For those of you who enjoy tracking kernel development occasionally, take a look at this thread, especially Linus' response. You can also get the link to the freedesktop.org bug report where additional light may be shed.
http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/...4.0/01327.html

Can't say I'm surprised.

First, the systemd team decided to interfere with the way servers are managed, but they couldn't be bothered to listen to anybody who actually does this for a living. Now, they've decided to make life difficult for kernel developers as well, also without knowing anything about how they work, and as a result they seem to have pissed off just about every kernel developer on the planet, including Linus Torvalds.

Having systemd grab the kernel command line and respond to a "debug" instruction obviously meant for the kernel, means nobody read the kernel documentation. That's bad. That systemd then proceeds to generate so much debug output that it causes a kernel panic indicates a stunning level of incompetence on the part of the systemd developers. That's pretty horrible.

But responding to bug reports by saying 'just because the Linux kernel used "debug" first doesn't mean they own it, so it's not our problem' is just asinine. Seriously? I mean, why don't they intercept the SysReq key while they're at it.

It's not like it's the first time the systemd team have shown zero interest in fixing serious bugs. Richard Weinberger pointed out that the "cgroups bug", which causes systemd to segfault if the kernel is compiled with CONFIG_CGROUPS=n, no only hasn't been fixed, but that Lennart Poettering can't be bothered to look at it because "nobody of us tests this". Well, yes, WE'VE NOTICED!

9 members found this post helpful.

quiet dammit - they'll hear you ....
Gotta love reading this stuff first thing in the morning - thanks for making my day.

2 members found this post helpful.

Reading this lkml thread made my day. Thanks for the heads up. After http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...og-4175500254/ and this thread, I can't imagine anything cheering me up more. Talk about irony!

1 members found this post helpful.

I do hope Linus T. takes a firm stand against these a*holes, as he has here. I'm sure he can do something to at least stall them. Maybe it'll give enough time to people developing alternatives.

I kind of see it as inevitable ATM tho. I don't know how these self-appointed a*holes managed to hijack and infiltrate so many projects, but I hope someone stops them or at least slows them down.

When I get some money, I think I'll hire some developers to develop a much better and more sensible alternative, with advice from the leading devs of the respective projects. It'll be FLOSS of course. I'm not much of a developer, so I can't do it myself. I know that system V init works just fine, but people don't want it anymore, so something else has to be developed at least to prevent these a*holes from handling it the way they do and will continue to do.

2 members found this post helpful.

*Sits back with popcorn*

Looks like kdbus just got the guillotine.

In truth, all the projects that have been forcefully deprecated by systemd, now need to be restarted ASAP. I doubt Linus T. is going to allow Kay and Lennart to have their way over this ever growing mountain of buggy code they keep piling up.

You piss off the kernel developers and you might as well put a loaded bazooka to your head and fire.

I think Linus is more than regretting letting Kay and Lennart's trash anywhere in GNU/Linux. I'd die laughing if their entire history of code from udev and all got the axe from Linux and they restarted all the old projects like DevFS, HAL, Hotplug and such up again.

I don't even think a comment is needed there.

4 members found this post helpful.

I have faith in Linus.

1 members found this post helpful.

With Redhat, Suse, Debian (and thus Canonical) backing systemd ?. Where are you going to get the developers - and how long to get back up to speed ?.
Linux development (including the kernel) has been "facilitated" by the corporations for so long now it's too late to turn back.

1 members found this post helpful.

The FOSS community doesn't blindly have to drink the kool-aid being shoved in their hands. These projects were only forced into deprecation by people simply stating they were deprecated, not because the code was old, stale, and less than usefully pointless.

OSS/Free is what you can call truly deprecated code. Against ALSA and OSSv4, OSS/Free is completely pointless. I'm not saying someone out there isn't using it, but it is truly deprecated code. Saying ConsoleKit and other modular projects are deprecated against systemd is about as big a lie you could say compared against the popularity of the Star Wars franchise.

Gentoo was the only distribution that actually has stood up to systemd and offered eudev as an alternative to systemd-udev. Slackware and LFS also have stood up to at least say they can get along with out it as long as possible, but everyone else is lining up for their RFID chips, bar codes, uniforms, and cups of kool-aid.

Linux development may have been facilitated by corporations, but government agencies, laboratories, universities, and even private individuals have done their fair share too.

9 members found this post helpful.

11% kernel development is private individuals
more then any company
(data from... 2011 i think, can't remember)

in the rest of linux id guess the percentage is bigger

double post, internets broke

If you are interested in where kernel patches come from check out:
http://lwn.net/Articles/589728/

For now LWN is still posting statistics on each kernel, but may change the frequency as mentioned at the end of the article.

wrong thread ><

While I don't appreciate the behavior of some systemd developers and I am definitely not a fan of it, this bothers me:
A kernel crash due to too much output is a bug in the kernel, not systemd or any other userspace application. After all, systemd is userspace and according to Linus Torvalds userspace should never be able to crash the kernel.

Also, letting this impact the development of the first sane IPC mechanism for Linux (that will bring the Linux kernel on par with any other UNIX kernel and even the Windows kernel) is IMHO a bad thing. Of course developers with such attitudes should be monitored (or temporarily be banned from committing patches) until the problem is fixed, but that should not have an impact on making Linux better.

2 members found this post helpful.

Remember, this only occurs when the kernel is given the "debug" parameter. Debug mode is not a normal operating condition for the kernel by any stretch of the imagination, and may indeed create an unusual dependency with the tty layer. That's basically what it's supposed to do.

I put the blame squarely on the systemd developers for failing to distinguish between "debug" and, say, "systemd.debug". Everybody else seems perfectly capable of doing just that, as even a cursory glance at the kernel documentaion will show.

Even if systemd was perfect and dbus was the best thing since sliced bread, it would be a mistake to trust such a grossly mismanaged project with providing important functionality to Linux in general.

Add to that the undeniable fact that the two senior (I'm using the term in the most loosely possible manner) developers are unwilling to listen to any viewpoint that conflicts with their own, and are demonstrably reluctant to fix their own crash bugs, and you get a perfect storm. This isn't going to end well.

6 members found this post helpful.