LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 08-07-2019, 01:08 PM   #121
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 5,321
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110

I don't see anything wrong with break or continue but surely goto is spaghetti code. Can you give an example of where a goto statement would be appropriate?
 
Old 08-07-2019, 01:13 PM   #122
average_user
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2010
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 536

Rep: Reputation: 216Reputation: 216Reputation: 216
Plenty of functions in Linux tree use goto in order to create a single point for freeing objects. Grep/ack/ag for goto, tipc_buf_append() is the first example I found.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-07-2019, 01:19 PM   #123
ponce
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Pisa, Italy
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 6,036

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
i don't see anything wrong with break or continue but surely goto is spaghetti code. Can you give an example of where a goto statement would be appropriate?
Code:
10 print "slackware rules!"
20 goto 10
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-07-2019, 02:05 PM   #124
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,514

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 3404Reputation: 3404Reputation: 3404Reputation: 3404Reputation: 3404Reputation: 3404Reputation: 3404Reputation: 3404Reputation: 3404Reputation: 3404Reputation: 3404
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemedia2018 View Post
This straw man is getting REALLY old. You continue to paint this as ME making this about "with ME or against ME." I've cited quite a few reasons why:

1. it's not my own conclusion, it was already well documented years before I ever entered the conversation.

2. what is documented is other people making it with them or against them, and having clear, detailed policies to make that happen.

If you're going to keep trying to make that about me, you can count on a reply. I'm just the messenger. I'm not the person who came up with any of it, so the way you keep putting it on me is ridiculous. I'm not the one calling it a "Jihad" -- That's what Bill Gates calls it. So if I mention that he calls it that, how do you make it out to be just "my" perspective? Ridiculous.
Because the point is that no matter how much Billy and The Boys might WISH they could destroy FOSS, just like they actually have destroyed a number of corporations and individuals, they can't possibly achieve that goal. It is essentially a Zero-Sum Game. So you viewing MS etc as if they actually could destroy FOSS is the real "straw man", and the same obviously applies to systemd.

Last edited by enorbet; 08-07-2019 at 02:08 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-07-2019, 02:14 PM   #125
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 5,321
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lufbery View Post
Did you build BLFS too? I've built LFS using Slackware as my host twice, but I never ventured into BLFS. Although the LFS site has a "regular" and systemd BLFS, I fear that the non-systemd build is harder/won't work as well, precisely because of the tentacles you mention above. My perception is that more an more applications and utilities require systemd.
Yes, I always continue to BLFS because I want a working system and LFS by itself doesn't give you one. But I haven't found the sysvinit version of it difficult at all. It may have been harder for the development team to write but it's certainly no harder to do the builds. I notice though that they are planning to introduce elogind in the next revision to avoid X dependencies on systemd-logind.

@freemedia: The policies of MS are a consequence of the fact that their company makes its money by selling Windows. Of course they want to get rid of the competition, don't all capitalists want that? But who exactly is making money out of systemd? Even if Lennart Poettering were a double-dyed villain like Balmer, why would he want to destroy Linux? What would he gain by that?
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-07-2019, 04:28 PM   #126
ttk
Member
 
Registered: May 2012
Location: Sebastopol, CA
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 965
Blog Entries: 27

Rep: Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354Reputation: 1354
Lennart is a Red Hat employee. Red Hat makes their money from corporate support contracts, on the most part.

I have seen it hypothesized that Red Hat deliberately makes administrating Linux more difficult, to make their support service more enticing, but have no idea whether it's true.

I kind of doubt it is true. Upper management would have discussed the relevant policies, and the urge to leak such discussions would be unbearable to some.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-07-2019, 06:14 PM   #127
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD, Debian
Posts: 6,593

Rep: Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttk View Post
Red Hat makes their money from corporate support contracts, on the most part.
Yep. They're a very profitable Linux company.

Billion Dollar Linux Company
 
Old 08-07-2019, 07:52 PM   #128
glorsplitz
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Distribution: slackware!
Posts: 878

Rep: Reputation: 199Reputation: 199
in this link
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitest View Post
uh oh systemv

Quote:
So, Valve is proposing changes to the Linux kernel. This will extend the futex() (fast user-space locking) system call to expose the extra bit of core functionality needed to support optimal thread pool synchronization. Proton 4.11 includes the fsync patchset, which will leverage this new Linux kernel functionality to replace esync when supported.
then the tentacles will spread
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-08-2019, 03:04 AM   #129
bartgymnast
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Almere, Netherlands
Distribution: slack 7.1 till latest and -current, LFS
Posts: 367

Rep: Reputation: 164Reputation: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdi01 View Post
Well, there is Dlackware -- but the last updates to it (git) are from 5 months ago ...
Kinda busy at the office for updating every time (help is always welcome)
But we are still alive
 
Old 08-08-2019, 06:56 AM   #130
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 5,321
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110
I think Linux has a kind of immune system that should prevent complete takeovers (even assuming that Red Hat wanted to carry out one). When people don't like what they see, the use GPL to fork the code. So dissatisfaction with gnome3 caused gnome2 to be forked as mate, and dissatisfaction with gnome shell caused gnome3 to be forked as cinnamon.

In the same way, dependencies on systemd are causing the relevant bits to be forked as small standalone programs that will satisfy those dependencies. The first was eudev, which I believe is now used by all non-systemd distros. Now there is elogind to cope with dependencies on systemd-logind. I think the LFS devs are going to put elogind into the next non-systemd BLFS. Eventually there will probably be a raft of little daemon programs of this sort.

The irony is that Poettering has always claimed that systemd is a unix-style toolkit, not a kraken. It isn't of course; it's much too tightly integrated for that. But we may well end up with a toolkit that will do most of what systemd does in a much more unix-like way.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-08-2019, 07:01 AM   #131
freemedia2018
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: various automated remasters
Posts: 216

Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
@freemedia: The policies of MS are a consequence of the fact that their company makes its money by selling Windows. Of course they want to get rid of the competition, don't all capitalists want that?
This is a false generalisation. A tiger isn't safe to pet just because kittens enjoy eating meat just as much. Microsoft has spent decades (including this one) breaking laws in order to completely dismantle key players in the industry. But your question forces me to address a topic that the OP asked me to drop, so I'm not going to go into detail here. There's plenty of detail to go into nonetheless.

Quote:
But who exactly is making money out of systemd? Even if Lennart Poettering were a double-dyed villain like Balmer, why would he want to destroy Linux? What would he gain by that?
That's the wrong question, even if there is an answer to it. Lennart gets the same things all other developers get. But it's the wrong question because he's already an employee of one of the largest corporations of the world (and at the time, he worked for the largest Linux company in the world.) So what you ought to ask is why the largest Linux company in the world would want to destroy Linux, and it's actually for the same reason as Microsoft-- to own it. Or rather to control it.

Besides-- destroying it is a side-effect, not a goal per se. If someone puts a virus (for example) on your computer, they haven't compromised their security, only yours. If Red Hat "destroys Linux", they've only destroyed it for other people, not themselves.

As for overall security, there are different models that suit different parties. Under Steve Jobs, Apple started with a platform known for robust security (BSD, though really a fork) and their maintenance of it was actually fairly lacking. When Apple's own security team found major problems, Jobs would typically hush them up and fire them if necessary.

They may have gotten worse since: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygre...t-exploit-app/ It's not realistic to just assume that any company creating software for the desktop has security as a priority, but it is certainly necessary for them to claim they do.

If anybody has more questions for me, I've already created a thread where you're welcome to ask them as the OP suggested. 1 reply that was just trolling, 237 views-- You've probably already seen it. The OP asked me to drop this thread and I have, so don't make a liar out of me, I'm done here. Thanks.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-08-2019, 07:14 AM   #132
Lysander666
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2017
Location: The Underearth
Distribution: Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware
Posts: 2,149
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 2431Reputation: 2431Reputation: 2431Reputation: 2431Reputation: 2431Reputation: 2431Reputation: 2431Reputation: 2431Reputation: 2431Reputation: 2431Reputation: 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemedia2018 View Post
So what you ought to ask is why the largest Linux company in the world would want to destroy Linux, and it's actually for the same reason as Microsoft-- to own it. Or rather to control it.
Very good post, this is precisely it. Throw into the mix the cosy existent partnership of Red Hat and Microsoft and the future looks rather interesting.
 
Old 08-08-2019, 08:52 AM   #133
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD, Debian
Posts: 6,593

Rep: Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815Reputation: 2815
Quote:
Originally Posted by glorsplitz View Post
then the tentacles will spread
Let us see what Torvalds does. He's rejected the systemd people before with their proposed changes.
 
Old 08-08-2019, 10:05 AM   #134
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 5,321
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110Reputation: 3110
As far as I can remember, Torvalds had very specific quarrels with the systemd people (Kay Sievers in particular) rather than a general objection to systemd as such.

First he objected to systemd piggybacking onto the kernel command line arguments so that asking for a verbose boot made systemd verbose as well. That made debugging the kernel very difficult. And secondly, he was furious that systemd actually segfaulted if control groups wasn't set in the kernel when it should simply have checked for a null pointer and exited gracefully.

Last edited by hazel; 08-08-2019 at 10:09 AM.
 
Old 08-08-2019, 11:25 AM   #135
z80
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2019
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 48

Rep: Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
There's nothing wrong with using goto, or break/continue in the right situation. I'd rather see a break statement in a while loop than see something completely incomprehensible spread over a bunch of convoluted if statements 10 levels deep.

Not that I'm defending systemd code quality, I'm not making any judgement one way or the other on that, just stating that the 'structured programming' dogma of not using those 3 statements, at any cost, is IMO quite simply just that: Dogma!
Yes, there are reasons to use these statements ...
But you sure don't want to run software using these when that code was written by developers known to ignore bugs.

initctl.c: 407 lines, 3 breaks, 1 continue, 8 gotos and 26 returns
 
3 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Q. Can your Linux PC run Crysis? OK, it can. But will it run natively? A. Soon, very soon LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-11-2014 11:01 PM
LXer: My Nerd Life: Too Loud, Too Funny, Too Smart, Too Fat LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-24-2014 05:21 AM
LXer: Abolishing patents: Too soon or too late? LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-09-2013 02:20 PM
Application Assessment for Linux Migration MSquared Linux - Software 1 02-02-2005 05:14 PM
Probed and Attacked - Battle Damage Assessment halifax Linux - Security 2 08-17-2003 08:06 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration