Linked by Oliver on Fri 11th Mar 2011 23:32 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "Now that Linux is the most popular free Unix-like operating system, it shouldn't be a surprise that some projects have begun treating non-Linux operating systems as second-class citizens. This isn't out of contempt for the BSDs or OpenSolaris, it's just a matter of limited manpower: if almost all the users of the application have a Linux operating system and if all the core developers are using Linux themselves, it's difficult to keep supporting other operating systems. But sometimes the choice to leave out support for other operating systems is explicitly made, e.g. when the developers want to implement some innovative features that require functionality that is (at least for now) only available in the Linux kernel."
Thread beginning with comment 465861
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

Hald is legacy of Unix when it did not support dynamic libraries. So there is need for a common dynamic lib to replace hald in some areas. Not a common daemon any more.


Uhm, hald is only a couple of years old. And there were working hardware abstraction / detection layers before it (like devd on FreeBSD).

systemd is based of apple launchd design and expanded on to take advantage of the features Linux kernel offers. Now why is not BSD doing the same.


Because it's not needed? And no one has stepped forward to make a case for it that stood up to even the most basic of questioning.

Does the BSD service system offer fast startup? Nope.


Bzzt, wrong. I can boot a FreeBSD system in under a minute. Of course, I can also boot a Windows XP system in under a minute. And I can configure a Kubuntu station in such a way that it boots in over 2 minutes.

Has linux developers been searching for faster ways to start the system yes. upstart and many other different startup systems to freebsd.


What is everyone's obsession with boot times? If you are rebooting your system so often that you notice a 30s savings ... then you need to reevaluate your setup. Why are you rebooting that often?

Sure, a system boot should not take 15 minutes. But getting to a login screen in 5s, with everything still initialising in the background, isn't anything to brag about either.

I've yet to see anything actually useful in upstart/systemd, other than making it impossible to know exactly how things are working, or to debug things.

There's something to be said for deterministic behaviour (where things always start in the same order and always end up in the same state).

There's something to be said for having a single, human readable *and* human editable text file managing the configuration.

Anyone who says that GRUB2's configuration layout is better than GRUB1's menu.lst seriously needs to get their head examined. upstart vs sysvinit (even with all its warts) is the same. systemd isn't much better (Really? You can't support a system where /usr is a separate filesystem from /? Really? And you don't see a problem with that?)

Innovation is good. Code churn for the sake of code churn is not.

Perhaps if Linux devs put more than 30 minutes of thought into something, actually *designed* something before coding it, sub-systems would last more than 12 months, and downstream projects would actually have time to incorporate all the feature before having to start re-writing things for "new shiny sub-system".

Reply Parent Score: 11

dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

Why would i not turn of my computer when i im not using it. Power costs money and resources why use more than i need.

using the computer that way fast bootup is nice.
you know not every computer is a server that needs to be up 24/7

Reply Parent Score: 2

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Why would i not turn of my computer when i im not using it. Power costs money and resources why use more than i need.

using the computer that way fast bootup is nice.
you know not every computer is a server that needs to be up 24/7


Ever heard of hibernate? Suspend?

Reply Parent Score: 3

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Why would i not turn of my computer when i im not using it. Power costs money and resources why use more than i need.


Do you leave it plugged in? If you do, you are wasting resources, and it's costing you money.

Ever tried "suspend", "sleep", or "hibernate"? No need to power off and suffer through a full boot process.

using the computer that way fast bootup is nice.
you know not every computer is a server that needs to be up 24/7


Sure, but there's also no reason to go through a full shutdown/power off and power on/boot process everytime you leave the keyboard.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

using the computer that way fast bootup is nice.
you know not every computer is a server that needs to be up 24/7


Wait, are you saying that Linux does not have reliable suspend/hibernate?

Reply Parent Score: 1

renox Member since:
2005-07-06

"Does the BSD service system offer fast startup? Nope.

Bzzt, wrong. I can boot a FreeBSD system in under a minute.
"

You have a strange definition of 'fast', BeOS booted in ~15second (not counting BIOS initialisation) *and* the desktop was responsive even at the beginning.

So in my book, Linux,*BSD and Windows are all booting *slowly*, but it doesn't matter because now you can resume even desktop..

Reply Parent Score: 4

acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

When I saw HAL for the first time I thought "this is garbage" but, somehow it got included on almost every linux distro. Now they are dumping it.

The same thing I thought about pulseaudio and systemd. Specifically on systemd, I really prefer the old method, even if it is a little slower to boot. At least is easy to locate POF and correct them, as you properly said, in very predictable/repetitive steps.

My point is, developers that want to collaborate on very basic subsystems should do a favor to all us and try to do it right from beginning. They should read about what others are doing/using and what are the shortcomings of their implementations. They should try to respect conventions. And they should break compatibility only for a very good reason. All this have been put apart on these "experiments" to fix problematic subsystems on linux.

As is very known on educated circles, "it is better/less frustrating/time saving/wiser to learn from someone else mistakes/success".

Reply Parent Score: 4

killasmurf86 Member since:
2010-04-27

Let me slap Linuxists in face.....
What can you guys say about your audio system?

Everyone is trying to make something new about it, none have made anything useful.

We BSD users still use good old OSS, and it works just great.

P.S. sorry I can't find link to graph with all the Audio Mess on Linux

Reply Parent Score: 1