Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 11th May 2013 21:41 UTC
Windows "Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 561259
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Too funny
by hussam on Sun 12th May 2013 16:11 UTC
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

this made my day

(Besides: you guys have systemd, which if I'm going to treat it the same way I treated NTFS, is an all-devouring octopus monster about crawl out of the sea and eat Tokyo and spit it out as a giant binary logfile.)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Too funny
by Lunitik on Sun 12th May 2013 16:41 in reply to "Too funny"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

this made my day

(Besides: you guys have systemd, which if I'm going to treat it the same way I treated NTFS, is an all-devouring octopus monster about crawl out of the sea and eat Tokyo and spit it out as a giant binary logfile.)


It is simply ignorant.

Systemd is SMALLER than init or any other such program.

It is not devouring anything, it is simply creating replacements for many prior projects. These are all separate binaries, and can be used or left out.

The logging is far superior to anything we've had before, the very fact that it is binary ensures more security. Before, it was relatively easy for a hacker to just edit the logs and the admin wouldn't know he was there. Now there are mechanisms in place to ensure the log really comes from where it is intended, and it is much harder to change that information.

It is certainly vastly different, but having used it for a while, I would never use another init mechanism.

Imagine, a single tool to initialize everything on the system, not one for bringing up the system, another for timed events, another for scheduling events, another for dealing with events on demand, another for acting on new hardware, all logs and tracked in a uniformed way, all managed in a uniform way. The sheer number of in-kernel mechanisms it makes easily available to admins is staggering. Systemd actually lets us take full advantage of the platform, rather than remaining confined to 30 year old mechanisms.

People dislike change, people like using shell scripts to do things, cool. Systemd can execute any type of script or binary, so actually it is more powerful than simple shell scripting in this regard too. As for change, there is always Slackware - the state of the art in the early 90's - or any of the BSD's. Everyone else except Debian is moving on, but they've never complied with standards anyway.

Edited 2013-05-12 16:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Too funny
by djohnston on Sun 12th May 2013 19:09 in reply to "RE: Too funny"
djohnston Member since:
2006-04-11

The logging is far superior to anything we've had before, the very fact that it is binary ensures more security. Before, it was relatively easy for a hacker to just edit the logs and the admin wouldn't know he was there. Now there are mechanisms in place to ensure the log really comes from where it is intended, and it is much harder to change that information.

True, that. And there's the journalctl tool to display all the system logs, in one place, in human-readable format.

Everyone else except Debian is moving on, but they've never complied with standards anyway.

Never complied with standards? In what way? What supporting evidence can you show?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Too funny
by satsujinka on Sun 12th May 2013 19:34 in reply to "RE: Too funny"
satsujinka Member since:
2010-03-11

The logging is far superior to anything we've had before, the very fact that it is binary ensures more security. Before, it was relatively easy for a hacker to just edit the logs and the admin wouldn't know he was there. Now there are mechanisms in place to ensure the log really comes from where it is intended, and it is much harder to change that information.


This is bullshit. You can just as easily generate a checksum from text and be just as secure. There's no reason to not have plain text logs; especially considering that binary logs require special tools to read and filter.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Too funny
by Soulbender on Mon 13th May 2013 02:27 in reply to "RE: Too funny"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The logging is far superior to anything we've had before, the very fact that it is binary ensures more security.


Oh yeah, security through obscurity. That ALWAYS works out great. syslog can already log to a remote host and for your other log files you should already be using something like logstash or graylog2 if security and manageability is a concern.


Imagine, a single tool to initialize everything on the system, not one for bringing up the system, another for timed events, another for scheduling events, another for dealing with events on demand, another for acting on new hardware, all logs and tracked in a uniformed way, all managed in a uniform way.


See, this is what I *don't* like about systemd; it does too much. We already have cron and at for scheduling, we have udev for hotplugging and there are already many good solutions for managing logging. SystemD should stay the hell out of these areas and focus on the one area that does need solving: service management.

Personally I much prefer the Upstart approach of focusing on a small set of problems that need solving.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Too funny
by Alfman on Mon 13th May 2013 03:05 in reply to "RE: Too funny"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Lunitik,

Personally I've always found sysV init scripts clumsy and I'm kind of glad they're being phased out. They lack any sort of automatic dependency analysis, there's no restart monitor for dead processes (like init+inittab), init scripts cannot be scheduled and cron jobs are inflexible, etc.

So I think we're in agreement here, but I also agree with the author that systemd is a bit of an octopus. I don't think it's a bad thing though, I think it's good to have consolidation around system task management and it makes sense to consolidate all the components under a unified system like systemd.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Too funny
by Darkmage on Thu 16th May 2013 01:43 in reply to "RE: Too funny"
Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

Debian has support for it to, you just have to tick a box and it installs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Too funny
by Soulbender on Mon 13th May 2013 02:19 in reply to "Too funny"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

As much as I dislike many aspects of systemd it is still an immense improvement of the retarded abomination that is SysV init.
PID files? Yeah, sure. You could use an incredibly inaccurate and error-prone way of tracking the process OR you could just do it right from the start and run it in the foreground managed by a supervising process.
~5 billion symlinks with magic names in /etc in order to control what service starts when? Oh yeah, great idea. *Much* easier to manage than just a config file....
Also, runlevels needs to die. It's a concept that is pointless in te majority of the use cases. In the general cause you either just need to boot normally or in rescue mode. Anything else is a corner case.

Reply Parent Score: 4