[Karunamon]

If there are bugs in systemd, they have to be fixed.

Philosophically, yes. Realistically? The behavior of some of the people on the systemd bug tracker[1] is the single most convincing argument against adopting it.

It might break things? Sure, it's a pretty massive change.

People are going to have to re-learn how to do a lot? Again, it's a pretty fundamental shift in a lot of ways. This is expected.

The developers will fucking backtalk you[2] and make political issues out of clearcut things? Uh.. no. That's forkworthy behavior. That's dysfunctional enterprise behavior, which is something I'd imagine the average hacker hates instinctually.

And sure, in the end, those bugs were addressed, but it took an outburst from Linus and widespread, public coverage (and I'm sure no small amount of offline discussion among the systemd folks) for it to happen.

Poettering is on record as wondering why systemd attracts so much hate. He only need look in the mirror.

[1]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935

[2]: http://www.muktware.com/2014/04/linus-torvalds-happy-systemd...

[bkor]

That bugreport is often misunderstood. You only gave one example, and that example is flawed. The bugreport was to change systemd behaviour to avoid a kernel bug. The bug should be fixed at kernel, that is why the notabug was there. Further, it is ack'ed that this should've been handled much better.

I have seen loads and loads of examples where "no" is said in some email conversation based on technical arguments.

> And sure, in the end, those bugs were addressed,

The bug was fixed in systemd git before Linus got involved.

> Poettering is on record as wondering why systemd attracts so much hate. He only need look in the mirror.

Here you're being an ass. This bugreport was not handled by Lennart. Lennart is also not talking about disliking systemd, he's talking about people taking things way too far towards him. He talked about people raising money to hire an assassin.

[Karunamon]

The bugreport was because systemd misused the kernel command line. If your code causes something else to break, it is your code's fault!

[not_with_retard]

It was a bug in the kernel, as Torvalds has already admitted.

"Something else" shouldn't break in the first place.

It's obvious you're not a programmer.

[nknighthb]

> It was a bug in the kernel, as Torvalds has already admitted.

Where?

> It's obvious you're not a programmer.

I certainly am, and he's right. Stop trying to deflect blame. The kernel isn't responsible for preventing init from doing stupid things, init shouldn't do stupid things.

And most importantly, when your code does stupid things that breaks users, it is your responsibility to fix it, no matter what you think anybody else's code should be doing. If you can't accept that, you're a menace, and need to stop writing code.

[not_with_retard]

> Where?

From G+

"I guess this does mean that we have to apply my patch to rate-limit messages into the kernel."

......

"+Greg Kroah-Hartman: I really hoped that you could push the trivial and obvious one-liner through. What’s going on here?"

From LKML

"Steven, Borislav, one thing that strikes me might be a good idea is to limit the amount of non-kernel noise in dmesg. We already have the concept of rate-limiting various spammy internal kernel messages for when device drivers misbehave etc. Maybe we can just add rate-limiting to the interfaces that add messages to the kernel buffers, and work around this problem that way instead while waiting for Gregs fix to percolate?"

He even goes so far as to say:

"I don't think we should try to protect against willful bad behavior unless that is shown to be necessary. Yeah, if it turns out that systemd really does that just to mess with us, we'd need to extend it, but in the absence of proof to the contrary, maybe this simple attached patch works?"

Showing that even if systemd tried to get around the rate-limiting just to piss off the kernel developers, that it's a bug they would fix (which is the wrong stance for whatever it's worth; you should be using defensive programming, not waiting for someone to abuse it first, but at the very least shows that it's a kernel issue).

> I certainly am

Certainly not a very good one.

When a library has an error, is it your fault for triggering that problem, or do you log a bug with the library?

This isn't rocket science.

> And most importantly, when your code does stupid things that breaks users, it is your responsibility to fix it, no matter what you think anybody else's code should be doing. If you can't accept that, you're a menace, and need to stop writing code.

Greg Kroah-Hartman himself (on G+) said "the original bug that was causing the syslog spew to stop the box has been fixed in systemd.".

Please don't contribute to a conversation if you know absolutely fuck-all about it. Spreading misinformation is one of the world's worst problems, and you're simply contributing to it.

[nknighthb]

No mention of a bug in the kernel anywhere. I see systemd proponents just can't stop lying. Please don't contribute to a conversation when you can't be at all truthful.