Debian debates systemd

Posted Jan 23, 2013 15:58 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
In reply to: Debian debates systemd by viro
Parent article: Debian debates systemd

Plumber? What is that? Care to provide a URL?

DBUS is _used_. It's actually _used_ in the freaking _real_ _world_. At that point saying it's "ugly" and everyone should just rewrite all their software to use my-obscure-and-useless-implementation is, shall we say, madness.

Debian debates systemd

Posted Jan 23, 2013 16:46 UTC (Wed) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link] (3 responses)

Which says approx. nothing about a) the need to put into kernel, b) the quality of the patches submitted.

Debian debates systemd

Posted Jan 23, 2013 17:26 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (2 responses)

a) It's pretty clear - kernel message routing implementation reduces context switch overhead and the number of data copies.
b) Last time network subsystem maintainer refused even the idea of AF_DBUS - we evidently should use IP multicast. So people went the usual way - write something, ship 10 million devices with it and present it as a fait accompli.

Debian debates systemd

Posted Jan 23, 2013 18:30 UTC (Wed) by rleigh (guest, #14622) [Link] (1 responses)

Being in (allegedly) wide use has zero bearing on the quality or suitability of the code for going into the kernel. It's good to see that at least the networking maintainer has an ounce of sanity here. Being pressurised to include this on merits other than quality does not paint this (or the people doing it) in a good light. It's not good to see things being pushed hard by people with agendas which don't necessarily align with what's technically the best path to take, circumventing the review and criticism such a drastic change would normally have.

Debian debates systemd

Posted Jan 23, 2013 18:42 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Code quality is not the problem here (it can be reworked, patches are not that big), it's the opposition to the idea itself.