[arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd
Hi, Another flame may start here, but I would like to present the following as a pure news, no opinions[1]. Of course, after reading all the discussions on the mailing lists, my feeling after reading the link? Mwuhahahaha. Important quotes from the link ( which I hope do not alter the context of the post): "Well, we intent to continue to make it possible to run udevd outside of systemd. But that's about it. We will not polish that, or add new features to that or anything. OTOH we do polish behaviour of udev when used *within* systemd however, and that's our primary focus. And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform integration into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for non-systemd systems. (Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop that support entirely.)" -- Cheers and Regards Jayesh Badwaik stop html mail | always bottom-post www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012- August/006066.html
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530 Jayesh Badwaik <jayesh.badwaik90@gmail.com> wrote:
(Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop that support entirely.)"
Lennart in topform again...:( Well if that's the official stance, then it seems pretty clear that udev is going to be gone some day. Too bad, we are either going to have to fork or look for an alternative to udev. Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we want to or not :( I suspect that this has been the game plan all the time though. OK, flames away I guess :) --- Joakim
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Joakim Hernberg <jbh@alchemy.lu> wrote:
Too bad, we are either going to have to fork or look for an alternative to udev.
When upstream udev fails to live up to some distributions (see, Ubuntu, for example) it *will* be forked. Hopefully, udev-systemd and udev-ng (or whatever it is called) will not get too different, so we have to learn how to write udev rules twice. I find it difficult enough as it is now. -- Rodrigo
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 +0200 Joakim Hernberg <jbh@alchemy.lu> wrote:
Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we want to or not :( I suspect that this has been the game plan all the time though. OK, flames away I guess :)
Nobody to blame when we do not listen BSD folks and have jumped into Linux's change-all-the-time game. Sincerely, Gour -- A person is said to be established in self-realization and is called a yogī [or mystic] when he is fully satisfied by virtue of acquired knowledge and realization. Such a person is situated in transcendence and is self-controlled. He sees everything — whether it be pebbles, stones or gold — as the same. http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
On 08/13/2012 07:50 AM, Gour wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 +0200 Joakim Hernberg <jbh@alchemy.lu> wrote:
Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we want to or not :( I suspect that this has been the game plan all the time though. OK, flames away I guess :) Nobody to blame when we do not listen BSD folks and have jumped into Linux's change-all-the-time game.
Sincerely, Gour
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD
I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports. Other than that, it's been a smooth transition. I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to fruition. Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of Arch that I hope do not dwindle.
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 13:13 -0600, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD
I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports. Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of Arch that I hope do not dwindle.
I suspect that BSD for artist that draw can be used, but for audio not. Am I mistaken? Regards, Ralf
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 02:37:54PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I suspect that BSD for artist that draw can be used, but for audio not. Am I mistaken?
I'm not sure I understand the question. There's a lot of audio software in FreeBSD. Whether any of it suits your purposes, I can not say. http://www.freebsd.org/ports/ Arch certainly has great stuff in this department. The AUR's full of decent packages. But I'm not really an "artist" interested in "audio" so I can't say how any of it compares.
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 02:05:10PM -0600, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 02:37:54PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I suspect that BSD for artist that draw can be used, but for audio not. Am I mistaken?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
There's a lot of audio software in FreeBSD. Whether any of it suits your purposes, I can not say.
Arch certainly has great stuff in this department. The AUR's full of decent packages. But I'm not really an "artist" interested in "audio" so I can't say how any of it compares.
Offtopic: Your system clock seems to be way off.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:20:29PM +0530, gt wrote:
Offtopic: Your system clock seems to be way off.
So it is! Thanks for the heads up.
On 08/09/2012 03:13 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports. Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of Arch that I hope do not dwindle.
I think Arch was good back in the day. Now not so good. I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using pacman for the package manager.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:12:30AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using pacman for the package manager.
Oooh! Link?
On 08/09/2012 04:02 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:12:30AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using pacman for the package manager. Oooh! Link?
I will have it posted on github when I am done. I have one small issue with transfering from the build tool chain to the chroot system under build then I can commit it to github. It has to do with the pacman db being stored in the build tool chain. I will fix that when I get the time (soon). Other than that it works! What I have now on githut is an older way, it works but is not so good for building updated version. I am looking to wrap it up after LFS-7.2 which is due out beginning of Sept. This year ;)
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 09:12:30 Baho Utot wrote:
I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.
This sounds a bit inflammatory and over-generalised. Presumably what you don't like about Arch now is the fact that it will potentially change its default init system sometime in the not-too-distant future? I'd be interested to hear if there's anything else that has made you switch.
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using pacman for the package manager.
I'm genuinely curious about this: if you're using pacman as the package manager, are you building your own packages and hosting your own package repository, or are you using the standard Arch repositories? If it's the latter, it sounds like you'd end up with an Arch system that happened to be bootstrapped using LFS... Paul
On 08/14/2012 09:25 AM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good. This sounds a bit inflammatory and over-generalised. Presumably what you don't
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 09:12:30 Baho Utot wrote: like about Arch now is the fact that it will potentially change its default init system sometime in the not-too-distant future? I'd be interested to hear if there's anything else that has made you switch.
I have not liked what arch has turned into for some time now, approx 2-3 years. It is not meant as "This sounds a bit inflammatory and over-generalised" arch just doesn't fit my needs now and I don't care for the direction...That's all. I starting switching well before this systemd the change started.
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using pacman for the package manager. I'm genuinely curious about this: if you're using pacman as the package manager, are you building your own packages and hosting your own package repository, or are you using the standard Arch repositories? If it's the latter, it sounds like you'd end up with an Arch system that happened to be bootstrapped using LFS...
Paul
I started by using arch PKGBUILDS but that did not give me what I needed or wanted, so.... I host my own repo on my own network. I build my own packages, creating my own PKGBUILDS using nothing from arch but based on LFS. I will not end up with an arch system boot strapped by LFS but a scratch built system base on my needs. It is very different from the file system directory structure up with sysvinit init system. The process that I used was to take LFS-6.8 and create a build system (scripts) that follow the book but using the pacman package manager. I will update this to LFS-7.2 after it becomes available in Sept. After words I will use BLFS to create a desktop system and serves packages.
We should all be getting tired of this now. Please read the multiple threads before posting things that have already been posted. Actually don't as we will never hear from you again ;-) Who said we are going to be forced to use systemd again. I believe the systemd design spec also said he hopes to remove all scripts, that hasn't and won't happen. There will always be alternatives, if arch is one we will find out. This trolling of forcing users has brought other wrong statements. Pulse and Gnome on the other hand has forced a problem on ralf and I hope the highly regarded kernel developer in charge of udev will help sort out systemd to linus way of thinking (break nothing unless you must and then IF it's optional that's ok) and not the other way around. I've found udev is not a requirement for linux at all, you don't even need devtmpfs. In fact devtree is gaining support for embedded devices. It's not about sysVinit vs systemd. I'm not a fan of sysvinit either but I don't mind it. It's about pid 1 being an init binary that does just one job well and assumes nothing allowing limitless customisation and applying to all systems including toasters and even ipv6 and cgroup (necessary evils according to linus) free devices and init should let you run systemd without problem? I still don't know why systemd is pid 1. I know it wants to use kmod early on to determine ordering for later but I don't see that as a reason to be pid 1. I guess to reduce the chances of something running that systemd has no idea about or systemd being started too late. Ralf, OpenBSD has a real nice sndio daemon with parts in kernel for great latency and certainly worth looking at however it does not support 24bit and the devs said they have no interest in spending the time on adding that and I don't fancy your chances in getting a sound card with a low noise dac working but could be very wrong as I've only had partial functionality on Linux before from an off the shelf product without paying a huge price. There will be a learning curve to move to BSD when upgrading packages though dependencies won't be as much of a problem on OpenBSD and I know you said you have a long to do list so I would wait and see and wouldn't base any decision on systemd but would look at sndio in any case. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=sndio&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=134376444701682&w=2 I can't help with freeBSD but it may well be useful as I refuse to waste time and energy on building just for local user systems and wasn't too impressed with PCBSD. Please CC me in any future audio discussions. Baho you may like how easy this init system is to follow. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=init&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 16:27 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Please CC me in any future audio discussions.
Flagged! Regards, ralf
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On 08/09/2012 03:13 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD
I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports. Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of Arch that I hope do not dwindle.
I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using pacman for the package manager.
Does that means you'll stop trolling this mailing list? I, for one, thank you for that! -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------
On 14 August 2012 09:52, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On 08/09/2012 03:13 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD
I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports. Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of Arch that I hope do not dwindle.
I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using pacman for the package manager.
Does that means you'll stop trolling this mailing list? I, for one, thank you for that!
-- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html
------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------
When did offering an opposing opinion to what ever is popular become tolling? what is this? /r/politics? I frankly have seen arguments both ways for systemd and initscripts, and the fact that many users do not want to switch is enough for me to say "ok then let's not switch". the GNU/Linux community seems to have this jump ship mentality which is really annoying.
On 08/14/2012 09:58 AM, Calvin Morrison wrote: [putolin]
When did offering an opposing opinion to what ever is popular become tolling? what is this? /r/politics? I frankly have seen arguments both ways for systemd and initscripts, and the fact that many users do not want to switch is enough for me to say "ok then let's not switch". the GNU/Linux community seems to have this jump ship mentality which is really annoying.
Thank you
Are you talking about the willingness of the Linux community in general to go through tough technical transitions for the sake of progress? If so, I'd say that's one of the big things that makes Linux so successful, and Windows so slow to improve. There are always the distros with LTS releases for those that can't risk breakage. -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote: On 08/14/2012 09:58 AM, Calvin Morrison wrote: [putolin]
When did offering an opposing opinion to what ever is popular become tolling? what is this? /r/politics? I frankly have seen arguments both ways for systemd and initscripts, and the fact that many users do not want to switch is enough for me to say "ok then let's not switch". the GNU/Linux community seems to have this jump ship mentality which is really annoying.
Thank you
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Paul Dann <pdgiddie@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you talking about the willingness of the Linux community in general to go through tough technical transitions for the sake of progress? If so, I'd say that's one of the big things that makes Linux so successful, and Windows so slow to improve. There are always the distros with LTS releases for those that can't risk breakage.
Agreed, and this is also one of the things arch embodies. It puzzles me
how users of a distro that is known for being "bleeding edge" and upstream friendly are so surprised that this is happening and so afraid of change...This is what arch linux is.
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 16:59 +0100, Paul Dann wrote:
Are you talking about the willingness of the Linux community in general to go through tough technical transitions for the sake of progress? If so, I'd say that's one of the big things that makes Linux so successful, and Windows so slow to improve. There are always the distros with LTS releases for those that can't risk breakage.
+1 I've got several Linux installed, but I only maintain Ubuntu Studio LTS (I'm not willing to maintain any Ubuntu Studio non-LTS) and Arch Linux, until now a very good rolling release, just a briefly look into my crystal ball does show an ugly future. Well, I'm an artist, I don't spend much time in polishing and dusting the crystal ball, hence my view might be a look into a opal glassed crystal ball. Regards, Ralf
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 August 2012 09:52, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On 08/09/2012 03:13 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD
I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports. Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of Arch that I hope do not dwindle.
I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using pacman for the package manager.
Does that means you'll stop trolling this mailing list? I, for one, thank you for that!
-- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html
------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------
When did offering an opposing opinion to what ever is popular become tolling? what is this? /r/politics?
I frankly have seen arguments both ways for systemd and initscripts, and the fact that many users do not want to switch is enough for me to say "ok then let's not switch".
the GNU/Linux community seems to have this jump ship mentality which is really annoying.
There are lots of levels of discussions. I don't remember him giving one only usefull and high level post. Just pure bashing and spitting his opinion, that is important for him, sure, but not necessarily for others. And I even thanked him for going in the direction he really wants. If all nay sayers did that, we could be a very healthier list. -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 11:12 -0300, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 August 2012 09:52, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On 08/09/2012 03:13 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD
I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports. Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of Arch that I hope do not dwindle.
I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using pacman for the package manager.
Does that means you'll stop trolling this mailing list? I, for one, thank you for that!
-- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html
------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------
When did offering an opposing opinion to what ever is popular become tolling? what is this? /r/politics?
I frankly have seen arguments both ways for systemd and initscripts, and the fact that many users do not want to switch is enough for me to say "ok then let's not switch".
the GNU/Linux community seems to have this jump ship mentality which is really annoying.
There are lots of levels of discussions. I don't remember him giving one only usefull and high level post. Just pure bashing and spitting his opinion, that is important for him, sure, but not necessarily for others. And I even thanked him for going in the direction he really wants. If all nay sayers did that, we could be a very healthier list.
That's the first really unsocial, aka flame, I read on this list :(. Note, even a personality disorder, a troll or what ever in your mind is bad, is part of the human community. "healthier list" to me sounds like "eugenics" and similar stupid and evil nonsense. Keep the list pure practice eugenics :(?! I hope I misunderstood your words so that my statement is overdone. Regards, Ralf
On Monday 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 Joakim Hernberg wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530
Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we want to or not :( I suspect that this has been the game plan all the time though. OK, flames away I guess :)
Wow, this sounds so much like a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the people who write the code inevitably dictate which software is maintained, based on their interests and convictions, and they're pretty much unanimous that systemd is a better solution to the problem of booting and maintaining daemons than the solution we currently have. So yeah, I guess that's been the game plan all along: make booting and daemon control more consistent, faster, and easier for most users to maintain. Paul
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain
USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year. Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal. "CheersRalf"
On 08/14/12 14:59, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain
USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"
Tell me what's hard about systemd? Ah well as soon as RHEL switches to systemd, more and more distro's will switch, so soon you might have to use it ;) (So better learn it now :p ) -- Jelle van der Waa
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:05:02PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
Tell me what's hard about systemd?
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard irrespectively of what you're switching to. That's my inference anyway.
On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard irrespectively of what you're switching to. Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it. -- Jelle van der Waa
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:28:17PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard irrespectively of what you're switching to. Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
I'm just trying to clarify his actual argument so you can address that rather than slaying the straw man. You have to admit that the dev work does forebode the potential to make it the default in the distro. Doesn't make it certain but I don't think the certainty is what scares people.
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
No, you'll never force me to do anything. As I said in this thread already, I'm not using arch on my workhorse. I'm not worried about it like some people are. I'm just trying to elevate the level of discourse here.
On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard irrespectively of what you're switching to. Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
-- Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote: portable and can be included in upstream packages. This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the event that that ever happened. Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be "forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use sysvinit...
On 08/14/2012 10:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote:
On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard irrespectively of what you're switching to. Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
-- Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be "forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use sysvinit...
I don't think you fully understand the issue. If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it is now.... Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well with udev and everyone else be damned. Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the highway...which indeed is the problem.
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 10:55 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
On 08/14/2012 10:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote:
On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard irrespectively of what you're switching to. Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
-- Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be "forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use sysvinit...
I don't think you fully understand the issue.
If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it is now.... Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well with udev and everyone else be damned.
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the highway...which indeed is the problem.
Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than about anything else. Why is it like that? There are many "things" we are in disagreement, but only Lennart's software at the moment cause nasty discussions.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 10:55 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
On 08/14/2012 10:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote:
On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard irrespectively of what you're switching to. Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
-- Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be "forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use sysvinit...
I don't think you fully understand the issue.
If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it is now.... Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well with udev and everyone else be damned.
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the highway...which indeed is the problem.
Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than about anything else.
Why is it like that?
There are many "things" we are in disagreement, but only Lennart's software at the moment cause nasty discussions.
The answer is very simple: he is doing something. Others are just perpetuating things just for the sake of it. Maybe everything is not the best solution always, but at least he is trying. Better than just talking. -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------
On 14 August 2012 16:05, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 10:55 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the highway...which indeed is the problem.
Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than about anything else.
Why is it like that?
Because the whole subject has been accumulating emotions for months. Check this year-old review by Juliusz Chroboczek [1] followed by Lennart's response [2] and bumped and summarised by (e.g. [3]) [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/453004/ [2] http://lwn.net/Articles/453016/ [3] http://lwn.net/Articles/452865/ Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:05:14PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than about anything else.
Why is it like that?
Probably because he has all the arrogance of DJB but none of the skill.
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:46 -0600, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:05:14PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than about anything else.
Why is it like that?
Probably because he has all the arrogance of DJB but none of the skill.
I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before. I suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein? If so, he seemingly isn't as half as arrogant as LP. Btw. my Arch Linux is absolutely stable, excepted of one change. I tested Network Manager, this software is not that good. However, IIUC switching back to netcfg which always was stable on my machine might cause issues, when not using systemd?! Sorry, I'm not an expert. Regards, Ralf
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 06:00:25PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before. I suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein?
Yes.
If so, he seemingly isn't as half as arrogant as LP.
Spend a week lurking a crypto mailing list and you may change your mind. :P
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/14/2012 09:04 AM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 06:00:25PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before. I suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein?
Yes.
If so, he seemingly isn't as half as arrogant as LP.
Spend a week lurking a crypto mailing list and you may change your mind. :P
I'd add that djb has started several projects that have been, I think, very, very good, but then dropped them. It is harder to justify using his stuff when development is largely limited to one man's attention span. - -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQKtbWAAoJELT202JKF+xpHTcP/2iP5dkAovLtx8fWgMRHqdqR NjZG42XaDduESQAfOz6fsVOWWLRtcg/gngA9H8yk0ec/J8SYaCssAtaF8I0ZYuM2 cyBjFZMmm1ImimFNb0nhGpj4/P3WILJSAzw7H+dWqixQrl7U0U0LaslefVpfdQCH 3dTpYhpcKlMOP4pLjrjXXEOXiHmJNGkYgTYW4eUIdoJ+TPQEHJ9BcZO4DGLd1fV6 PrTvXqmrHr0g+RgBu66fTG43bNjdytYr8ExssNJlkO4IDzInz+D5qSVJQpGYQ0hh WxLvGAUkHIt46T/tbscVgispfR7o//CqxhjTYVplazyQpnnC8sGsVBWATiXeFdA9 eWKJkHpzel8JPaAD0la52C2fOFKmqmVLHy46A/6U+K482E6lSW35w0a8neYj/J7y gBU7UUjz8UUaSzZhgyNtulJGfKdoOqTeOPgv91W2Un39xWbzxAI3SNDDK8DrLdb2 8kYKrNmiZNQsSau5boLm7qzXqmoBR5WeyFzfbNeAG21PjQUNLzu2rVVwrAbdz6+U hNwYQJR94891zFRr3D1MZi9qyHmmVrOyda5nLYLxAcGFSAfa7qkQ9xzykBpPOEgx sbNTGHsNWDht3JNPfeDTURnzK8M5Qzk+8gJK6chEKUtIcbHbb8uUMBn4jhsU6hOE LGykiXOi3eyU8LgExCX/ =mCtC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
I'd add that djb has started several projects that have been, I think, very, very good, but then dropped them. It is harder to justify using his stuff when development is largely limited to one man's attention span.
To be fair, he doesn't drop them in a half-baked state, he just considers them complete. I've been using daemontools and ucspi-tcp for years and they never failed me. They are not updated, but they aren't buggy either. There are more recent alternatives with more features; this site has a list of links: http://thedjbway.b0llix.net/friends.html Regards Jorge Almeida
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:53:10PM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
I'd add that djb has started several projects that have been, I think, very, very good, but then dropped them. It is harder to justify using his stuff when development is largely limited to one man's attention span.
I really don't understand the lust for novelty people have. If the solution is correct, there really isn't much need for additional work. Code changes are not the same as improvements.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/14/2012 06:44 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:53:10PM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
I'd add that djb has started several projects that have been, I think, very, very good, but then dropped them. It is harder to justify using his stuff when development is largely limited to one man's attention span.
I really don't understand the lust for novelty people have.
If the solution is correct, there really isn't much need for additional work.
Code changes are not the same as improvements.
Have you looked at qmail lately? - -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQKwbiAAoJELT202JKF+xptGAP/0kNhUQyfdBPwZEpZ85TJJXP bU2rGg8FoPftdeqneKFGBa0Brfeo/dK/2FWzsJZZ9jMJOMIQLoXF2p2XMD19bqOi ZOxnsrrORXe6X66QJscZ6fYAeSDTGIdYICBUqW9+bDaCy0Td8LlnZhKXdgL1bBV0 A1xJ4nrqml0aTSNNdTYXev4NrjYPoE9/W62N2q18oA0Ke1cKxeFnFkhWc3NUcCVO G1dHV11Bb1h1vTU4n35siamTNkENN6BAg63dpgCcw8jKGhTe90DnJXoIf6r9qrHC VM9XH9sN0tRTlEoRHZVcbGJWm0UpQKj/BTEwKpR2SOr/gVuX0AfpXRNJs1x5eMQY rmVyhbhjjIWGTCFjhJFmRHDqdMx+n6kmKNRxxXL0NzV1ls7axH5LPAkn7sZPFRPQ afff/wKxH8t4Zzce2fDB6wsa1Zz15qrbHbukfREC7Lf4N4Q1SRNRxd3/xAxVVv2X RTnWVZp94lhR+GXS5ek7MCpMmEK3strnIxJXBc1bjkxFES9qEUscQWnhcHdSLMtw m9nICky63F3YkyeZhQm0gyN5PdxkJkIH4b/69SVlmeK6ukd7wk9YRnbqsnlRwKLf ZJHQrOJZXpZIrEdfeLBtSgKhOTO7LCQMa0cm3+d9ouTJGbKfyQwQbyLUTBb+sEhE +tKw01TkbJHvJucc0675 =KTDP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Have you looked at qmail lately?
What do you mean. Qmail is one of the best mailers out there. You do need patches and in fact some huge patches bring it up to speed in one go? -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/15/2012 03:16 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Have you looked at qmail lately?
What do you mean. Qmail is one of the best mailers out there. You do need patches and in fact some huge patches bring it up to speed in one go?
A few years ago, I would emphatically have agreed with you. Now, getting those patches to provide services that are now taken for granted with MTAs to play nice with each other is a serious undertaking. If Dan (or someone else) was actually maintaining the project and producing a coherent source, I might still agree with you. ;-) - -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQK+p8AAoJELT202JKF+xpLmwP/1avch4kOwfWjGA8nPswKKws h9h9BK7Gpvimgd27pB0es1ytHcML3jrgW7kzswA9LUy27z2XzDNChM/dbGGV8THt UN0BEEbBmCVQ4XQyYArXMWKeeZN8vpzDY/MnHnvBH6Zu4zbEFuXIXHKnRNHYwX7i pSSAqP3VUgmDf7MwspM5cKkVKhVMSl68MpYKAijTvfaxJ/Afx6mzvnyrcVQKFVny dla7q01Y8UvvCmCv3b8KMo+xkF/gmH6WMAl4/3fyapQ1ataRLJ6JKZeBCFrrOb4O gbCYZw+Rbl2unt7B3Fyyc1KxcwdtPnxeybd9gW6Ncgt1vti9jtYJgBtWSCzAf2AD 48JWKqeIQKJo5io9SwJNSbm/tiM7uWKCoUu7mdSaZSkZSuxwXgsjO9WLJq1AVwh1 8i+uYGTLqepcS5YQkORX7xP1MEo96BL/uadYfXh0HBjMkjHru3fKQGNGAyyyJB00 KBVAymQpwgRk2LbbDYu39ifJX/QP5UylU5DtgJ2xVj6xK495Pip1DpfUMpPb1Dco nh+Fykebt/jHd0h0hbZ9X37oIsZ55Wb+rQ/FF0WFuqCiixOZ6Ci2QWhTKW9Ys1rJ 4xf8KYpB2ImAi8WKZpgXeqmPjYqNePrtwlkx4nWjBbMVIewDMyi7XIjVWPQEXDyE E+M9RQiKq6FXT5JkL2OG =n08p -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
A few years ago, I would emphatically have agreed with you. Now, getting those patches to provide services that are now taken for granted with MTAs to play nice with each other is a serious undertaking. If Dan (or someone else) was actually maintaining the project and producing a coherent source, I might still agree with you. ;-)
What service do you have in mind. Dan hasn't maintained for decades or atleast published his qmail2 if he finished it. If it had been released with the license it has now it would probably be part of OpenBSD, now they are working on their own smtpd. If you check the cr.yp.to mailing list you will find atleast a couple of complete and modernising patches. Maybe search for "released" -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:18:10PM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
Have you looked at qmail lately?
Yup. Installed it just a couple weeks ago. Use it every day. Pointed a coverity analysis at it the other week.
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:46 -0600, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:05:14PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than about anything else.
Why is it like that?
Probably because he has all the arrogance of DJB but none of the skill.
I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before. I suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein? If so, he seemingly isn't as half as arrogant as LP.
Btw. my Arch Linux is absolutely stable, excepted of one change. I tested Network Manager, this software is not that good. However, IIUC switching back to netcfg which always was stable on my machine might cause issues, when not using systemd?!
Sorry, I'm not an expert.
Regards, Ralf
Netcfg works fine without systemd, if you are referring to the recent news item that said "netcfg is dropping initscripts compatibility", thats just
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>wrote: poorly titled, netcfg simply no longer supports having its config option in rc.conf.
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 18:00:25 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Btw. my Arch Linux is absolutely stable, excepted of one change. I tested Network Manager, this software is not that good. However, IIUC switching back to netcfg which always was stable on my machine might cause issues, when not using systemd?!
I've been using Wicd on my laptop for ages. I'd highly recommend it: it's straight-forward and has never failed me. I'd only use it on a laptop, though. For fixed computers it's probably best to stick to netcfg. Paul
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:55:02AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be "forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use sysvinit...
I don't think you fully understand the issue.
If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it is now.... Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well with udev and everyone else be damned.
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the highway...which indeed is the problem.
I agree. It's not systemd being 'hard' that scares most people who object to it - that is a misrepresantatio. In fact I'm pretty sure systemd is easier to use and configure than initscripts. BTW has anyone looked at upstart ? The current AUR package is out of date (and I'm looking at some deadlines so this is not the time for experiments), but it has excellent documentation <http://upstart.ubuntu.com/cookbook/>, much better than anything I've seem for systemd so far, and after spending some time reading the above reference I must say I like it. At least it doesn't have that ugly and infantile syntax and it looks like was designed by programmers instead of by a kid. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
On 14 August 2012 11:07, Fons Adriaensen <fons@linuxaudio.org> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:55:02AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be "forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use sysvinit...
I don't think you fully understand the issue.
If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it is now.... Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well with udev and everyone else be damned.
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the highway...which indeed is the problem.
I agree. It's not systemd being 'hard' that scares most people who object to it - that is a misrepresantatio. In fact I'm pretty sure systemd is easier to use and configure than initscripts.
BTW has anyone looked at upstart ? The current AUR package is out of date (and I'm looking at some deadlines so this is not the time for experiments), but it has excellent documentation <http://upstart.ubuntu.com/cookbook/>, much better than anything I've seem for systemd so far, and after spending some time reading the above reference I must say I like it. At least it doesn't have that ugly and infantile syntax and it looks like was designed by programmers instead of by a kid.
That is because it was. It was designed and planned before writing, it is backwards compatible, it has very good documentation and unit testing. I approve of upstart as a project even though I do not use it.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com>wrote:
On 08/14/2012 10:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote:
On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is
hard irrespectively of what you're switching to. Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
-- Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and
after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be "forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use sysvinit...
I don't think you fully understand the issue.
If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it is now.... Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well with udev and everyone else be damned.
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the highway...which indeed is the problem.
Poettering didn't kidnap the udev developers and force them to merge with systemd. And yes I am aware of his comments regarding udev, I saw a comment elsewhere that I think explains what he meant pretty well:
"What he's saying is "non-systemd systems are dead in our eyes because no one is maintaining them; we will maintain udev without systemd as promised, but don't ask us to spend our time making it pretty; if you want that pay someone to do that for you". I don't see what's unclear here." Lets take a hypothetical situation: If udev someday only works well with systemd (which is wild speculation...) then if there is enough interest, an alternative would appear for people who don't use systemd. If there isn't enough interest in other init systems and an alternative then you could suck it up and switch. Also, I will state once again that I think people are highly exaggerating the "difficulty" of transitioning an arch install to systemd, its quite simple. If arch were to one day switch to systemd and not support initscripts, it would not be the end of the world (and again this is wild speculation/FUD in the first place...)
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:30:50AM -0400, Brandon Watkins wrote:
Also, I will state once again that I think people are highly exaggerating the "difficulty" of transitioning an arch install to systemd, its quite simple.
It sounds like you're trying to turn peoples' subjective preferences into an objective discussion. Most of the complaints I see are "I've used it. I hate it. I don't want to use it again." You disagree. That's great. Discussion is healthy. It's also important to know that there are a lot of people in this community with a lot at stake. The were attracted to arch for a reason and, however annoying the bitching may get, they are making it clear what those reasons were. Not saying you should care. Just saying their behavior is inevitable and you might find a little more joy in life if you understood these complaints for what they are.
If there's a developer anywhere that agrees with you, and I expect there will be at some point, udev will be forked, or something else will be developed to rival systemd. Right now, that's not even necessary. -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote: On 08/14/2012 10:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote:
On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard irrespectively of what you're switching to. Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
-- Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be "forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use sysvinit...
I don't think you fully understand the issue. If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it is now.... Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well with udev and everyone else be damned. Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the highway...which indeed is the problem.
If there's a developer anywhere that agrees with you, and I expect there will be at some point, udev will be forked, or something else will be developed to rival systemd. Right now, that's not even necessary.
Little need but may well be. http://blog.stuart.shelton.me/archives/891 -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/14/2012 07:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
For example I find systemd's .service files so much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This part is true, and the fact that the system comes up *lightning fast* is a bonus. I'm not satisfied with the documentation, however, as it seems to be scattered across several man pages, the Arch wiki only covers some of it, and as to upstream documentation, if there is any, I couldn't find it. The only other nitpick I have is that some packages refuse to log to stdout/stderr, which means that old syslog-ng (it isn't new anymore) continues to be necessary. What I think is unfortunate about the discussion of systemd here has been that it has been conflated with the discussion of pulseaudio. I think it is possible to like one and not the other. - -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQKtKaAAoJELT202JKF+xpT7MP+wau7MW57XatlMx4QGlvW/tQ W1lFWDUIwMavInfk8+z253wqq8GuaBr5DnFwWV3hqhrjDTeUPQ8ZTPZPIY0vvq2s ntliOLaC45GCfmEdFs/iuQsHwvyh36SAcPygL4kJPBhxJcZ8EZ2ZPucjRB5vGy/o JUvk3qCZ6XxFEuojeRQ/aLMfjeHr0IleQMZBeJMNvZrKBx8DwRK657P52vVdU4nH GjHLinK9Q1j2kx6GHMZ3ee7/HtyE2omClSek5MBVS1TREdU+/jHGD8+YEbCgHMvm LYDV3mBi3LLxZ8aPt1BS7/JKAwfB/ZpOkpS13XU340aSjKKX3PmghcIWEDmx6m4U uhXADIGmNugeeLFsgr9+XUehlxIc7omUWTJKCNhgCUQi32e44A33upRbz+mpHgd7 0+Hqx+9n7nOFQocLqmsMw+KuwCepv/UbcO+qYuUpn0lXdEKw1p0wNL6YOMozjcrE BD2KK3aYoE5z1/cbwtP11NdAOMOAH6FEFUltPIDbJ5go+ISrER0HFZftj95B+yS9 raVObovBwl5Z914eQOq/3DK9trkPOGxe8cKMoS4bhPLAksku7KUPDqMuj8v7jadA BZJdajfurXQu1mb+LK6jFfJpd8XFhHaLvm/kTCy1PS2QJ0LrfVM+5cTq3kwFiVJP q3eJ1seY7atCgyi2CGe8 =XFn3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 08/14/2012 06:35 PM, David Benfell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/14/2012 07:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
For example I find systemd's .service files so much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also portable and can be included in upstream packages. This part is true, and the fact that the system comes up *lightning fast* is a bonus. I'm not satisfied with the documentation, however, as it seems to be scattered across several man pages, the Arch wiki only covers some of it, and as to upstream documentation, if there is any, I couldn't find it.
The only other nitpick I have is that some packages refuse to log to stdout/stderr, which means that old syslog-ng (it isn't new anymore) continues to be necessary.
What I think is unfortunate about the discussion of systemd here has been that it has been conflated with the discussion of pulseaudio. I think it is possible to like one and not the other.
- -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQKtKaAAoJELT202JKF+xpT7MP+wau7MW57XatlMx4QGlvW/tQ W1lFWDUIwMavInfk8+z253wqq8GuaBr5DnFwWV3hqhrjDTeUPQ8ZTPZPIY0vvq2s ntliOLaC45GCfmEdFs/iuQsHwvyh36SAcPygL4kJPBhxJcZ8EZ2ZPucjRB5vGy/o JUvk3qCZ6XxFEuojeRQ/aLMfjeHr0IleQMZBeJMNvZrKBx8DwRK657P52vVdU4nH GjHLinK9Q1j2kx6GHMZ3ee7/HtyE2omClSek5MBVS1TREdU+/jHGD8+YEbCgHMvm LYDV3mBi3LLxZ8aPt1BS7/JKAwfB/ZpOkpS13XU340aSjKKX3PmghcIWEDmx6m4U uhXADIGmNugeeLFsgr9+XUehlxIc7omUWTJKCNhgCUQi32e44A33upRbz+mpHgd7 0+Hqx+9n7nOFQocLqmsMw+KuwCepv/UbcO+qYuUpn0lXdEKw1p0wNL6YOMozjcrE BD2KK3aYoE5z1/cbwtP11NdAOMOAH6FEFUltPIDbJ5go+ISrER0HFZftj95B+yS9 raVObovBwl5Z914eQOq/3DK9trkPOGxe8cKMoS4bhPLAksku7KUPDqMuj8v7jadA BZJdajfurXQu1mb+LK6jFfJpd8XFhHaLvm/kTCy1PS2QJ0LrfVM+5cTq3kwFiVJP q3eJ1seY7atCgyi2CGe8 =XFn3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Can you do a mount and post the result here I am curious if you see the same thing as I do when systemd is running I have full systemd running under fedora 15/17 and it has some bizarre mount points. I would like to know if this is a systemd thing or a fedora thing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/14/2012 03:46 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
Can you do a mount and post the result here I am curious if you see the same thing as I do when systemd is running I have full systemd running under fedora 15/17 and it has some bizarre mount points. I would like to know if this is a systemd thing or a fedora thing.
I think I see what you mean--there's a whole bunch of cgroup stuff, and no, I have no idea what it is: proc on /proc type proc (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) dev on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,nosuid,relatime,size=2893412k,nr_inodes=723353,mode=755) run on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755) /dev/sda3 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) securityfs on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000) tmpfs on /sys/fs/cgroup type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=755) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,release_agent=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-cgroups-agent,name=systemd) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpuset) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu,cpuacct type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpuacct,cpu) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/memory type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,memory) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/devices type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,devices) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/freezer type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,freezer) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/net_cls type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,net_cls) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,blkio) systemd-1 on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type autofs (rw,relatime,fd=28,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct) mqueue on /dev/mqueue type mqueue (rw,relatime) hugetlbfs on /dev/hugepages type hugetlbfs (rw,relatime) debugfs on /sys/kernel/debug type debugfs (rw,relatime) binfmt_misc on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw,relatime) tmpfs on /tmp type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime) /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw,relatime) /dev/sdb3 on /storage/atlanta type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sda4 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sdb2 on /storage/graton type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sdb1 on /storage/n4rky type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) fusectl on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl (rw,relatime) gvfs-fuse-daemon on /run/user/1000/gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100) - -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQKteNAAoJELT202JKF+xpHlkQAIh1f9HuWwuNCVdAU/tMiCoW A39YNnb9TQ0CixA6nkFLZG1IQMjp49h4Q8awhRUVmkWWtzpIEmQXweO5ydQT5RtQ JNrtp9cBfDXm9LToNUF0dd5yxAWGtcbUAi69TjwP6WAbPZSRdrJItkvWbnpP06fU tMfS85C3pa3gbtWkpJ95pQGGw3ZkNzkFtP+L9mgOGH70KQTapJa2cPBz3Hei9LKj 2aYlTOJ57C1Ui+2UJ3If3yS4Yr4v2wN2ExmwUM5VSTK+q2Y1ztwxr7WZTNY9FhOL UeQZTPlikaMWfRLTKzgqf3o4sluZ2hCScc8hF/MKAQuYfBH8A37rDS4AgviyCMQF IRbXDGax/uWiWxVnmiTLoIzgrl6Zucuk3ONtrTNxSVrHD6d8pz6e8t4cFUGgs++v kpZlLX8PIT3PVohX+K21K9Vf8T1k6RTqGz5irbNuz1xThk1fnMfsM26rnRbT1CtK sTjQWiO/ZrNzqGC+Hw/9zNwuJhmzyitYJ7gyNN14Z+WXtztQYeiVcJ+/9GF2DkTy ZjEoce23qgIJFi7VrozOnSYGqxDBBy07+BRYf9sHQVly3WK1s13SrVDfn3LU5yK4 /+efWZROi2Ya73cv8YvIiDeAZiH54NBqPIREuFZcfaSs9WF5iFulGLChCVcXdtu/ 0nj7Zsai6Df6+ZHlPhr5 =36H1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 08/14/2012 06:56 PM, David Benfell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/14/2012 03:46 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
Can you do a mount and post the result here I am curious if you see the same thing as I do when systemd is running I have full systemd running under fedora 15/17 and it has some bizarre mount points. I would like to know if this is a systemd thing or a fedora thing.
I think I see what you mean--there's a whole bunch of cgroup stuff, and no, I have no idea what it is:
proc on /proc type proc (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) dev on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,nosuid,relatime,size=2893412k,nr_inodes=723353,mode=755) run on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755) /dev/sda3 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) securityfs on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000) tmpfs on /sys/fs/cgroup type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=755) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,release_agent=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-cgroups-agent,name=systemd) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpuset) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu,cpuacct type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpuacct,cpu) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/memory type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,memory) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/devices type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,devices) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/freezer type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,freezer) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/net_cls type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,net_cls) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,blkio) systemd-1 on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type autofs (rw,relatime,fd=28,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct) mqueue on /dev/mqueue type mqueue (rw,relatime) hugetlbfs on /dev/hugepages type hugetlbfs (rw,relatime) debugfs on /sys/kernel/debug type debugfs (rw,relatime) binfmt_misc on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw,relatime) tmpfs on /tmp type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime) /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw,relatime) /dev/sdb3 on /storage/atlanta type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sda4 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sdb2 on /storage/graton type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sdb1 on /storage/n4rky type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) fusectl on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl (rw,relatime) gvfs-fuse-daemon on /run/user/1000/gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100)
/proc on /proc type proc (rw,relatime)
Have a look at this and notice the /dev/sda2 lines /proc on /proc type proc (rw,relatime) /sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,relatime) udev on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,nosuid,relatime,size=958204k,nr_inodes=213261,mode=755) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000) tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,relatime) tmpfs on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,mode=755) /dev/sda2 on / type ext4 (rw,noatime,barrier=1,data=writeback) tmpfs on /sys/fs/cgroup type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,mode=755) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,release_agent=/lib/systemd/systemd-cgroups-agent,name=systemd) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpuset) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/ns type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,ns) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpu) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuacct type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpuacct) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/memory type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,memory) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/devices type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,devices) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/freezer type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,freezer) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/net_cls type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,net_cls) cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,blkio) systemd-1 on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type autofs (rw,relatime,fd=31,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct) systemd-1 on /sys/kernel/security type autofs (rw,relatime,fd=32,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct) systemd-1 on /dev/hugepages type autofs (rw,relatime,fd=33,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct) systemd-1 on /sys/kernel/debug type autofs (rw,relatime,fd=34,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct) systemd-1 on /dev/mqueue type autofs (rw,relatime,fd=36,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct) tmpfs on /media type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,mode=755) hugetlbfs on /dev/hugepages type hugetlbfs (rw,relatime) mqueue on /dev/mqueue type mqueue (rw,relatime) /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext4 (rw,noatime,barrier=1,data=writeback) /dev/sda2 on /tmp type ext4 (rw,noatime,barrier=1,data=writeback) /dev/sda2 on /var/tmp type ext4 (rw,noatime,barrier=1,data=writeback) /dev/sda2 on /home type ext4 (rw,noatime,barrier=1,data=writeback) sunrpc on /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs type rpc_pipefs (rw,relatime)
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Have a look at this and notice the /dev/sda2 lines
Never seen anything like this, so I'd be tempted to say this is not systemd related. findmnt is usually a better source of this info rather than mount. That said, we seem to stray off-topic again (not that the original topic had any merit). -t
On 08/14/2012 07:17 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Have a look at this and notice the /dev/sda2 lines Never seen anything like this, so I'd be tempted to say this is not systemd related. findmnt is usually a better source of this info rather than mount.
If it is not systemd related care to hazzard a guess? Should not systemd control the mount points? I initial reaction was how can /dev/sda2 be mounted like that and the filesystem under tree, ls, etc show it correct and not a giant mess.
That said, we seem to stray off-topic again (not that the original topic had any merit).
-t
Hey it happens ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/14/2012 04:17 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Have a look at this and notice the /dev/sda2 lines
Never seen anything like this, so I'd be tempted to say this is not systemd related. findmnt is usually a better source of this info rather than mount.
These lines are indeed different from anything I've seen. I guess I should ask the stupid question: Does systemd not use the standard mount program and follow /etc/fstab? I'm thinking it must because my non-standard mounts are present. - -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQKuVlAAoJELT202JKF+xpkJEP/iX4Jf4WT9+Cac0gtjSeGxTc ZU/J/eWutd1bA9kAHf12s6ld4kLHaioQKgD34c1wjw1PSX/RkCumTxTtmrOmkbek +mSruMvc/8DTeh+0bXJCUGkYK5ktKmQ/Fhu8hUN1T6u2bMXCvTwxQdLacwxBeEyE ekvE1Qj97WNbn17IOnmre0PHKAzjPsQWhyxPg6yXy4B+VJtZwumqzZXZ0WH9HakS yVTT1shddZRAdiTrhXND/NjvRBkI0ICHH7Sm2qQZ0h5wTa2M1Ql3+n+Kn4K4Q9CD fvg8jMGj95zP1GBOtSmuGAmGDgQmdFIuO3L7e2XEgAQvKa04MQquUqYOW3+O1vNH tgc39fuOyHySTP7xwq7Cd+VwoxMEQ8OyiC67ItQ1XstjbVqNTbuVuZLFE3eDFVMh Lb5QbBT34Pzv/sHFswc55NUXiPmOk8VMfktjUq9/Msd4UMmW5qPQH4BcP0+E0iLB +eyihiOnuUjBlZvCfYDBp2BZDTbEf67Bae8Cz25jbPNitPRHeekc5t1i/91LFT9D I1rR95XUhvgCmqClxz4OT/DWCMSOQccwR3RS9OYgk52y1rzs/443atpYU9ae4Qej lXlivjTUKKm2KJ0+TbGqjV8ollwkOpKtxoC9kKCek4Fe+dznvIQEWvJi9qQ3K2Hw QH3M0SILJwFRizc+B0FT =SgO+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 AM, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
Does systemd not use the standard mount program and follow /etc/fstab?
It does. Though it does not use "mount -a", but rather mounts each fs separately.
It's the classic technical support problem with multiple moving pieces with each vendor pointing at the other one. And it seems that Poettering's attitude is particularly unhelpful here, which means that *when* (I'm not going to be so naive as to say *if*) such problems arise, we may well need another way to deal with them. Perhaps that's what we should be discussing here.
The systemd devs do have the attitude of not working around bugs, but fixing them where they are (which I agree with). However, not to the extent that it causes problems that we in turn have to work around downstream. Overall, I am *very* satisfied with the level of support upstream provides to the distros. Quote from IRC today: #systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: ah, arch switches for good? #systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: that's great news #systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: if you need any upstream support for this, just ping (where mezcalero is Lennart and falconindy is Dave). Really, I don't think this is something we need to worry about. -t
On Wednesday 15 Aug 2012 02:13:26 Tom Gundersen wrote:
Quote from IRC today:
#systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: ah, arch switches for good? #systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: that's great news #systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: if you need any upstream support for this, just ping
(where mezcalero is Lennart and falconindy is Dave).
Really, I don't think this is something we need to worry about.
+1 -- Cheers and Regards Jayesh Badwaik stop html mail | always bottom-post www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:35 AM, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
This part is true, and the fact that the system comes up *lightning fast* is a bonus. I'm not satisfied with the documentation, however, as it seems to be scattered across several man pages, the Arch wiki only covers some of it, and as to upstream documentation, if there is any, I couldn't find it.
The upstream documentation is just the manpages: http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ I'd suggest starting with section 7: bootup(7), daemon(7), kernel-command-line(7); and then possibly systemd(1), systemctl(1) and possibly systemd.special, systemd.service and systemd.exec. That should make you an expert.
The only other nitpick I have is that some packages refuse to log to stdout/stderr, which means that old syslog-ng (it isn't new anymore) continues to be necessary.
The journal should pick up anything logged with syslog(), so syslog-ng should only be needed in case you want the text files in /var/log or if you want to use the network protocol. -t
David Benfell [2012.08.14 1535 -0700]:
What I think is unfortunate about the discussion of systemd here has been that it has been conflated with the discussion of pulseaudio. I think it is possible to like one and not the other.
Indeed. The heated discussion about systemd actually had the effect that I gave it a whirl to find out for myself what the fuss is all about, and I must say that I quite like it so far, while I find pulseaudio is an abysmal piece of software. So I think your point is a good one. On the other hand, in my mind, pulseaudio has quite some bearing on the discussion about systemd. There have been endless complaints about this and that piece of hardware not working well with pulseaudio, and I myself never got my mic to work properly with pulseaudio and recently started to experience serious audio delays when playing sound through pulseaudio. Yet, Poettering's response to these kinds of complaints are usually completely dismissive: it's ALSA's fault, your hardware isn't working properly, etc, in spite of everything working flawlessly when pulseaudio doesn't get in the way. So, to me the problem with systemd is not so much that I am afraid of changing to a new init system - I am not - it's the author. What if somewhere down the road things start to go wrong with systemd? Is Poettering's response going to be again that systemd is perfect and it's some other part of my system that's causing systemd to misbehave? I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Cheers, Norbert
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Norbert Zeh <nzeh@cs.dal.ca> wrote:
David Benfell [2012.08.14 1535 -0700]:
What I think is unfortunate about the discussion of systemd here has been that it has been conflated with the discussion of pulseaudio. I think it is possible to like one and not the other.
Indeed. The heated discussion about systemd actually had the effect that I gave it a whirl to find out for myself what the fuss is all about, and I must say that I quite like it so far, while I find pulseaudio is an abysmal piece of software. So I think your point is a good one.
On the other hand, in my mind, pulseaudio has quite some bearing on the discussion about systemd. There have been endless complaints about this and that piece of hardware not working well with pulseaudio, and I myself never got my mic to work properly with pulseaudio and recently started to experience serious audio delays when playing sound through pulseaudio. Yet, Poettering's response to these kinds of complaints are usually completely dismissive: it's ALSA's fault, your hardware isn't working properly, etc, in spite of everything working flawlessly when pulseaudio doesn't get in the way. So, to me the problem with systemd is not so much that I am afraid of changing to a new init system - I am not - it's the author. What if somewhere down the road things start to go wrong with systemd? Is Poettering's response going to be again that systemd is perfect and it's some other part of my system that's causing systemd to misbehave? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Cheers, Norbert
This is due to the fact that pulseaudio utilizes the audio drivers in different ways than straight alsa, exposing previously unknown or ignored driver bugs. there is only so much pulseaudio can do to work around buggy drivers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/14/2012 04:08 PM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Norbert Zeh <nzeh@cs.dal.ca> wrote:
David Benfell [2012.08.14 1535 -0700]:
What I think is unfortunate about the discussion of systemd here has been that it has been conflated with the discussion of pulseaudio. I think it is possible to like one and not the other.
<snip> Yet, Poettering's response to these kinds of complaints are usually completely dismissive: it's ALSA's fault, your hardware isn't working properly, etc, in spite of everything working flawlessly when pulseaudio doesn't get in the way. So, to me the problem with systemd is not so much that I am afraid of changing to a new init system - I am not - it's the author. What if somewhere down the road things start to go wrong with systemd? Is Poettering's response going to be again that systemd is perfect and it's some other part of my system that's causing systemd to misbehave? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
This is due to the fact that pulseaudio utilizes the audio drivers in different ways than straight alsa, exposing previously unknown or ignored driver bugs. there is only so much pulseaudio can do to work around buggy drivers.
I think Brandon's point, in its own way, supports Norbert's. It's the classic technical support problem with multiple moving pieces with each vendor pointing at the other one. And it seems that Poettering's attitude is particularly unhelpful here, which means that *when* (I'm not going to be so naive as to say *if*) such problems arise, we may well need another way to deal with them. Perhaps that's what we should be discussing here. - -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQKubHAAoJELT202JKF+xpCjYP/3PY1n0TZbywFXBRo/fnGe8B 8I5rsVlmxPP1efuLOnXPh/NVJ398ZKUUQKlSxUXiVIC0vpmW5gAsbYXCerk2XSG6 XO/dF2cDmCcov+EoywPn+vnvsyn+HPVK2xNYkMafeT8UYz+0DAEZTP5XWsy6HZa/ k/pUZtKkaEY87bY5y5ep5nDxbwZIJuFfnqh8JnWysmlC5QXujNIC+GmPog37V3tb zNed3DH66c8KRenjAFhYAZzCQ7KzRpmmZdL5p4WZkqO3XxfTjbGXJI37TOT9KxCk g9kZulGCzabkjSqXX5XyQbQZ5yh3r6eqEF+S82NO4tgcHvq4Y5hRrD2iwpB6frIr 5AldQ0+XctJI3vDUvVFz+UJaTAWgmxufcqoYB9BFATUSYNe/vSfG+ue40mMaTT8e Tr/1gCyCmfaOISQH/NsnZOOMOrZkbVAkXMaXPJkmo+5ajX1jP+oggCV/pubD4LE3 IllMHnkXRTDOpi2VRaZFLjseGYhI4ZNHFIwwsEAkgu/IVwqd+ODsSpAgRw98LuY6 evOJb4psELIRGG6+ClBz+mXKCcE1UPSMYc+MELNiW6fnHtLBxBpChLNPzfRxh3e6 OnQuniwePBJt74wkxd3RbgP07nW/mOEKGWxlY9i2l2tViER3nHNE22H4llPYhPHs IRCluncLUuKcaSYuYtEw =k0w4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 15:05 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
So better learn it now :p
That might be true, since I don't think I have a choice, e.g. switching to BSD seems no alternative for my needs. I should install a second Arch with full Poettering code ... take some drugs, e.g. Diazepam ... and then learn. I'm still waiting for some Russian spam, that offers similar drugs. Regards, Ralf
14.08.2012 17:13, Ralf Mardorf пишет:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 15:05 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
So better learn it now :p That might be true, since I don't think I have a choice, e.g. switching to BSD seems no alternative for my needs.
I should install a second Arch with full Poettering code ... take some drugs, e.g. Diazepam ... and then learn.
I'm still waiting for some Russian spam, that offers similar drugs.
Regards, Ralf
.
All drugs was bought by administration. It is necessary for us for man systemd; man systemctr. Expecting the following party. -Russian need-some-drugs-for-man's robot. xD
On 08/14/2012 09:05 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 08/14/12 14:59, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"
Tell me what's hard about systemd?
Ah well as soon as RHEL switches to systemd, more and more distro's will switch, so soon you might have to use it ;) (So better learn it now :p )
Or switch to something else.
On 08/14/2012 08:59 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"
Aye yes pascal, learned a lot from that language I did.
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:13 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
On 08/14/2012 08:59 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"
Aye yes pascal, learned a lot from that language I did.
WritingPascalSavesAlotOf"Space"ButTheCodeTendsToBecomeUnreadable. OkPascalCaseIsnTtheOnlyIssueWithPascalItEgAlsoTeachedUsToDoTheWorkTheCompilerShouldDoRegardingToEgVariables. ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64AndDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead. RegardsRalf
On 08/14/2012 09:23 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:13 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
On 08/14/2012 08:59 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"
Aye yes pascal, learned a lot from that language I did.
WritingPascalSavesAlotOf"Space"ButTheCodeTendsToBecomeUnreadable. OkPascalCaseIsnTtheOnlyIssueWithPascalItEgAlsoTeachedUsToDoTheWorkTheCompilerShouldDoRegardingToEgVariables. ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64AndDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead. RegardsRalf
What no turbo pascal?
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:26 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
What no turbo pascal?
No. Some time later I switched to the Atari ST with a 80286 hardware emulator and tested Turbo C++ on DR DOS. Today I'm just a user, I don't wish to learn how to program nowadays computers, I simply wish to use the computer as multi-tool for my needs. I'm able to write naive shell scripts that do what I want them to do. I'm even not willing to learn how to write good shell scripts, I only want to use the computer. Poettering isn't a help, he's a PITA regarding to my needs. Regards, Ralf
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 15:23 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:13 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
On 08/14/2012 08:59 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"
Aye yes pascal, learned a lot from that language I did.
WritingPascalSavesAlotOf"Space"ButTheCodeTendsToBecomeUnreadable. OkPascalCaseIsnTtheOnlyIssueWithPascalItEgAlsoTeachedUsToDoTheWorkTheCompilerShouldDoRegardingToEgVariables. ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64AndDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead. RegardsRalf
PS: To be fair, IIRC for the C64's Pascal everything was uppercase, hence it was much more fun.
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:23:28 +0200 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote: <snip> ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64AndDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead OT, but if the above is true, was that Oxford Pascal, and did you then switch to the MIKRO Assembler cartridge (as I did) ? Well to be accurate I switched to it after first using an assembler program written in BASIC, typed in from a book. Geoff
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 16:03 +0100, Geoff wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:23:28 +0200 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote: <snip>
ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64AndDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead
OT, but if the above is true, was that Oxford Pascal, and did you then switch to the MIKRO Assembler cartridge (as I did) ? Well to be accurate I switched to it after first using an assembler program written in BASIC, typed in from a book.
Geoff
The C64 Pascal was from "Markt&Technik" 1986 ISBN 3-89090-222-7 *chuckle* my flat is a museum. Regarding to 65xx, e.g. 6502, 6510 Assembler I started with "directly" programming (sorry my English is broken). There was no chance to insert a command, later I used Assembler software that could be used like an editor. It was possible to insert commands, to handle modules comfortably (code that used branches instead of jumps and that could be placed at any point of the RAM). I never programmed by using op-code directly, excepted of some skip tricks, programs that did different things when jumping to the even or odd address. At that time (pre mov commands, still load and store) it was possible to jump at any address (pardon, as you know ;). I don't know the name "MIKRO Assembler cartridge". Perhaps I used it to, perhaps not. Regards, Ralf
Am Dienstag, den 14.08.2012, 14:59 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain
USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Oh no, not again the discussion "arch will be usable for experts only due to systemd". -- xmpp: bjo@schafweide.org bjo.nord-west.org | nord-west.org | freifunk-ol.de
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain
USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint Debian Edition is also rolling-release? Paul
On 08/14/12 15:51, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain
USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul
SuSe has systemd plans too ;) -- Jelle van der Waa
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:33:41 +0530, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote:
SuSe has systemd plans too
in openSUSE's upcoming version, 12.2, systemd is default. for the moment though both init systems are being maintained. this lead to very similar discussions on the mailing lists over there, with exactly the same opinions i find here. while this is definitely tiring after a while, i find a mail client that allows to "ignore thread" very helpful. -- phani.
Yes, but it strives to hide those sorts of transitions from the user. I believe the issue in question is the pain of change. -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote: On 08/14/12 15:51, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain
USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul
SuSe has systemd plans too ;) -- Jelle van der Waa
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:51 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain
USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul
I'm from Germany, so I started with Suse and I still have an outdated Suse installed. Suse doesn't fit to my needs. I tested Mint and Mint doesn't fit to my needs. Arch did and still does fit to my needs. I just fear that soon Arch won't fit to my needs. I'm not objective, I just care about my needs. This is selfish, I'm aware of this. However, why shouldn't I take care of my needs? I also work on a voluntary basis. I fight for the rights of others, but I also fight for satisfying my needs. That's all. Regards, Ralf
On 08/14/12 16:06, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:51 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain
USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul
I'm from Germany, so I started with Suse and I still have an outdated Suse installed. Suse doesn't fit to my needs. I tested Mint and Mint doesn't fit to my needs. Arch did and still does fit to my needs. I just fear that soon Arch won't fit to my needs. I'm not objective, I just care about my needs. This is selfish, I'm aware of this. However, why shouldn't I take care of my needs? I also work on a voluntary basis. I fight for the rights of others, but I also fight for satisfying my needs. That's all.
Regards, Ralf
Then maintain/improve the current initscripts... -- Jelle van der Waa
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 16:23 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 08/14/12 16:06, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:51 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain
USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul
I'm from Germany, so I started with Suse and I still have an outdated Suse installed. Suse doesn't fit to my needs. I tested Mint and Mint doesn't fit to my needs. Arch did and still does fit to my needs. I just fear that soon Arch won't fit to my needs. I'm not objective, I just care about my needs. This is selfish, I'm aware of this. However, why shouldn't I take care of my needs? I also work on a voluntary basis. I fight for the rights of others, but I also fight for satisfying my needs. That's all.
Regards, Ralf
Then maintain/improve the current initscripts...
I don't have the ability to do this. I don't have time to learn this, since I work on a voluntary basis in other areas. And who knows, even if I would have the time to learn, perhaps I'm not able to do it. So again, is "self-responsibility" = "spend all your live time with setting up Linux only"? Isn't the philosophy of a community that people have different abilities and that they take care of each other? Regards, Ralf
Sometimes the most loving thing to do is let someone go through a short, sharp pain in order to avoid a long, drawn out one. Systemd is not evil. You may not like the idea of changing, but it probably will be the best thing for you to do to avoid more pain down the line. No rush, but I reckon the anticipation is accually worse than the switch. -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote: On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 16:23 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 08/14/12 16:06, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:51 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain
USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul
I'm from Germany, so I started with Suse and I still have an outdated Suse installed. Suse doesn't fit to my needs. I tested Mint and Mint doesn't fit to my needs. Arch did and still does fit to my needs. I just fear that soon Arch won't fit to my needs. I'm not objective, I just care about my needs. This is selfish, I'm aware of this. However, why shouldn't I take care of my needs? I also work on a voluntary basis. I fight for the rights of others, but I also fight for satisfying my needs. That's all.
Regards, Ralf
Then maintain/improve the current initscripts...
I don't have the ability to do this. I don't have time to learn this, since I work on a voluntary basis in other areas. And who knows, even if I would have the time to learn, perhaps I'm not able to do it. So again, is "self-responsibility" = "spend all your live time with setting up Linux only"? Isn't the philosophy of a community that people have different abilities and that they take care of each other? Regards, Ralf
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Paul Dann wrote:
Sometimes the most loving thing to do is let someone go through a short, sharp pain in order to avoid a long, drawn out one. Systemd is not evil. You may not like the idea of changing, but it probably will be the best thing for you to do to avoid more pain down the line. No rush, but I reckon the anticipation is accually worse than the switch.
Well said. I know that nobody in arch has declared the switch is inevitable but the way it looks, with upstream being eager enough to do so, it seems incredibly likely unless we train everyone to use DJB's daemontools instead. :P http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html Sorry. I couldn't resist.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia <archlinux@ishpeck.net> wrote:
I know that nobody in arch has declared the switch is inevitable but the way it looks, with upstream being eager enough to do so, it seems incredibly likely unless we train everyone to use DJB's daemontools instead. :P http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html
You should check arch-dev-public :) It's a funny thread https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-August/023389.h... -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:24:49 -0300 Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
You should check arch-dev-public :)
It's a funny thread
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-August/023389.h...
Mostly I just read arch-general and try to understand arguments. I do, however, find this contribution the thread to which you refer very saddening. It is not the way I interpret the vast majority of contributions here. "Let's do it. It's about time we lose these ML trolls. -- Gaetan" Perhaps we should all just shut up and do as we are told. Geoff
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Geoff <capsthorne@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:24:49 -0300 Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
You should check arch-dev-public :)
It's a funny thread
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-August/023389.h...
Mostly I just read arch-general and try to understand arguments. I do, however, find this contribution the thread to which you refer very saddening. It is not the way I interpret the vast majority of contributions here.
"Let's do it. It's about time we lose these ML trolls. -- Gaetan"
Perhaps we should all just shut up and do as we are told.
Geoff
To be fair, people on this mailing list did turn a thread asking to help test a polkit patch into a giant flamewar about pulseaudio and lennart, so can you blame them for calling our "trolls"?
heh this whole thread is hilarious, I believe upstream is eager to do so just so people will stop complaining xD On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto < denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia <archlinux@ishpeck.net> wrote:
I know that nobody in arch has declared the switch is inevitable but the way it looks, with upstream being eager enough to do so, it seems incredibly likely unless we train everyone to use DJB's daemontools instead. :P http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html
You should check arch-dev-public :)
It's a funny thread
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-August/023389.h...
-- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html
------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:13 +0100, Paul Dann wrote:
Sometimes the most loving thing to do is let someone go through a short, sharp pain in order to avoid a long, drawn out one. Systemd is not evil. You may not like the idea of changing, but it probably will be the best thing for you to do to avoid more pain down the line. No rush, but I reckon the anticipation is accually worse than the switch.
Ok, I could install a backup of my Arch to another partition and than switch for this install to systemd. I don't like to do it, but perhaps it simply would cause less pain and time. We've got vacations here, so I can spend time to annoy the mailing list, but I also can install a backup of my current Arch. However, I've got less enthusiasm to do this. ;) Ralf
That sounds like a perfectly fair attitude to have. Although the change may require a little thought, I really think SystemD will not suddenly make Arch difficult to use, though. Is that what you're worried about? -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote: On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:51 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
and easier for most users to maintain
USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't start from the beginning, every half year.
Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul
I'm from Germany, so I started with Suse and I still have an outdated Suse installed. Suse doesn't fit to my needs. I tested Mint and Mint doesn't fit to my needs. Arch did and still does fit to my needs. I just fear that soon Arch won't fit to my needs. I'm not objective, I just care about my needs. This is selfish, I'm aware of this. However, why shouldn't I take care of my needs? I also work on a voluntary basis. I fight for the rights of others, but I also fight for satisfying my needs. That's all. Regards, Ralf
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:04 +0100, Paul Dann wrote:
Is that what you're worried about?
Yes ;D. I switched to Arch to get rid of fear. No I'm very scary. - Ralf
On 08/14/2012 08:45 AM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530
Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we want to or not :( I suspect that this has been the game plan all the time though. OK, flames away I guess :) Wow, this sounds so much like a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the
On Monday 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 Joakim Hernberg wrote: people who write the code inevitably dictate which software is maintained, based on their interests and convictions, and they're pretty much unanimous that systemd is a better solution to the problem of booting and maintaining daemons than the solution we currently have.
So yeah, I guess that's been the game plan all along: make booting and daemon control more consistent, faster, and easier for most users to maintain.
Paul
I don't understand your point.... What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit? I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I need and has not failed me. So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers tell me I must? As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why take away sysvint? You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and not be forced down the systemd path. Isn't this what open source software freedom is all about or did I miss something....I have use linux from the redhat 5.2 (no I am not talking the enterprise version) days.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:08:36AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?
As a critic of systemd, perhaps I can help. Init scripts tend to wreck the determinism beacuse they can inherit your env. pid files are a problem waiting to happen. There really is nothing preventing them from getting trampled or deleted and then you've gotta go kill daemon processes by hand. Having to start daemons in a certain order is obnoxious. The more shell script you have to write in order to get daemons up (or shut 'em down) just means more opportunity for little annoying bugs. Startup speed is therefore affected. This doesn't matter if you don't reboot often but if you're doing lots of systems dev, it can be said that every minute spent waiting for the system to boot is one less minute spent improving your software.
I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I need and has not failed me.
Indeed, this is a values judgment. The argument for abandoning init scripts could be made in the department of "Code Correctness" as it is defined in the Arch Way... https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way There is no doubt that the community-tested traditions have found their way into effectiveness.
As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why take away sysvint?
I'm still experimenting with daemontools under sysvinit as I described here: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=141831 The transition seems less brutal, the ability to start things in parallel is there, supervision is there, but there is no process grouping (which I consider unimportant) as with systemd.
You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and not be forced down the systemd path.
As explained in this and other threads, it may not be a decision we, in the Arch world, get to make. Too much of upstream may actually be dictated by what a comercially-backed distro does.
On 08/09/2012 04:23 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote: [putolin]
As explained in this and other threads, it may not be a decision we, in the Arch world, get to make. Too much of upstream may actually be dictated by what a comercially-backed distro does.
That is why I just may end up using BSD.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On 08/09/2012 04:23 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
[putolin]
As explained in this and other threads, it may not be a decision we, in the Arch world, get to make. Too much of upstream may actually be dictated by what a comercially-backed distro does.
That is why I just may end up using BSD.
Good luck with that! I'm sure they have a openbsd-general mailinglist where you continue your discussion.
Am 14.08.2012 15:08, schrieb Baho Utot:
Wow, this sounds so much like a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the people who write the code inevitably dictate which software is maintained, based on their interests and convictions, and they're pretty much unanimous that systemd is a better solution to the problem of booting and maintaining daemons than the solution we currently have.
So yeah, I guess that's been the game plan all along: make booting and daemon control more consistent, faster, and easier for most users to maintain.
Paul
I don't understand your point....
What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?
I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I need and has not failed me.
And you don't want systemd because you are sure it won't do what sysvinit can, even though you didn't try it.
So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers tell me I must?
You need to move because the rest of the Linux ecosystem will require systemd at some point, just like it now requires udev. If you don't like it, then stop annoying us and start maintaining code that makes sure YOUR way will keep working. It's like that: Whoever contributes code makes the decisions.
As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why take away sysvint?
I could repeat what I said above.
You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and not be forced down the systemd path.
So, you are annoying the whole mailing list because you don't like that you _might_ be forced to switch to a superior booting scheme which is unlikely to affect you negatively in any way. Arch's policy on systemd vs. initscripts has not even been discussed among Arch developers yet, and nothing has been decided. Yet, you guys are acting like someone's going to eat your childrn. I can't stand this anymore. I want to just add replaces=('initscripts') to the systemd package just to make this fucking "discussion" stop. If you don't have anything _technical_ to discuss, and don't have any problem that you want help solving, then move this bullshit somewhere I don't have to see it. I wonder if there is a way to lock a thread in mailman.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:32:42PM +0200, Thomas B?chler wrote:
And you don't want systemd because you are sure it won't do what sysvinit can, even though you didn't try it.
I think the complaint here is that the switch itself is a problem. I think he made it rather clear that he's not criticizing systemd itself but the notion of forcing a switch. I've been bellowing to local linux user groups and friends that sysvinit needs to go for years but I understand the general resistance: Every change -- even the especially good and worthy ones -- requires effort. For some, that's too much.
Arch's policy on systemd vs. initscripts has not even been discussed among Arch developers yet...
This is really all that needed to be said.
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 15:32 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
So, you are annoying the whole mailing list
You are speaking for the "WHOLE" mailing list? I read this from others a thousand times before. YOU AREN'T SPEAKING AT LEAST FOR ME! Call me a troll, I'm anyway member of this list and YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME! Thank you, Ralf
On 08/14/2012 09:32 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 14.08.2012 15:08, schrieb Baho Utot:
Wow, this sounds so much like a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the people who write the code inevitably dictate which software is maintained, based on their interests and convictions, and they're pretty much unanimous that systemd is a better solution to the problem of booting and maintaining daemons than the solution we currently have.
So yeah, I guess that's been the game plan all along: make booting and daemon control more consistent, faster, and easier for most users to maintain.
Paul I don't understand your point....
What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?
I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I need and has not failed me. And you don't want systemd because you are sure it won't do what sysvinit can, even though you didn't try it.
Dude I have 5 fedora systems from 15 to 17 and they use the full systemd, Hence my dis-stain for it.
So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers tell me I must? You need to move because the rest of the Linux ecosystem will require systemd at some point, just like it now requires udev. If you don't like it, then stop annoying us and start maintaining code that makes sure YOUR way will keep working.
It's like that: Whoever contributes code makes the decisions.
Why I am creating my own distro from scratch
As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why take away sysvint? I could repeat what I said above.
You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and not be forced down the systemd path. So, you are annoying the whole mailing list because you don't like that you _might_ be forced to switch to a superior booting scheme which is unlikely to affect you negatively in any way.
It has not been established that systemd is superior. You take facts not in evidence
Arch's policy on systemd vs. initscripts has not even been discussed among Arch developers yet, and nothing has been decided. Yet, you guys are acting like someone's going to eat your childrn.
I can't stand this anymore. I want to just add replaces=('initscripts') to the systemd package just to make this fucking "discussion" stop. If you don't have anything _technical_ to discuss, and don't have any problem that you want help solving, then move this bullshit somewhere I don't have to see it.
I wonder if there is a way to lock a thread in mailman.
Go ahead, take your bad attitude and change it. BTW learn how to use filters in your email program.
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:55 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
BTW learn how to use filters in your email program.
I'm not using Thunderbird anymore as he does, but I remember it was easy to do. However, I hope he won't ban anybody. His help is useful. Regarding to this discussion I don't like his opinion. Regards, Ralf
[2012-08-14 16:19:18 +0200] Ralf Mardorf:
Regarding to this discussion I don't like his opinion.
You call this a discussion when all you've been doing is post useless oneliners and decide whether or not you like other's opinions? Please do everyone a big favor next time you are about to send your prose to this list and ask yourself if it is not completely brainless. -- Gaetan
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 09:08:36 Baho Utot wrote:
I don't understand your point....
What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?
I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I need and has not failed me.
There's nothing inherently wrong with it, just like there was nothing inherently wrong with pen and paper before computers came along. Many people would argue that pen and paper does everything they need, but that doesn't change the fact that most people find computers more flexible. Those wanting to stick to pen and paper find themselves increasingly frustrated that they can't get by without a computer. It's not that they're not *entitled* to their opinion, it's just that everyone else has moved on. It's not a conspiracy; things simply change. Maybe you don't see the advantage, but other people do.
So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers tell me I must?
My point is that you need to move to systemd because if you don't, you'll be using a system that noone is willing to maintain.
As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why take away sysvint?
Sysvinit will not be taken away. However, as is the way of software, if sysvinit is not actively maintained, it will simply stop working in a matter of years.
You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and not be forced down the systemd path.
Unwanted change is not nice. In fact, I haven't switched to systemd yet because I'm worried about the switch (even though I've heard it's pretty easy), and sysvinit works OK for me right now. However, I'm also interested in discovering what all this new stuff is that everyone promises systemd can deliver, so I'm happy with the idea that I'll switch at some point.
Isn't this what open source software freedom is all about or did I miss something....I have use linux from the redhat 5.2 (no I am not talking the enterprise version) days.
No, open source software is not about giving you whatever software you want. It's about producing whatever software you want, and letting anyone use it. If you're willing to maintain Sysvinit, you're absolutely free to do that. It may well be that someone *will* be willing to do that when the time comes. In the meantime, I'm afraid your only choice is to use the software that is maintained. Paul
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:47 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 09:08:36 Baho Utot wrote:
I don't understand your point....
What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?
I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I need and has not failed me.
There's nothing inherently wrong with it, just like there was nothing inherently wrong with pen and paper before computers came along. Many people would argue that pen and paper does everything they need, but that doesn't change the fact that most people find computers more flexible. Those wanting to stick to pen and paper find themselves increasingly frustrated that they can't get by without a computer. It's not that they're not *entitled* to their opinion, it's just that everyone else has moved on. It's not a conspiracy; things simply change. Maybe you don't see the advantage, but other people do.
So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers tell me I must?
My point is that you need to move to systemd because if you don't, you'll be using a system that noone is willing to maintain.
As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why take away sysvint?
Sysvinit will not be taken away. However, as is the way of software, if sysvinit is not actively maintained, it will simply stop working in a matter of years.
You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and not be forced down the systemd path.
Unwanted change is not nice. In fact, I haven't switched to systemd yet because I'm worried about the switch (even though I've heard it's pretty easy), and sysvinit works OK for me right now. However, I'm also interested in discovering what all this new stuff is that everyone promises systemd can deliver, so I'm happy with the idea that I'll switch at some point.
Isn't this what open source software freedom is all about or did I miss something....I have use linux from the redhat 5.2 (no I am not talking the enterprise version) days.
No, open source software is not about giving you whatever software you want. It's about producing whatever software you want, and letting anyone use it. If you're willing to maintain Sysvinit, you're absolutely free to do that. It may well be that someone *will* be willing to do that when the time comes. In the meantime, I'm afraid your only choice is to use the software that is maintained.
Paul
Not what I want to hear, but a good, objective statement! Respect, Ralf
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:50:16PM +0530, Jayesh Badwaik wrote:
Hi,
Another flame may start here, but I would like to present the following as a pure news, no opinions[1].
Of course, after reading all the discussions on the mailing lists, my feeling after reading the link? Mwuhahahaha.
Important quotes from the link ( which I hope do not alter the context of the post):
"Well, we intent to continue to make it possible to run udevd outside of systemd. But that's about it. We will not polish that, or add new features to that or anything.
OTOH we do polish behaviour of udev when used *within* systemd however, and that's our primary focus.
And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform integration into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for non-systemd systems.
(Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop that support entirely.)"
[1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012- August/006066.html
Lennart Poettering wants to control GNU/Linux, period. And, he has been quite effective in furthering his goals through his "great" ideas. I see that linus torvalds will have competition pretty soon on who gets to be the overlord. Or maybe they can coexist, one in kernel land and the other in userspace land ;)
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 19:11 +0530, gt wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:50:16PM +0530, Jayesh Badwaik wrote:
Hi,
Another flame may start here, but I would like to present the following as a pure news, no opinions[1].
Of course, after reading all the discussions on the mailing lists, my feeling after reading the link? Mwuhahahaha.
Important quotes from the link ( which I hope do not alter the context of the post):
"Well, we intent to continue to make it possible to run udevd outside of systemd. But that's about it. We will not polish that, or add new features to that or anything.
OTOH we do polish behaviour of udev when used *within* systemd however, and that's our primary focus.
And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform integration into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for non-systemd systems.
(Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop that support entirely.)"
[1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012- August/006066.html
Lennart Poettering wants to control GNU/Linux, period. And, he has been quite effective in furthering his goals through his "great" ideas.
I see that linus torvalds will have competition pretty soon on who gets to be the overlord. Or maybe they can coexist, one in kernel land and the other in userspace land ;)
Some time ago I called "Linux" "Lennux".
I see that linus torvalds will have competition pretty soon on who gets to be the overlord. Or maybe they can coexist, one in kernel land and the other in userspace land ;)
linus used to run binaries from his earliest days just to make sure that they still worked and constantly iterates that anything new should not break or remove features from userland (atleast until the screams aren't so noisy). Pulse brought new (the driver likely being playing music whilst playing games without apps being setup to use plugs could have been fixed in alsa) but removed/broke stuff too. It's surely wrong to get personal however and Pulse does fix a problem for many atleast but he would have to be much more subtle to make it in kernel land. It's said a fundamental problem with user space development is that often new projects are started because feature X is easier when starting from scratch and so your swapping rather than developing. Is that the case here or was there a difficult problem in getting alsa to work with multiple input sources at once by default or more likely was the difficulty integrating audio distribution which very few actually care about. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
It's said a fundamental problem with user space development is that often new projects are started because feature X is easier when starting from scratch and so your swapping rather than developing. Is that the case here or was there a difficult problem in getting alsa to work with multiple input sources at once by default or more likely was the difficulty integrating audio distribution which very few actually care about.
Pulseaudio was never meant to replace ALSA, it requires ALSA drivers to run at all.... if anything it was a replacement for ESD et. al.
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530 Jayesh Badwaik <jayesh.badwaik90@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, *wall of text*
I, for one, welcome our new red hatted underlings.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Jayesh Badwaik <jayesh.badwaik90@gmail.com> wrote:
Another flame may start here, but I would like to present the following as a pure news, no opinions[1].
You're free to post this, but don't for one second pretend that it is anything, but flame bait. =-Jameson
participants (32)
-
Alexander
-
Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
-
Baho Utot
-
Bjoern Franke
-
Brandon Watkins
-
Calvin Morrison
-
David Benfell
-
Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
-
Fons Adriaensen
-
Gaetan Bisson
-
Geoff
-
Gour
-
gt
-
Jameson
-
Jayesh Badwaik
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Joakim Hernberg
-
Jorge Almeida
-
Justin Strickland
-
Kevin Chadwick
-
Mateusz Loskot
-
Norbert Zeh
-
Oon-Ee Ng
-
Paul Dann
-
Paul Gideon Dann
-
phani
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
Rodrigo Rivas
-
Sander Jansen
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tom Gundersen
-
Øyvind Heggstad