On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:31:47PM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> 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 still don't get the relationship between segfaults in systemd and
quirks in glibc, so I am sorry but your statement remains unclear and
unsubstantiated, IMHO. Anyway, the fact that systemd depends on mamy
more libraries than sysv-init is exactly why we don't want systemd as
PID 1, controlling everything from mounting of devices to networking
to logging. It is just a single point of fault with too many potential
(and actual) reasons that can cause it to fail.

If something goes wrong somewhere and X11 segfaults (which I think
does not happen more than once in a few decades, at least with the
stable version of Xorg), then we might complain and make a fuss, but
in the end is not that big deal. Having systemd as PID 1 segfaulting
is a completely different story, and blaming other libraries does not
help systemd acquiring more credibility. PID1 *cannot* segfault, or we
are just back to the dark days of BSODs. Fullstop.

My2Cents

KatolaZ

--
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]