On Sunday 28 Sep 2014 21:28:09 Dirk Gently wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 09/28/2014 03:20 PM, David Haller wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014, Anton Aylward wrote:
Such a fundamental gaff!
^^^^
A what?
A gaff is a hook, or a tool for pulling something in
In this context is the the root page of the articles on systemd: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/
Or to put it another way, such a basic URL for pulling in all the discussion on systemd that easily refutes all that aaron-as-dirk is saying, if he'd bothered to read it. That page has 'hooks', references.
Of course a pile more could be refuted by actually reading the code, but that takes a modicum of understanding of C. Gaffs-as-hooks are used at Sea as well.
Of course you could also accuse me of making a pun-as-typo: the term 'gaffe', that is a hook with a 'e' hooked on the end, means a 'blunder'. Yes, aaron-as-dirk made a blunder by referring to "SystemD".
Well the best that can be said for aaron-as-dirk is that he takes himself too seriously so would never appreciate such a pun.
The operation of init is self-evident. I never needed to read hundreds upon hundreds of pages of documentation before having a clue how it worked... all I needed to do was read a couple paragraphs on the inittab manpage, and a couple of paragraphs on the init manpage.
With that small bit of knowledge, I can configure any any init-style system (SysVInit, BSD's init, etc) with a minimum amount of fuss.
Trying to configure a systemd system to do something that Sievert & Poeetering didn't anticipate, or worse yet, correct something they've fucked up is, frankly, WORSE than getting four impacted wisdom teeth removed -- and I know, because I've experienced it.
Just because its beyond your understanding, doesn;t mean everyone else is having problems.
An earlier commenter was right...
SystemD isn't just a replacement for init, but a powergrab. If it WERE just a replacement for init, then it would continue to just call the scripts in /etc/init.d to carry out their various functions, instead of completely replacing their functionality.
And how is it that when I run a script in /etc/init.d, I get some message, "redirecting to systemctl to start ... "
linux-86ja:/etc/init.d # ./cron start redirecting to systemctl start .service Starting CRON daemon done linux-86ja:/etc/init.d # grep systemctl ./cron linux-86ja:/etc/init.d # grep system ./cron linux-86ja:/etc/init.d #
Hmmm, the cron start/stop script contains NO references to systemctl, not even in a comment, so I have a question --
How in the ***FUCK*** is this getting redirected to a systemctl command?
Have these assholes now hacked bash to intercept any execution of a script in /etc/init.d
This is absolute bullshit, because now we see something else that has been "fixed" by Poettering in the most self-serving of ways --- rather than edit the /etc/init.d scripts to look for systemctl, and if found, run the systemctl command, it's quite obvious that bash has been changed to operating e a completely unexpected and undocumented manner, all for the purpose of grabbing more power.
Fuck Sievert & Poettering, and fuck anybody who supports this fucking bullshit.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org