Profile

Cover photo
Anders Darander
59 followers|15,249 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
 
A clear must have...
 
Nerd shirt. In contention for the nerdiest, or at least the most nerdy obscure, shirt I own.
View original post
2
Add a comment...

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
please, donate to help the +GNOME Foundation defend its trademark against corporate bullshit.

the fact that Groupon is not backing down after infringing the +GNOME trademark so blatantly is mindboggling.
"GNOME" the trademark has been a familiar name for the past 17 years in the Free and Open Source Software community. The GNOME project has been a staple desktop for GNU/Linux and BSD desktops. It was the default desktop for Sun Microsystems workstation class machines, continues to be the default ...
1
Add a comment...

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
 
Maybe this will make SELinux easier to understand...
 
I'm heading out to buy some crayons!
Dan Walsh had a great idea for explaining SELinux policy concepts in a fun way - creating an SELinux coloring book! He wrote up a script, I illustrated it using my Wacom in Inkscape on Fedora, and ...
1
Add a comment...

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
 
 

Makeshift guide to fuse replacement 0.o 
1
Add a comment...

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
 
The Gordon & MacPhail tasting at WhiskyExpo. 
2
Philip Balister's profile photoAnders Darander's profile photo
2 comments
 
Well, it was a few years since I last attended the whiskyexpo. But yeah, or read quite a few good whiskeys, both during the tasting and also on the general expo floor. The leftmost on the picture is 49 years old... 
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
59 people
manu c's profile photo
Jeffrey Osier-Mixon's profile photo
Titanium Track's profile photo
Jason Ziegler's profile photo
Erik Josefsson's profile photo
Brian Ropers-Huilman's profile photo
Logic Supply's profile photo
Boris Houndleroy's profile photo
Toradex's profile photo

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
 
As the article is written, it seems to be a clear GPL violation by Vmware... Let's see what the outcome will be.
https://lwn.net/Articles/635290/rss
1
Add a comment...

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
1
Philip Balister's profile photo
 
Google Porn is a thing now, awesome!
Add a comment...

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
 
Absolutely no blame on FreeElectrons.

+The Linux Foundation otoh...
 
Apparently, the Linux Foundation has not realized we're in 2014, and that video recording talks is now an expected thing for all technical conferences, just like having coffee or water during the breaks.

So, for those who are not able to come to the next Embedded Linux Conference, but were counting on videos to be posted online, here's the news: there won't be videos of this year's ELC conference.

As some of the people might know, +Free Electrons was, for a number of years, video recording ELC and ELCE conferences and putting the videos online for free. Since last year, we stopped doing that, because the Linux Foundation progressively took over this effort. At the last ELC, the Linux Foundation was recording two rooms, and we were recording two. At the last ELCE, we didn't record anything, and everything was put online by the Linux Foundation.

So, for the upcoming ELC next week, we were obviously assuming that they would record the talks: they did it at the last ELCE, and they didn't contact us about this.

Except that +Tim Bird contacted us.... yesterday, with the news that the Linux Foundation will not be doing any video recording effort at this year's ELC. Unfortunately with a 5 days notice before our departure for the US, it's way too late for us to organize all the hardware and logistics needed to video record ELC (especially as one of our camcorder got stolen during the last ELC...).

Why isn't the Linux Foundation interested in video recording talks? Do they fear that it could reduce the number of paying attendees to their conferences? Is there some other unknown reason? Or just lack of time? It isn't clear at all, but it is frustrating, for everybody: for attendees to the conference, because they will not be able to watch the videos of the talks they couldn't attend, for the speakers, because the impact of their talk is greatly reduced as it becomes completely limited to the audience in the room during the talk itself, and for the entire community, which looses a precious amount of useful embedded Linux content.

If you were interested by those videos, I would like to encourage you to speak up, and mail the Linux Foundation at events@linuxfoundation.org.

+C. Craig Ross 
1
Add a comment...

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Meet Chargestorm at S.E.E fair in Kista, Stockholm this week.
1
Add a comment...

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
1
Add a comment...

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
 
A nice summary on why we dislike some CLA's.
 
How the Canonical CLA is very different to the majority of other CLAs, and why this influences community acceptance of it
Contributor License Agreements ("CLAs") are a mechanism for an upstream software developer to insist that contributors grant the upstream developer some additional set of rights. These range in extent - some CLAs require that the contributor reassign their copyright over the contribution to the ...
1
Add a comment...

Anders Darander

Shared publicly  - 
 
A sane list of a few things that seems to not have been addressed in the discussions.

Let's hope that the vote goes in favour of systemd. #systemd  
 
So it appears that the Debian ctte discussions are now stuck at a 4:4 stalemate between systemd and Upstart.

What I find interesting about this, is that during the discussions some of the most fundamental questions were never asked: do the three contenders actually do what one would expect from a modern system that brings up the system and manages services? Are they substantially better than what sysvinit provided?

When looking at the boot process of modern computers, there are some bits that are certainly more important than others. One of the most important ones is getting the logic right how file systems are set up: the system needs to wait until all block devices from /etc/fstab have shown up, have been fsck'ed and have been mounted. Only after this has been done for all file systems listed boot may proceed.

On sysvinit this crucial part of the boot process was very poorly implemented: there was simply no scheme in place to wait for the devices from /etc/fstab to show up. Instead, through a mix of sleeping + "udev settle" + scsi_wait_scan the system would wait for a point in in time where "all" devices have shown up, then it would fsck them all, and then it would mount them all. This scheme worked fine on 90's hardware, since all hard disks were local and storage systems simple: it would be unlikely that devices would not have been found and probed within that magic sleeping interval. However, this is really not how modern computers work. Nowadays pretty much all hardware is hotplug capable, and for most hardware there is no time guarantee whithin which all connected devices have to have shown up (and this can get quite bad, for example on USB or iSCSI, or RAID stuff). Thus, any scheme that doesn't take into account which the devices are that need to be waited for, is simply unreliable and slow (since one doesn't know how long to wait, one has to wait for longer than really necessary). Reliability is crucial for server setups, and boot times for client machines. sysvinit is good at neither.

Now, when we look at the three contenders, we notice that one of them brings exactly nothing to the table here that is any better than sysvinit here: OpenRC does not understand /etc/fstab, it has no facility to wait for the devices listed in them, fsck them, mount them.

Upstart is much better here: it contains a binary called "mountall" that will wait for the devices in /etc/fstab to show up, will fsck them and mount them. So on the first peek everything is fine, it should be sufficient to just call this at boot and all is good, right? Well, in a way that's true, however I think the existance of this tool exemplifies, illustrates like little else how insufficient and broken the basic Upstart design actually is: even though Upstart is "event-based" and all, the most crucial, relevant part of the boot process it cannot cover: the waiting/fscking/mounting takes place completely outside of Upstart's rules engine.  The Upstart developers resorted to a completely external state machine for the most important part because they coudln't map it to Upstart's design. But what good is the design if it cannot even cover this central part of the boot process?

(I figure I don't have to mention this: systemd OTOH will parse /etc/fstab, and integrates its contents neatly into the dependency tree as little more than just another source of configuration.)

The existance of mountall on Upstart, and the non-integration of /etc/fstab into the Upstart rule set, results in a lot of additional shortcomings: mountall is a one-time thing for the boot process, all context of file systems, devices and mounts is lost, after it ran, and the file system state is henceforth assumed static. Which of course is not how systems work these days...

This design flaw is one of the things we noticed when we looked into Upstart in detail before we decided to start systemd. 4 years later, nothing has changed, the Upstart design still cannot cover this...

And there are more low-level questions like this one should ask, that should appear as absolute baseline what to expect from an init system. For example:

a) Does the init system support auto-respawning of services on failure/coredump/..?

b) Does the init system record exit status/signals/coredumps of services for later retrieval by the admin?

c) Does the init system record stdout/stderr of all system services for later retrieval by the admin?

d) Does the init system support timing out all service operations such as start or stop?

e) Does the init system support rate-limiting all service operations such as start/.. ?

f) Does the init system support basic resource management operations for services, for example, limiting CPU usage, memory usag, IO usage of a service, and so on?

And so on... Of course, systemd will cover all of the above fine, since we wrote it specifically with an enterprise usecase in mind, which needs to cover all of this. Note that the the points raised above are hardly something of the fancier features of systemd, they are really just the absolute baseline a service manager should cover. OpenRC falls short on most of these, Upstart faires considerably better, but it certainly doesn't cover it all...
1
Add a comment...
People
Have them in circles
59 people
manu c's profile photo
Jeffrey Osier-Mixon's profile photo
Titanium Track's profile photo
Jason Ziegler's profile photo
Erik Josefsson's profile photo
Brian Ropers-Huilman's profile photo
Logic Supply's profile photo
Boris Houndleroy's profile photo
Toradex's profile photo
Links
Other profiles
Contributor to
Work
Occupation
Embedded Linux Engineer and & SW Development Engineer