Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by microtonal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

microtonal

Socket activation:

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/socket-activation.html

Socket activated containers:

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/socket-activated-containers...

Resource management:

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/resources.html

Better service information:

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemctl-journal.html

In fact, the whole series is a recommended reading. Anyway, all these features requirer tighter integration with other components than SysV init. E.g. Linux' cgroups, services that support socket activation, integration with the logging system for status information, etc.

Also, a lot of techniques in systemd were already pioneered in launchd on OS X since Tiger.

View on HN

<i>Socket activation</i>

Because minimal boot time is way more important than predictable, repeatable functionality. It's totally cool if some other daemon lies about whether or not my service is actually listening while just happily buffering into /dev/null. This is all brilliant stuff and a huge step forward over UNIX.

1. The purpose of systemd is not speed; it is simply a happy side-effect of its design.

2. Socket activation do 𝐧𝐨𝐭 buffer into /dev/null; that is simply FUD.

They don't buffer into /dev/null... until you fill the buffer.

And the purpose of systemd, as near as I can tell, appears to be making my system into a Windows box, complete with binlogs.

No, when the buffer is full, the write() call blocks. Otherwise no UNIX pipes could ever reliably transport data.

True, I was wrong here.

>> that is simply FUD

You should educate yourself about FUD, I recommend the Halloween documents, where they explain the unfeasibility of FUD tactics against an open source project, and that if someone tries to do it they won't get anywhere.

It's totally cool if some other daemon lies about whether or not my service is actually listening

You're a little late; inetd(1) first appeared in 4.3BSD, c. 1986.

Oh shit, let me go recompile my chargen and telnet servers then.

We stopped using inetd for reasons. Modern services don't work this way, nor should they.

Yeah, but inetd was just about TCP sockets. systemd also supports unix-socket activation, which can block the client when the buffer is full, preventing data loss. I agree that TCP socket activation is iffy (though I still use inetd for non-critical stuff), but unix-socket activation seems safe to me.

Safe, but seems like it's solving a problem that doesn't really exist, or at least exists as a mosquito not warranting a bazooka swat.

Your analogies are great, transmiting a clear picture of systemd, like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Professor...

This style of debate is not welcome on Hacker News. Please drop it while you're here.

What offended about his post, out of curiosity? The Rube Goldberg analogy (I found that rather apt), or the "Professor Lucifer Butts" aspect of it (which I'll also confess to finding not the least apropos nickname for a certain Red Hatted German)?

The sarcasm combined with the scabrous smack.

There are some online communities in which that kind of thing is ok. HN is not one of those.

> combined with the scabrous smack.

The word 'scabrous' means "dealing with salacious or indecent material". Feel free to inspect the image, I guarantee it's safe for work.

I was chiding your comment for being rude, not salacious.

The first meaning of "scabrous" in my dictionary is "having a rough surface", and that's how I meant it. There's a long tradition of using that word to describe rough-and-tumble discourse, and it seemed fitting. You didn't just smack another user, you smacked them with a pointy implement (a link to an insulting image). That's not ok on HN. Neither is smacking people without a pointy implement. And telling another user "You're a liar and a coward, and you know it" is right out—a bannable offense, although we didn't ban you for it.

I'm insisting on this more than usual, because we don't want the pugilistic approach that is popular in some related (by subject matter, at least) online communities to take root here. When commenting on HN, please eliminate incivility from what you post.

This is a well thought out and complete response, it's just unfortunate that an image illustrating an overcomplicated system to solve a simple problem has elicited this censure; instead of the comment, in response to another user throwing a personal insult against an OSS hacker, where I call this user "a coward".

Your position about the place we want HN to be is clear, but I still believe the image is not insulting or offending anybody in any way. Those who flagged it, could they have misinterpreted it as an insult to the developers? An insult to the users? An inappropriate "scabrous" picture based on the URL? Or just as an attack to a program that needs our praise?

You're right. The "liar/coward" comment was the much greater offense, but that one was flag-killed.

I realize now that I was being too cute pulling out the old "scabrous" to make what is really an obvious and mundane point, and ended up confusing things. Sorry. I get bored sometimes and throw in variations which HN moderation comments are obviously not the place for. Let me try to be clearer.

There's nothing at all wrong with that image per se. It's great. I've made more than my share of Rube Goldberg analogies and know exactly where you're coming from. Had you linked to the same image in a thoughtful comment about overcomplicated systems, with no trace of incivility, of course it would be fine. It was only a problem in this context, i.e. a drive-by potshot in an inflamed discussion on a polarized topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com