Anton Aylward wrote:
Linda Walsh said the following on 05/09/2013 01:43 AM:
Anton Aylward wrote:
The either submit something that makes up for all the deficiencies in sysvinit of your own, show it works, or go to something that doesn't use it.
SysVinit was perfect for my needs -- it had no deficiencies that caused me any difficulties. So the argument is starting from a flawed premise. The whole problem here is taking something that worked for alot of people and throwing it out because some people couldn't figure out how to make it work. Brilliant!
You're being ridiculous again.
Yeah, wanting people to accommodate users with migration or compatibility is entirely ridiculous... right.. The fact that it has become ridiculous is the problem.
It may have been perfect for your needs (though judging by some of what you say abut, for example, your problems with X,
--- X works fine for most things -- but I only got a faster link a few months ago -- so now I figure I should be able to do more. But with a larger than normal chunk of time spent in repair mode it slows down progress.
I do wonder) but you are not the entire universe of Linux never mind openSuse users.
I've heard from others who have said that it worked for them too, but they believe it's pointless to speak up. They don't want to get the same treatment I get.
Systemd wasn't the only proposed or demonstrated solution to the growth problems of Linux, the issued that people running big systems or supporting virtual images or needing better resource management than the old, old and inadequately designed and managed 'quota' system could give.
It wasn't simply that people couldn't figure out how to make sysvinit work; its that it was incapable of doing and managing many things that needed to be done. That you seem unaware of this tells me a lot.
The fact that I'm unaware that "Shell" can't be used to write a system kernel? Um... Not something "Shell" was designed to do. But are you going to through out the Shell because you want the kernel to manage resources? That's just plain silly. Unix has been about creating larger systems with small pieces -- never about monolithic applications that do everything. That's windows.
But to the point: systemd can run just fine on small single user systems like mine too.
---- MS says that of windows too!
If a better system is thine, impart it freely; If not, make use of mine.
---- Like you say everything is context! In my context, sysVinit was far better than the pain that systemd is causing (which I ALSO say isn't inherent to systemd, but to how the it is being crammed down user's throats.
Wriggle time, eh? ??? eh?
--- It was the first one that popped up on google. I read the other ones you mentioned last time I suggested munging the reply-to field -- and found that was out of vogue...
And what does 'out of vogue mean?
It means no longer in use.
If you'd read it then you'd have seen that it obsoleted RFC822. I'd say "obsolete' trumps 'out of vogue' any day. So why quote something that is obsolete?
It's been updated, and the new material isn't the opposite and doesn't contradict the old in most places including the place I was discussing. "Trumps"... sorry, you wanna play one-ups-manship -- fine...you win. happy?
Um...*Most* of the core utils have been in /bin since forever.
Actually that's not true if you go back far enough. If you go back far enough there was no /home and no /usr.
??? so instead of in bin, they were in tmp? bin was the original location before /usr came long and later home. I stand by what I said.
UNIX and Linux have been subject to change and change and change.
A lot of what you and I mean YOU LINDA - seem to consider in the "since forever" actually came into vogue after Bell's UNIX System Group (USG) tried to do a unification of the fork-split-fork & fork-merge-fork that was SYSTEM III and SYSTEM V shortly before it all was 'sold' to SCO.
The earliest unix versions had bin and lib.... but I really am not interested.
If you want examples of bad design and abysmal code just go back to that era!
---- Eh deary... back in my day we had to walk up the hill in the snow both ways to get to our code... it was soo... one upsman...
Moving them for no reason is bad design.
Ah, clearly you haven't read up on this to discover the reasons,
---- I did... there was nothing there to suggest why it needed to done the way it was. It was a strawman argument being used as a reason to make change. the
quite good and justifiable reasons. Just like you didn't read up on other RFCs that obsoleted 822.
But you don't seem to have read on the long terms plans.
Care to cite any URLs? If it is published somewhere I usually read them. When no one wants to tell you what the plans are or why, then whether or not I want to read is rather moot -- or are you being deliberately taunting?
Oh, unless you break other things like not reading the docco properly and try to have a /usr that isn't loaded at boot.
Um... what docco? the stuff on the computer that won't boot? oh yeah!
But how about you clarify what your WORKSTATION is.
I've never made any bones about my setup. I have a split system. a Windows desktop and a server backend. Neither work well without the other. Each do their job better than the OS of the other could. I'm try to work on compatibility -- something you don't seem to understand.
As far as having my system partitions be LVM, that would be *convenient*, but many times, (like tonight), some issue comes up where non of the lvm disks mount.
I've been using LVM since it came out for Linux having used a similar system with AIX for years. I've never had problems with it unless and until the disk hardware give up, and even then I can often localise the problem enough to recover. if you screw your kernel, for example your initrm/boot doesn't have the module config into it, they obviously you'll have problems; that goes for any driver.
---- I always am fiddling with my kernel's bits. Kernel programming and engineering are areas of interest. Not usually been the issue but a matching of versions.
With non-lvm system disks I have a way to repair the damage quickly...
And I have the knowledge to repair lvm systems.....
----- I am not that comfortable doing that -- not to mention they make it hard to boot from disk if you are interested in speed of booting -- something the systemd website recommends for performance, but you probably haven't read about either and still don't know why SuSE can't support it.
I *EXPECT* thing to break and fail and wear out.
---- I build things with multiple layers so they don't break all at once. When everything breaks at once, that's bad. You may like that, I don't -- I prefer to deal with things more gradually.
Fragility sucks.
Yes, so? Any engineer knows how to design indefinitely reliable system s out of unreliable compensates ... given enough time, money and manpower :-)
---- "enough time money and power"... right...so it doesn't exist. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org