS. Userland can run such things just fine. Is there a "need for speed" and prompt response? Well, so raise priority of the userland dbus daemon then. Right up to real-time priority if need be. That works for jack, which have real-time constraints that can be hard to meet. It works for robot control software. So surely a userland approach will work for something as benign as dbus.

You can even run a linux system without any dbus at all - it is definitely not needed in the kernel.

Re:Why, oh why? (0)

SumDog (466607) | about 7 months ago | (#45813447)

Pff. Of course it's needed in the Kernel. How else is Linux going to get bloated as Windows? I mean come on, the Windows kernel has JPEG and PNG decoders in kernel space! (or at least it did at one point in time, hence the endless amount of IE6 security problems back in the day).

Re:Why, oh why? (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 7 months ago | (#45813497)

I thought those vulnerabilities were vectors because IE6 ran with escalated privileges..

Re:Why, oh why? (2, Interesting)

jcdr (178250) | about 7 months ago | (#45813845)

Comparing a KDBUS to a JPEG or a PNG decoders ?
Try instead to compare the Linux KDBUS code to the Linux TCP/IP stack...

Seriously, the Linux kernel is only bloated by the fact that it need thousands of drivers to handle decades of hardware diarrhea that released incompatibles devices as fast rate. Certainly not by the KDBUS code.
 

Re:Why, oh why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813963)

No, Windows does not have PNG and JPEG decoding APIs that run in kernel space. That'd be totally daft. Not everything in ntdll.dll actually runs in kernel space.

Re:Why, oh why? (1, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813611)

I'm not convinced we need DBUS at all, much less in the kernel.

Re:Why, oh why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813783)

Good for you. Why should anyone care? Pretty sure Greg K-H knows more than you.

Re:Why, oh why? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813863)

Argument from authority?

Re:Why, oh why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813885)

Sure, because he's got more than a decade of kernel development experience. You're just some random whiner on Slashdot.

Re:Why, oh why? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813929)

And you are just an Anonymous Coward.

Re:Why, oh why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45814019)

Sure, doesn't change the fact that your opinion is basically meaningless.

Re:Why, oh why? (1, Funny)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | about 7 months ago | (#45813847)

We'll have Greg K-H talk to you personally. Without your sign off, it'll be unlikely Linus will integrate it without overriding your objections.

Re:Why, oh why? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813857)

So you believe I have no right to an opinion? Or just no right to express it?

Re:Why, oh why? (1)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | about 7 months ago | (#45813919)

You have every right to express it, but it won't change anything unless you happen to be a working on the kernel. You'll have to trust that they are doing the right thing.

Re:Why, oh why? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813959)

So why all the sarcasm then?

Re:Why, oh why? (1)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | about 7 months ago | (#45814179)

Because, you're arguing in the wrong place. Join LKML and ask there. Declarative statements like yours will likely be met with some amount of sarcasm because nobody here answering you are involved in kernel development. Also, it's a personal weakness. The sarcasm that is.

Re:Why, oh why? (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 7 months ago | (#45814061)

Tell me, was HAL the right thing? They seem to have changed their minds and abandoned it.

I've read the reasons for systemd. Faster boots, cleaner, more flexible, better at handling dependencies. Did I miss anything? Now, the reasons against systemd would seem to be that it adds dependencies, especially dependencies on systemd of other system tools such as dbus, it's more fragile, it certainly isn't as well tested, and it may not be so good at managing dependencies and being flexible as it proponents say it is.

Whatever else, systemd goes against the UNIX principle of having lots of small pieces that each do one simple thing and do it well.

Re: Why, oh why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813931)

You have a right to both, which you are excersizing in addition to your right to whiiiiiiine.

Re: Why, oh why? (0)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813947)

It seems you are the one doing the whiiiiiiiining. I simply expressed my opinion and moved on.

Re:Why, oh why? (3, Interesting)

jcdr (178250) | about 7 months ago | (#45813617)

I good reason is the future possibility to manage kernel features in a more formal way than with the /proc or /sys interfaces.

It has taken about a decade to bring a standard IPC protocol to Linux. I mean a protocol that truly work between applications from different team of developers.It's now time to use it from a wider audience. Making it part of the kernel not only make it a bit more fast, but it clearly make it a more appealing choice for applications that need IPC.

Re:Why, oh why? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813421)

Lennart Poettering, nothing he touches is easy to remove once it has a foothold. And it seems everyone who packages it is drinking the same coolaid. Sometime I wonder if packaging tools should have a 'shit can list' that allows packages to be block per developer.

Just blocking this guy would prevent pulseaudio, systemd and avahi.

Re:Why, oh why? (3, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813613)

The biggest audio performance boost I have gotten was when I killed pulseaudio so that everything would use ALSA.

But?! (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 7 months ago | (#45813309)

Then I would end up with a copy of Fedora??

More Bloat ? (5, Insightful)

fluffy99 (870997) | about 7 months ago | (#45813319)

Why is this NOT another example of kernel bloat, and the opposite direcion they should be heading (ie getting user stuff out of the kernel)? Seems like the primary use of D-BUS is for the desktop components, which already abuse/overuse inter-process communication. The "huge performance improvement" is only for those processes that shouldn't be abusing this anyway.

Re:More Bloat ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813393)

Seems like the primary use of D-BUS is for the desktop components,

Desktop Bus - I think there's a clue in the name.

which already abuse/overuse inter-process communication.

It's wasted on my desktop, I use the shell as a filemanager and login to a mail server over ssh to get my email. Seems dbus, ssh_agent and other bullshit should always be optional even on the desktop.

The "huge performance improvement" is only for those processes that shouldn't be abusing this anyway.

In typical "because fuck you!" style; Systemd relies on dbus for ipc and on ipc for halt, reboot etc. Can someone please step up and write a sane rc.d based init system so we can consign Systemd to the trashcan of history.

Re:More Bloat ? (3, Interesting)

SumDog (466607) | about 7 months ago | (#45813461)

I like Gentoo's OpenRC. Much better than SystemD.

Re:More Bloat ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813545)

Switch to a lower runlevel and back, and see how not so great open-rc is.

Re:More Bloat ? (1)

profplump (309017) | about 7 months ago | (#45813553)

"sane" and "rc.d" are mutually exclusive requirements. Maybe systemd is not the answer, but we know from decades of experience how bad rc.d is.

Re: More Bloat ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813583)

You would have saved a lot of these 'decades' if you had spent '1 hour' reading the docs, man, howtos properly. Halfknowledge is usually the real PENCAK here.

Re:More Bloat ? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45813655)

I find ssh_agent very useful. That's why I stuck it in my .bashrc like a sane person. There's no need for a bunch of unremovable crap when a couple lines in a script can take care of it for people who want it.

Re:More Bloat ? (3, Informative)

fnj (64210) | about 7 months ago | (#45813695)

Can someone please step up and write a sane rc.d based init system so we can consign Systemd to the trashcan of history.

Seriously? BSD has had such a system forever. Linux used to have a "sane" init scripts system (admittedly for some subjective definition of "sane") until very recently. Debian's system used clean Bourne shell compatible scripts. This meant /bin/sh could be a symlink to /bin/dash. Dash is a very lightweight shell without all the Bash overhead. It is about 1/10 the size of Bash. Bash is an excellent interactive shell, and a very valuable scripting shell, but Dash is excellent to have where you don't need a vast profusion of features but you are interested in performance.

Here [ubuntu.com] we learn that most of the performance benefit seen in Ubuntu 6.10 was due, not to Upstart, but simply by switching from Bash to Dash in the init scripts.

Redhat decided it was "too hard" to make their init scripts Bourne shell clean. They all reference /bin/sh in the shebang line, but they lie. They rely on Bash features. As a result, rather than do what Debian showed could readily be done, Redhat established and has adopted Systemd as the Only Supported Init System.

Now that Debian is caving in to systemd, it seems safe to say we can forget the fantasy of Systemd being relegated to any kind of "trashcan". Quite the contrary, as far as linux is concerned, it is the init script system that will be trashcanned.

There are honest pros and cons for the move. The pros are pretty compelling (and I say that as a holdout from the beginning). Linux is in many ways about monolithic solutions. This is just one of those ways.

For those who have doubts, not just about Systemd but about other monolithic consolidations and discarding many time tested and good working systems, there is still a refuge: BSD. That may change, but for now BSD is not jumping on all this stuff (quoting the AC near the top: Wayland, Gnome3, Pulseaudio, Systemd, Journald, "Alienating [subsuming] Udev"). BSD is still all about the Unix Philosophy [wikipedia.org] , as expressed by Mike Gancarz.

It is really an embarrassment of riches that BOTH Linux and BSD are prospering as freely available systems.

Re:More Bloat ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813883)

There are honest pros and cons for the move. The pros are pretty compelling (and I say that as a holdout from the beginning).

It's not that I don't see any of the pros. Systemd transcends any pros with the shocking attitude of it's developers, [gentooexperimental.org] poor design and ever-expanding scope.

For those who have doubts, not just about Systemd but about other monolithic consolidations and discarding many time tested and good working systems, there is still a refuge: BSD.

Unless you're stuck with linux for other reasons... eg: hardware support. I'd switch to FBSD if I could, more likely I'll end up running slackware or gentoo.

Re:More Bloat ? (1)

jcdr (178250) | about 7 months ago | (#45813903)

Good luck if you try for example to use Bluetooth or Avahi without D-BUS...

Re:More Bloat ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45814131)

Good luck if you try for example to use Bluetooth or Avahi without D-BUS...

Bluetooth is disabled on every device I own and I do not personally own a printer or a scanner.

Re:More Bloat ? (0)

bheading (467684) | about 7 months ago | (#45813395)

Agreed. And look who's behind it - Poettering. Run for your lives!

Re: More Bloat ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813413)

I don't like the behaviour and social limitations of Poettering.

Go to youtube and search for 'datenwolf'. You see how insulting Poettering hijacked the speach of that poor guy.

Later on he came up totally drunk, keeping a bottle of alcoholics in his hand and pissing off the audience.

Sorry! I don't want software written by said person. Even if it would start solving starving in the world.

Re: More Bloat ? (1)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | about 7 months ago | (#45813865)

You should see what happens when Linus is in your talk. Same damn thing, albeit without the drinking. The guy was all over X guys over some stuff he had a pet peeve about.

Re:More Bloat ? (1)

jcdr (178250) | about 7 months ago | (#45813891)

Seems like the primary use of D-BUS is for the desktop components, which already abuse/overuse inter-process communication.

DBUS is already used on a number of embedded projects since many years.

So this is the thing killing portability (3, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | about 7 months ago | (#45813385)

The corruption of GNOME and other opensource projects by tying it specifically to Linux comes with this; it represents giving up on being cross-platform, giving up on the BSDs and other Unices, and giving up on openness. No thanks.

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813467)

Openness means targeting multiple platforms and not that the code is visible?

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813581)

Knowingly excluding other platforms is the issue. Building software that is intimately tied to something as massive as Linux kernel compiled with some very new features enabled is... many bad things, but not open, especially when there are known license incompatibility issues preventing open sharing of code.

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (1)

DeSigna (522207) | about 7 months ago | (#45813989)

What?

D-Bus is still portable across multiple free Unices and even Windows. The standalone daemon isn't going away anytime soon, and I can't see the multitude of projects depending on it giving up cross-platform compatibility.

In-kernel IPC reduces context switching and other related overheads. I'm not sure exactly how much of a performance gain this gives D-Bus clients and the system as a whole but if someone wants to spend their Christmas playing around and seeing if something is better then great! And that's part of the benefit of OSS.

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (1)

AceJohnny (253840) | about 7 months ago | (#45813501)

Portability also means giving up on system-specific optimizations and features. Some people have decided that Linux's market share means it's time to bank on those optimizations. Why not?

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (4, Insightful)

olau (314197) | about 7 months ago | (#45813557)

You, sir, are a confused person. The protocol is open and free for any other OS to implement, and will remain so.

If the BSDs are left in the dust, it's because they're lacking the manpower to do the things a new GUI needs. This was not a big problem for GNOME 2, which is architecturally more than a decade old. But things have changed.

I can understand if people disagree with the path the GNOME developers have chosen because it does not fit with their ideals - but you have to understand that these developers are not your serfs you can command. There are still plenty of GUI environments with modest requirements of the OS, and while they may not do the same things you can choose from any of them as you wish. So quit the whining.

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 7 months ago | (#45813629)

you have to understand that these developers are not your serfs you can command

Ugh, I hate that sort of extremist straw-man. The developers are working on public projects, that means they are subject to both public praise and public criticism. It is a package deal.

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (1)

Improv (2467) | about 7 months ago | (#45813651)

Then we should turn away from GNOME3. Because they're taking compatibility lightly. Because they're wrongheaded. We should make sure that no distros ship GNOME3 or systemd as default. Sure, they're not serfs, they're just people promoting an inferiour solution that damages Unix.

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (1)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | about 7 months ago | (#45813703)

Linux is not Unix. It has gone way off the POSIX standard for some time now.

Re: So this is the thing killing portability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813681)

90% of the 'decade' old Gnome (lets say GTK+) software still uses this old framework. New Versions either switched to Qt or their developers simply abandoned their project and moved to OSX.

Why should BSD implement something they don't have too ?

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (4, Insightful)

Flammon (4726) | about 7 months ago | (#45813669)

There's already a D-Bus implementation available on BSD and other Unices. The API is documented [freedesktop.org] and anyone has the freedom to implement it any way they want, userspace, kernelspace or outerspace.

I fail to see how one more implementation, more specfically the Linux kernel one, has anything to do with giving up on anything.

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (1)

fnj (64210) | about 7 months ago | (#45813713)

I don't see giving up on openness, but yes, it represents a cavalier kiss-off to BSD. Developer privilege. And it is user privilege to turn one's back on this.

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (1)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | about 7 months ago | (#45813871)

What will you do?

Re:So this is the thing killing portability (1)

jcdr (178250) | about 7 months ago | (#45814103)

You forgot that Linux was created precisely because there was no truly open UNIX running on a PC a his time. Even 386BSD arrived after Linux started to gain a growing community. The Linux community always tried a lot of different approach, and this is the reason why it is do dominant today.

But I agree that Linux is more and more a norm by itself and that his UNIX part is slowly mutating into a simple compatibility interface layer. I am not even surprised about that since UNIX was created at his time for hardware and application that are really out of the focus of the today market needs. The fact that the UNIX API last so long prove that it was a very good design, but this design don't include today hardware and application that was just pure fiction when it was created.

Listen to A.S.T. (2, Interesting)

Bram Stolk (24781) | about 7 months ago | (#45813437)

Andrew S. Tanenbaum had a point about Linux not being micro kernel.
This is getting crazy: moving perfectly fine userland systems to the kernel.
Isn't the kernel large enough already?

Re:Listen to A.S.T. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813535)

Please not use the words "fine" and "dbus" in one sentence without a negation. Thanks.

Half-decade of stable Linux desktop ahead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813555)

I have a feeling I'll stay away from this systemd related stuff for a while. There's something fishy about it all.

Some non-Unity variant of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS is looking mighty tempting until the dust settles and sanity prevails, hopefully by 2018. I also have a feeling that will be the Linux distro to stabilize on for real work. Unless Canonical manages to screw up badly with it, or fold (or just stop support) earlier than promised.

Qmod doMwn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813805)

parts. The cuur3nt and the striking

104 minutes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813949)

Why has my dbus-system process used 104 minutes of CPU time since late november, less than a month?

My Squeeze system is used for web browsing, coding, and a little virtualbox. Oh, and sniffing packets when I'm wondering just WTF is lighting up my interface.

Frankly my dear, I don't see the point.

PS. Killed dbus-system and don't want to restart it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...