Linda Walsh said the following on 02/06/2013 01:48 AM:
Anton Aylward wrote:
And no, I don't think the the changes we've seen are "ill-thought-out changes that serve no purpose".
---- Yet when asked for reasons WHY -- NO ONE can come up with an answer. If you have one, let's hear it.
Perhaps if you can deal with specifics rather than generalizations, and perhaps if you want me to do your googling for you... But I suspect this is RELIGION. I'm not a <strike>doctor</strike> True Believer, I'm an engineer. "It Works for me" and works well.
Perhaps they are not as well integrated into openSuse as they are into, say, Fedora, but they are well thought out if you look into the work that has been done with them. They may not suit you and your context, we can accept that, but since so many other people find they work and work well in other contexts that is no reason to insult
Insult? Saying something an idea is ill-thought out is hardly an insult. I can't say an idea is 'bad' without it being an "insult"? If I don't agree, I'm insulting? Um... excuse me!
There are people who devoted a great deal of time effort, though and experimentation to matters such as systemd. Saying it was 'ill-thought out" is saying that they had inferior though processes. I would see that as insulting. There's a lot of things that are well thought out but constrained in the implementation because of other constraints such as economics and ability to manufacture. Automotive engineering has a lot of the former (we could build really great cars but they would cost 100 times as much) and aeronautics the latter - we often simply don't have materials to do the job. But this is software. neither of those apply. If you can think it through you can build it and we do and we have.
the people who worked hard on them. I'm glad to be
able to boot from LVM and get rid of that pesky, fixed size 'boot' partition.
lilo can already boot from lvm, but that's neither here nor there... You could have had your cake and I could have had mine too -- BOTH could have their way -- and neither HAD to step on the other's toes to get to where you want to go.
Ah, religion at work again. That you CAN doesn't mean you should or have to. That you choose to ... As far as I'm concerned, I can just stuck in the installation DVD and forget about details like partitioning - that's the beauty of LVM, deferred decisions. I don't have to do any customising of the boot process. Joe Sixpack can do it with the minimum of lock-in and the minimum of knowledge about Linux internals. I recently, as I mentioned here, did an install of 12.2 using BtrFS. it was a start-it-up-and-walk-away install. Whatever defaults... You seem to be asking for two things. The first is that we are not to be given choices. The second is that the result of that lack of choice is to stick with the old way of doing things. I've also mentioned her that I use Fedora. Its supposed to be Redhat's 'experimental' platform (perhaps in the way that openSuse is a 'experimental' platform for SLED/SLES). Yet I find it stably integrates all these leading edge innovations. I'm told this is because it has a much larger user base and developer base than openSuse, but there's a bit of WTF in there since this is all open source; the openSuse developers can study the Fedora source. My point here is that I have choices and I choose to exercise them; the whole point of Linux and FOSS is that there is no 'state religion' as with Microsoft.
The choice to destroy the past, is the part that was ill thought out.
As you point out by insisting on LILO, the past is not destroyed. I still have all the openSuse installation CDs back to 7.something. I may have earlier ones in a box somewhere...
I dunno -- call me naive, but copying binaries from /bin->/usr/bin and putting symlinks in /bin seems pointless -- unless you are *purposefully* screwing over people who don't have /usr/bin mounted. If you do it the other way around -- it's ALMOST guaranteed NOT to screw anyone over -- since historically, /bin has always been mounted at the time of, or before /usr/bin.
Now how can you claim that is not, at least, "ill thought out" -- and that's giving the benefit of the doubt of malice, but writing this -- I don't see any other point other than malice to do it that way.
You are picking on 'just one thing'. The integration of "/" and "/usr" was driven by many other ENGINEERING factors. Prime among them was systemd. As Felix says # why have you not installed # sysvinit-init to dispense with it if you think systemd is your problem?
I already asked -- and NO ONE ANSWER, does /usr/bin also include /usr/SHARE?...
Don't be silly! /usr/share is under /usr not /usr/bin!
So far, the answer has been YES!...the "SHARE" partition has to be on the root partition too..
You can say that all you want and it doesn't make it so. I've told you before and I'll tell you again. I'm running an LVM system where I created a new LV that had "/" and "/usr" copied into it, the /etc/fstab edited to accommodate that an that only, and a new entry in /boot/grub2/grub.cfg to boot using that. The fstab has entries for /usr/share /usr/share/icons /usr/lib/perl /usr/lib/ruby I also have partitions for /home/anton /home/anton/Documents /home/anton/Music /home/anton/Video so I can mount them on any machine on the LAN :-) Oh, and I have no problems with such 'roving shares'. Am I alone in having a /usr/share partition? Not in the least. I recall this being discussed in the 1980s on USENET. It seems many sites, SUN among them, really did share /usr/share so as to avoid duplicating installing it on every node. Since I've managed, just recently, to put 12.2 on an old 10G drive I hand-mangled it to use the NFS version of /usr/share :-) Please stop spreading the nonsense that this s not possible, that /usr/share has to be on the root partition.
I *like* the fast and parallelized boot of systemd ---- It is SLOWER, it just seems faster because it flashes the screen more...it's a Microsoft design policy -- which is where systemd's design has come from.
Considering the large number of people that have done comparative timing studies and that systemd has tools to let you see where the boot process is spending its time so you can do something about that, I'm not sure where you get the idea that a parallelized boot system is slower than the old serialised sysv-init. That on some systems the paths followed means the GUI login comes up while other non GUI services (in my case the email system .. fetchmail depends on postfix and by my decision on dovecot) are still starting isn't an issue. The whole point of the say systemd is set up, unless you've set it up incorrectly, is that the dependency tree says that the DM and login screen are not dependent on anything that is still starting up. For example fetchmail needs networking and DNS. I'm not going to comment on your "Microsoft" observation other than to say that it seems like religion. At one time IBM was spoken of in the same anathematic tones by users of DEC/UNIX.
So how can I keep systemd from messing with my screen and keep it in text mode?
As Felix says: # You really think systemd has anything to do with framebuffer trouble when # you're using a video card so old it has a dedicated section in the # framebuffer HOWTO? [1] If you are using 12.1, why have you not installed # sysvinit-init to dispense with it if you think systemd is your problem? If you are blaming systemd for the fact that you are using "a crap video card" then its clear that you are striking out irrationally because you don't understand the role of systemd. -- I have no faith, very little hope, and as much charity as I can afford. Thomas H. Huxley -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org