Anyway, I haven't had to google about a pulseaudio problem in at least a few years. I've been using Linux as my primary desktop OS since 1995. I've hated Linux audio for most of that time, and I've broken it in every possible way. But, today, my Fedora system has sound that Just Works. I don't know how it Just Works (though I know it's pulseaudio), because I haven't had to learn...because it Just Works. It works for Steam games, it works for browser audio, it works for system notifications, it works for movies, it even works for audio and music software. It's pretty weird.
Anyway, from what I can tell, the bugs, misfeatures, poorly thought out implementation, etc. all got worked out somewhere along the way. It took a long time. But, it did get fixed.
Have you actually used it in the past couple of years?
Just two more random examples:
RPi 3, audio would hang randomly when opening a new process using audio from another using audio. The solution would be to either play an audio sample from the command line to unclog the audio system, or uninstall PulseAudio.
Ubuntu 16.04. Rewinding the video while using mplayer could cause the audio to play at a faster rate. Again uninstalling PulseAudio would solve the problem.
I often feared PA, and something in ALSA (I almost know zero about linux audio stack) made it a zero effort / 99% working thing that matched what I want for audio, that is a no sweat thing that just push sound. I can live without multi room networked audio, but having local audio crash randomly is too much a PITA. Feels like having lisp macros on top of VBA.
That said I wish we could find a better solution. Something between ALSA and PA. Also PA demands quality driver, IIRC Lennard told he cannot get blamed for that, it's a bit like GPUs in a way; and I wish we'd have open hardware audio chip that were simple and not lying.
That said a default fallback would be so good. I can't stop thinking that LP writes things for his own world and leave it there when he's "satisfied" with it; even if it means shit for the rest. Which means the issue is that he shouldn't be in charge of socially impactful components.
Unless you have examples of solid patches fixing these kind of problems that he rejected, this is a significantly unfair statement.
At least that’s what’s been apparent to me from the things that I’ve read by him and about him.
And I'm not sure it's really ego.. I'd rate him at about 0.07geohots.
Exactly. Does it support redirecting audio streams to another machine on the same network? That's a vital feature in our hackspace, where everyone can send audio to the room speakers via PA, and it's also used extensively in my living room (where the speakers are connected to the home server).
I've read a pulseaudio guru post explaining that when you know what you are doing you can work out a pulseaudio config that reduce pulseaudio latency issues, real time resampling, drop outs and high cpu usage. Just don't use the default config.
This is a common issue. It happens on Windows and Mac, as well. Am I to understand you don't experience it with some other way of handling sound (e.g. not using PulseAudio)? Are all of them being driven by the same program?
I DJ, and have used multiple independent interfaces in the past; there were frequently pops and warbles as the various timing crystals in the various interfaces fell out of sync and were forced back into sync by the software. It happened on both Windows and Linux (though it was slightly less pronounced on Linux, and I never figured out why). JACK might be the best way to deal with that problem on Linux, though I never tried it (I just switched to a dedicated DJ controller with multiple outs and headphone output).
But, it's a common enough problem that most DJ software has something about the problem in their FAQ.
Works every single time. last time I did it was around March. (I still don't know how it creeps back into my computers.)
Last time pulse was creating problems for me I decided that since I was now writing an application that links to the sound system, let's stop linking to low level functions and use pulse abstractions that some people claim to be better.
Turns out that the pulse "abstractions" are basically verbatim copies of alsa. Just with some added badly documented options. Some with very descriptive names, other with cryptic ones, but whatever, no option seems to do exactly what its name implies. Besides, pulse abstracts away most of the flexibility of the sound hardware, so you can't use it, and well, every time I tried running something with it, I got an assertion failure on pulse code... Always with some completely non-descriptive description.
Also had issues with bluetooth, as you seem to have. I will permit the idea that this is possibly unrelated (bluez is garbage, yes), but bluetooth audio was working for me previously, and only broke when pulse entered the picture.
FWIW from an API perspective I still think OSS seems better than ALSA... Linux audio seems to be a repeated case of people confusing interface with implementation, and the interface only ever gets more complex.
Of course you can still trivially disable the daemon and you lose software mixing & resampling, but things that work within these limits will run ok. But there really shouldn't ever be need to disable it, it just works.
The sndio api is pretty damn nice & simple too. https://man.openbsd.org/sio_open.3
Don't get me wrong. For years, ALSA was a pain. But in the last 10 years, ALSA has always "just worked" for me. I think the only time I had to fiddle with ALSA in the last decade was to get the mic on a headset to work.
I use Slackware, which tends to be more conservative about these things; the fact that PA is now the default in Slackware is a good indicator of PA having overcome its growing pains.
Additionally, I somewhat doubt BlueZ would've made PA such a hard dependency if they weren't reasonably sure that it's stable enough for primetime.
Also people at work are allowed to use desktop linux at work as long as we don't bother IT.
(This with a serious company with even older more seriois roots.)
I think desktop linux is still on the rise.
However I've been using the MacOS sound system (not just the mixer) for many years through many devices (mics, external dacs, HDMI transports, DP etc) and it has always worked without any problems.
https://www.apple.com/media/us/osx/2012/docs/OSX_for_UNIX_Us...
We are using it for develoment but it's considerably more work to setup the develoment environment than installing a Linux distribution with everything we need available by default or a command away. Also in El Capitan the root user is disabled by default.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2988096/mac-os-x/sorry-unix...
Linux != Unix. Darwin is much closer to BSD.
> Also in El Capitan the root user is disabled by default.
Lies. I never touched a thing and (on 10.13 ß):
$ sudo su -l
password:
Galileo:~ root# ps -u root | wc -l
115
- SEP prevents you (or any random script/software/installer you run) from meddling with system files and that is a good thing too, no different from sensible SELinux or AppArmor policies.
That said, macOS is just as Unix-like as it's ever been. As lloeki said, it's actually closer to BSD than Linux, which may explain some of your gripes.
As for the root user, it's been disabled by default since Mac OS X first came out. Being able to log in as root is considered a security risk, and there's no need for it. If you want root access, use sudo.
How are you managing different package versions on Linux – PPAs to avoid conflicts with the system Perl, Apache, etc,
https://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2017/06/20/fedora-workstation...
There really is a changing of the guard in Linux userspace, and the change is for the worse.
Now if only the same could be said for bluez...
- a while ago pa got audio routing wrong on a new/obscure laptop, wrong audio routing as in - speakers would not turn off if you plug in headphones. That eventually got fixed with dnf upgrade and no effort on my part;
- on ultrabook, pa sucks noticeable amount of battery by waking up 100 times a second (while no audio is being played). Something akin to what this poor chap is describing:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/6d7776/pulseaudio_b...
The only bug that's affected me in the last couple of years was that the default volume on USB headsets was always set way too low. Pavucontrol helped sort it out
Something to do with opening the card in different profiles I think.
You might be able to modify your descendants' environment, but the rules under which that can happen are maintained and enforced by the kernel. It seems to me that if user space programs can do undesirable things, that's the fault of the kernel itself. To be sure, setting those boundaries and rules is one of the kernel's main jobs.
$ nohup ./long_running_process &
$ logout
You could interpret this as "breaking user-space", as it's contrary to long-running practice and user-expectations.
Or you could say that systemd is superior as it's reliably cleaning up unwanted lingering processes which may have bothered some before. And this is worth the hassle of explicitly running intended background processes via systemd-run(1), or adding code to e.g. tmux/screen doing the equivalent via the dbus-api.
The whole purpose of nohup is to get your process to ignore your session ending. Why on earth systemd would up and decide that you didn't do that on purpose is beyond me.
When people say they hate systemd, it's precisely this kind of thing that we're talking about.
Systemd does give us extremely quick boot times, though! Too bad I generally don't reboot my Linux systems more than once a month.
On the other hand, error handling is pretty awful, especially during shutdown: Every now and then systemd would decide to give that one unresponsive sshd process a generous couple of minutes to shut down. Or will wait for a random filesystem to unmount itself for another 90 seconds. Sometimes outgoing systemd will lock up completely, until you do the magic ritual of pressing ctrl+alt+del 7 times within 2 seconds all while spinning around on your toes trice counter-clockwise and barking - to force "immediate" restart. Better yet - on special occasions this ritual devolves into farce: _after_ hammering ctrl+alt+del at machine gun rate it will print "rebooting now" and... lock up again. Until you hammer ctrl+alt+del again - only to see another empty "rebooting now" promise. SysRq would - of course - have no problem at all remounting filesystems ro and rebooting from this sad limbo.
* https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825394#221
You need to look at some of the history here. Over the course of the past six years, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek has twice cycled around the same loop, once in 2011 and once in 2016. Xe goes to the developers of tmux, tells them that tmux needs to change to be systemd specific, and the developers of tmux ask why systemd cannot provide the same semantics for interactive login sessions that have been employed for the past 38 years, with HUP for session hangup and TERM/KILL at system shutdown; or why at the very least xe does not talk to the C library people. Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek goes away, and then comes back about 5 years later with the exact same thing, unchanged.
Unfortunately, buying into that Fedora wiki page is as unwise as buying into the rather erroneous Freedesktop explanation of how version 2 cgroups work. You will note that the wiki page dates from around the same time as Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek's last cycle around the loop, which hit the headlines last year.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797075
I couldn't find any mention of it in Zbigniew's blog.
Occasionally when I would do so, people would get confrontational about it, so I mostly stopped. But now that means I sometimes waste time trying to find someone's gender even though that's totally irrelevant, and/or try to work around needing a pronoun at all, and/or use "they" even though I don't like it. None of these solutions is great.
(Btw, I don't parse you as confrontational. Comments like yours wouldn't have bothered me.)
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11785977
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14665518
Systemd is not about building refinements on unix, it is about turning Linux into something like OSX or Android. a OS that use unix semantics only for bootstrapping convenience.
Effectively they are turning the Linux kernel into a convenient source of drivers, but beyond that could not care one bit about unix.
I really wish i could find the interview again where it mentions that Poettering in the past have advocated throwing away the chapters on unix programming from one of the seminal works on programming unix and Linux.
It is not a secret that kernel devs have a love-hate relationship with systemd, and have for years. That's why Linus said, "You all presumably know why." He was speaking with context that everyone on the LKML already knows.
First result when I google it (but it's been a thing for a long time and on many fronts with many interesting bugs and arguments): http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY1MzA
I don't really subscribe to the "systemd is terrible and is the worst thing that ever happened to Linux" theory, and I'm not trying to be one of those folks that takes every opportunity to make a thread about how much systemd sucks. I like systemd. I mean it when I say that. But, in this case, it seems obvious it is about systemd. I have a hard time coming up with another plausible theory.
Edit: Also, now that I'm thinking about Linus and Poettering butting heads...well, that's hilarious. A couple of brilliant assholes arguing is funny to me. I dunno how much it's actually happened (and how much happened through proxies), but still. Funny.
Systemd and the whole controversy around it is anything but funny. It's upsetting and it already divided the community.
Can't. Fucking. Wait. Seriously, that day cannot come soon enough. systemd might have some useful ideas, but their implementation is crap, and the overall intrusion on how to get stuff done is significant.
systemd has some great stuff in it. I have my nits to pick with it but, on the whole, it's better than what we had before. And, don't we all just want things to be a little better every day?
I think it's all gonna work out fine in the end (and if not, we'll all be dead someday, anyway).
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KillUserProcesses_by_...
Their reasoning is pretty good, IMHO. It provides more control at low cost, and it's a one-line configuration change if you want the old behavior. But, everything I need it for (pretty much just screen and tmux) will already be aware and will handle setting up the new systemd unit automatically.
Not only that, but there was an existing mechanism for this. On a disconnect, SIGHUP would be sent to all processes. A background process can explicitly ignore SIGHUP in order to remain running on disconnect. I would be fine if systemd were sending SIGHUP to processes, because that would fit with the existing method of opting out. Sending SIGKILL, and having to use systemd's API to opt out of being killed is ridiculous.
This adds more complexity for no added benefit. My standard .bashrc now needs to have a line checking whether KillUserProcesses is enabled, so that I can bug the admin to disable that idiocy if it is.
The problem with SIGHUP is that a background process can't explicitly ignore SIGHUP, it can only implicitly ignore it. If you send SIGHUP to a process and it doesn't exit you have no idea if it didn't exit because it wants to hang around or if it didn't exit because the process is hung.
Part of the motivation for fixing that is to eliminate things like gnome-keyring-daemon hanging around after the user logs out.
Since gnome is the one that requires behavior and integration with systemd beyond what can be done with signals, a reasonable workaround would be to have the extra logic in systemd apply only to gnome. As it is, they are changing to a default that is entirely unreasonable outside of a desktop environment, and requiring others to work with the new system.
As for the Gnome project though, that's just an example. I'm talking about cases where the application should terminate upon receipt of SIGHUP but doesn't. That default isn't changing, the method to avoid the default action is. Back when SIGHUP was created all software that wanted to ignore it needed to make a handler to avoid the new default behavior. If you want to be able to kill misbehaving processes that were supposed to terminate on SIGHUP then the design needs to change. There's no way to fix this without making some breaking change.
As to requiring others to work with it, your distribution is the one that's making you do that. systemd upstream has had killuserprocesses for a while now. It's just a configure option when building systemd. It's not like your distro is having someone else build packages for them, setting appropriate config options is entirely on them. Some distros are building systemd with that on by default, and some aren't.
I'm fine with having KillUserProcesses exist as a concept. There are some odd machines, like public terminals, where you would want to forbid any long-lived processes. I'm not okay with it being the default option. Yes, the distributions can change their default, but systemd's default in an endorsement that shouldn't be there.
The only things that will ever create a new scope are things like tmux, screen, and maybe some variant of nohup.
Here's the kinds of problems that misbehaving processes actually cause.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94508#c10
And yes, KillUserProcesses reliably fixes crap like "hp-systray" from hanging your whole session in a way that isn't obvious to the user. If there's a deadlock when trying to log out, somethings gotta give otherwise your session will just persist forever.
False. People ran such softwares via the nohup command. No program modifications were needed. They still aren't.
A behavior that is even default Alsa these days if it detect that you use sound hardware without mixing.
The one "issue" that PA "fixed" was that of temporary audio devices (bluetooth, USB). But then i find the whole notion of USB headphones (a pair of headphones soldered to a minimal USB sound card) a massive abomination. and i fail to see why paired Bluetooth audio devices are exposed directly into the /dev tree rather than behind the Bluetooth dongle device.
Define brilliant. One changed the computing landscape by starting (and running for decades) the biggest opensource copyleft project in the history of mankind; the other is a bog-standard corporate engineer who simply leverages his parent company status to piss off most people and get away with it. Placing them on the same level is an insult to Linus, who might occasionally be an asshole but is still the most effective leader the opensource community has ever seen.
He will gladly chastise himself for errors etc, and is quite humble in public.
Poettering on the other hand have a history of hubris and assholeness.
Consider for example that he not only heckled a presenter at a conference. But when the presenter bowed out early he climbed the stage, beer bottle in hand, to grab the microphone.
It would not surprise me of Poettering have never met hardship during his school years (apparently the signing scheme used in journald was based on his brother's doctoral thesis no less) until he hit the net with his projects, and simply do not know how the handle negative feedback.
EDIT/NOTE: I don't have opinions on either Linus or Lennart. I use both of their software daily.
Never mind that they have faced off (sort of) on camera at least once, with Poettering basically missing the point again and again that not just Torvalds but also other long term kernel devs on the stage was raising.
What did you mean by this? It seems like a complete nonsense statement in the context of user space breakage of the form the kernel is responsible for.
The main clash between the kernel maintainers and the systemd maintainers was over systemd reading the kernel argv in an error prone way to trigger debug information. Other than that the interactions seem completely minimal. Linus Torvalds uses systemd at work and at home.
Does it? systemd is the init, the service manager, the interface to D-bus (and kernel devs had a bit of a tussle with the systemd devs about kdbus), the logging interface of most services (possibly including kernel logs), etc. systemd interacts with both the kernel directly (as the system init, as one interface to cgroups and namespaces, etc.) and with users (as everything else it does). I like it, but I understand the Borg accusations.
"The main clash between the kernel maintainers and the systemd maintainers was over systemd reading the kernel argv in an error prone way to trigger debug information."
Searching the LKML for systemd seems to indicate otherwise. It seems like there have been a few scuffles over the years. I don't subscribe to the LKML or read it religiously and haven't for many years, so I'm mostly guessing based on context, but the context seems clear to me.
Again, I ask, if not systemd, then which init is Linus talking about?
The issue isn't him not knowing what systemd is, or not knowing that that is the init system Linus is talking about. He is aware of both.
His issue is with your claim that systemd has broken userspace. You haven't seemed to provide any evidence of this being the case.
But, I'm happy to take the "broke userspace" assertion back if you don't like the term. Let's just say systemd has had a lot of bugs, sometimes stupid ones, and sometimes stubbornly held on to despite kernel devs or other devs asking for changes. I would hope we're not arguing about whether systemd has had an exciting number of bugs and compatibility issues (I think we can all agree on that, even if we like systemd).
I inferred a bunch from my recollection of how the LKML has talked about systemd in the past. I assumed Linus was talking about systemd and that when he says he doesn't trust it, it was about systemd being sloppy and stubborn about compatibility and fixing bugs. I could be wrong about that.
systemd doesn't really have the power to completely break userspace in the manner Linus refers to, though it certainly has the power to break a system.
(One of my favorites was when a systemd update shut down dhclient but did not restart it, so once dhcp leases expired, servers lost connectivity. It was fun seeing several thousand machines go offline all at once. "Fun.")
If definitions are inconsistent in the minds of people participating in a conversation, it can muddy an issue and make people needlessly argue because they aren't communicating effectively about what they mean. It also makes it more difficult for a reader to understand the debate.
Specifically, in this discussion, when I said "breaks userspace," I and others were referring to the term of art as developed over the past 25 years, and I expected (this being HN) that others would also understand it as such and discuss accordingly. Instead, this thread has turned into a morass of misunderstanding and confusion, because still others believe the term means something else, and are arguing a tangential point as a result.
And the systemd opinion on breaking userspace[1] is that compatibility doesn't need to be maintained:
>> The kernel's policy is "don't break userspace" - isn't the init(1) equivalent "don't break the rest of userspace"?
> No it isn't. We need to break things where progress in the base OS is more worth than compatibility.
[0] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2011-Se...
[1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-Ja...
userspace was working, systemd got an update, userspace now not working.
runc has been broken many, many, many times by systemd.
I agree with your dislike of systemd, I disagree with the term you used.
By your argument, whenever any program used by anything else has a bug, that's breaking userspace -- which defeats the "userspace" qualifier if every breakage is breaking userspace.
Not that I was a huge fan of ALSA either. It always felt a bit over-engineered for my taste. I can understand needing something like that if you want to make professional audio equipment with the Linux kernel but for my desktop use case OSS has always worked just fine for me and it didn't randomly break after an update.
As for systemd, it's bearable and it mostly does what it's supposed to do, but it still feels a bit unnecessary and its security track record is not stellar so far. I prefer the simplicity of the BSD init personally.
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237
Its going to end up exactly like glibc under Drepper, where distributions are forced to have a mile of patches because obviously broken shit isn't patched because the maintainers are too arrogant to admit fault.
The problem isn't the format of the usernames, it's that they detected an error, then ignored that the error happened while doing the opposite of what the user wanted. Failing the unit with an error would have been fine. Alternatively, proceeding with the indicated setuid(2) while warning about an invalid username would is also a sane response.
As the owner for a critical service like systemd (I don't use it, I prefer openRC on gentoo), he should know better.
I don't like your name. Therefore you get root.
How on earth did this init system become so prevalent?
* http://jdebp.eu./FGA/debian-systemd-packaging-hoo-hah.html
The Arch process was rather different:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11834348
The Debian people did look at who develops the various systems, but they mainly just measured the developer count and what else was on each bandwagon. (See section 3.3 in Russ Allbery's evaluation, for example.) They didn't make any deeper evaluation extending to things such as the way that bugs got responded to in practice or what design steps people were taking to limit bugs.
Neither process was extensive enough to have spotted a User=0pointer gives superuser rights bug.
I didn't see Russ' evaluation, but I get the point.
systemd is a task manager (which happens to manage init along with everything else it can and often cannot). Referring to systemd as an init system is just muddying well-tread waters by people who are lazily misunderstanding the technical issues. The problem with usernames is that there is no standard so schemes are OS specific. It's not really a systemd problem at the core. The systemd problem (because it almost always is badly implemented) is that it uses it's own username validation scheme that defaults to permissive root when the systemd scheme is not matched for configured services. Running on top of heterogeneous environments, you get inconsistent behavior (even when you comply with the OS). This would be like apache spawning handler threads as root if it doesn't like the username it's configured to run as, regardless if the username is valid under OSX and invalid under Fedora. Too bad, username schemes are now dictated by systemd, is Poettering's position.
Yes there is: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237#issuecomment-...
In regard to usernames, I can definitely forgive Poettering's initial failure in design to confusion. His assertion that he is following "the standard" fails on both a practical and logical level.
> systemd is not the one coming up with the restrictions on user names, and while some distributions are less restrictive, many do enforce the same restrictions as we do. In order to make systemd unit files portable between systems we'll hence enforce something that resembles more the universally accepted set, rather than accept the most liberal set possible.
These are pretty clear "refuse to fix". Though I do agree that this is a poor example to illustrate the point.
Poettering seems to take the advice of "release early and often" to heart and pushes things into widespread usage long before they're quite fully baked. PulseAudio was awful for years, and then it was good and we all stopped complaining about it. systemd was kinda crap for months after it became widespread...a ton of breakage, including in ways that were occasionally dangerous. We're lucky, I guess, that systemd didn't take as long as PulseAudio to stop sucking all the time (systemd still sucks some of the time, but what it replaced sucked a lot, too).
So, yeah, you can't break userspace if you want Linus on your team, and systemd has broken userspace now and then.