top | item 9810797

(no title)

nextw33k | 10 years ago

Sounds like Mr Poettering hasn't read the vendors page and has just gotten stuck on the word vendor:

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/437#issuecomment-1...

"Open Source projects are of course particularly welcome to use the pool in their default setup, but we ask that you get a vendor zone when using the pool as a default configuration."

http://www.pool.ntp.org/en/vendors.html

discuss

nihsyndrome2|10 years ago

How on earth did the modern linux distro become so dependant on software from this guy, when he clearly has no real world idea of things. No wonder people are jumping ship to the various BSDs!

anonbanker|10 years ago

Here's Linus defending him on /. [1]

Linus: You can say the word "systemd", It's not a four-letter word. Seven letters. Count them.

I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area.

Yeah, it may have a few odd corners here and there, and I'm sure you'll find things to despise. That happens in every project. I'm not a huge fan of the binary logging, for example. But that's just an example. I much prefer systemd's infrastructure for starting services over traditional init, and I think that's a much bigger design decision.

Yeah, I've had some personality issues with some of the maintainers, but that's about how you handle bug reports and accept blame (or not) for when things go wrong. If people thought that meant that I dislike systemd, I will have to disappoint you guys.

1. http://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/06/30/0058243/interviews-...

wyldfire|10 years ago

Perhaps it's generational? Maybe Mr. Poettering is a talented individual who lacks some specific experiences/history which requires re-learning some lessons from developing linux?

jgeorge|10 years ago

I sometimes lie awake at night asking myself that very same question.

johnny22|10 years ago

you're certainly implying that lots of people do that, but really it's only a small vocal minority.

stefantalpalaru|10 years ago

He has Red Hat's support. Anyway, no need to jump ship to the BSD clones. Just use Gentoo - OpenRC is a great init system: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/OpenRC

Merovius|10 years ago

Then, I guess, the main Maintainer of pool.ntp.org, who explicitely stated¹ that he agrees with Lennart Poetterings reasoning also hasn't read that?

It is a really poor signal how much crap gets flung at the systemd people for this bugreport that is a) not even a day old b) entirely inconsequential for anyone but the systemd devs and maybe Google c) is apparently completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented

[¹] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/437#issuecomment-1...

AdieuToLogic|10 years ago

Speaking of misrepresenting...

In the response you link, "abh" agreed about a specific point in "Poettering's reasoning":

  Lennarts reasons for not using
  *.systemd.pool.ntp.org ("systemd isn't a
  distribution") makes sense to me.

This is very different than agreeing that hard-coding a set of NTP servers into the code base is the way to go. To this point, "abh" wrote:

  I'd suggest having no default NTP servers in
  the systemd code...

Which is what many others have requested as well. If this were an isolated decision, it would be a different thing. But it is not, as several others in this thread have provided supporting evidence[1].

1 - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761658

NelsonMinar|10 years ago

He's just being stubborn. The vendor registration requirement is really simple and entirely exists to give a way to control the situation of an NTP client goes crazy. I'm a little sympathetic to his argument that the distribution vendors like Red Hat should register instead. But if that's the goal then systemd needs to provide no default in the stock code and force the distributor to configure it.

rumdz|10 years ago

I find that clause from http://www.pool.ntp.org/en/vendors.html to be incredibly ambiguous.

From the Github comment you are referencing, dannyperson states, "When NTP Pool warns that pool.ntp.org should not be a default, this warning is directed to vendors, not open source projects." but the clause from http://www.pool.ntp.org/en/vendors.html IS talking about Open Source Projects. The heading is "Open source projects".

What is the difference between a default setup and a default configuration?

mandelbulb|10 years ago

It isn't ambiguous at all. If you're publishing something, whether it's open and free or commercial you're a vendor so you have to follow the policy ntp.org set-up for such entities.

That person on github is misunderstanding both Poettering and the ntp.org's policy.

MatejLach's elaborated on Poettering's point of view for that matter. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/437#issuecomment-1...

unknown|10 years ago

[deleted]

danbruc|10 years ago

In essence open source projects are vendors as far as ntp.org is concerned and you can use their service but have to obtain a vendor zone for that. The formulations are indeed not as clear as they could be but after reading the ntp.org page a couple of times there isn't really any other meaningful way to parse it.