KatolaZ,


[T.J. ] What I said was: " It should be important to note that a segfault
can be caused by any number of things, that can be unrelated to systemd
itself. I do grant you that systemd has its share of undesirables, but it
could be exposing a flaw in the lower libraries as well. A lot of the
time, the glibc library is also to blame. If there was ever any piece of
software on Linux that needs a serious overhaul, beyond X11, it is the libc
and GCC suite. "

I said that systemd COULD be (not IS) be exposing a flaw in lower libraries
(which is not unreasonable to say, given that it DOES happen).

I said that a lot of the time the glibc library is ALSO to blame - as in
"addition to" when certain problems arise.  I agree with you that I
definitely should have qualified that better.  Defaults are not necessarily
caused by glibc itself, but glibc DOES have certain quirks. It is not
perfect and sometimes does not follow conformant behavior.  One example
would be realloc violates C99.  I don't know if it still does, you will have
to look for yourself.  Software that is compiled against one libc is not the
same as compiled against another.    Glibc has a history of shortcomings,
just as much as its successes.  That does not make it a bad piece of
software, but it is hardly flawless.  

That is has been forked or replaced multiple times in its history says
something about it.


> So please, do not blame glibc for faults that are not its own. On the
other
>
> If you can prove that glibc/gcc is causing the segfaults of systemd then
please
> provide links to those *facts*, otherwise what you are saying is just
> unsopported FUD.

I agree that it is good that you desire accuracy, but you could ask for it
without saying I am chanting "unsupported FUD".

Laters
T.J.