On 24/04/17 06:34 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
On 4/24/2017 11:26 AM, Wols Lists wrote:
On 24/04/17 16:07, Brian K. White wrote:
On 4/24/2017 8:29 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:
I rarely use YaST. Things like this do not encourage me to use YaST.
You mean, you use the system in some non-standard way?
You mean, like, a simple linux dual boot?
So, your deviant choices are ok, but hers are not?
The problem is, Yast (and so many other automagic tools) are optimised/tested for the simple, basic case. As soon as you try to do anything beyond that, you end up fighting the tool.
Correct. That is precisely her (and mine for that matter) perpetual observation of the entire distro since the mid 11.x days. Or even 10.x days.
But when a problem is pointed out, all we get are dismissive jokes about "dead kittens", instead of actually addressing the problem that was pointed out, if the cause of the problem is one of the darling new hotness projects everyone must love or else be spit on as stupid old dummies who clearly are just befuddled by all this new fangled stuff and just can't figure it out and just don't like change. One wonders how they ever found themselves in sysadmin and developer and CTO positions. Must be nepotism or something. Only possible explaination why anyone could possibly say anything bad about systemd, plymouth, graphical grub, kernel drm, dracut, huge initrds with X in them, dbus, pulseaudio... None of them have any invalid core precepts, merely ordinary technical blemishes to be ironed out by *helpful* *constructive* people who don't go around saying awful things like "Uh, this is fundamentally a bad idea. There is no right way to do a bad idea..."
;)
Brian, this is unhelpful. Yes there is a bug in YaST. Yes, the path involving creation of thinpool wasn't tested. Until, possibly, the bug *was* found:, as I've pointed out a couple of times now: If you look in https://github.com/openSUSE/libstorage specifically in https://github.com/openSUSE/libstorage/blob/master/package/libstorage.change... you'll see this bug has been found and has been fixed: ======================================================================= Mon Feb 13 11:39:52 CET 2017 - aschnell@suse.com - omit option --zero for lvcreate when creating thin provisioned volumes (bsc#968346) - 2.26.12 ========================================================================= Rather than 'rail against the darkness' I lit a candle, drilled down and determined what the bug was, found the bug had been reported, found the bug had been fixed. Yes I actually addressed the problem when others were railing. I'm often called an old dinosaur because I quote history and tradition. When I'm 'befuddled' I explore variants, read the documentation, seek advice from people who have made it work and follow as exactly as I can what they (claim) they were doing. I don't know the specifics of why Linda has so much problem with "sysd" as she calls it. I'm not looking over her shoulder as she tries an install and I get confused by the way she communicates her complaints. I don't claim to be a a genius. I admit that people like Leonard are a lot smarter than me and have the humility to try and persist and carefully document what I do and persist and first assume I'm doing something wrong until I have overwhelming and verified evidence to the contrary. As, in this case, the bug in YaST use to make a thin pool system being traceable to libstorage6.so and the use of "--zero=y" that was corrected back in February. Is the fact that such updates aren't on the distribution (and therefore installation) DVD "a bad thing"? I've suggested a number of times doing a basic install and then making the thin pool from the CLI -- where you can use 'lvcreate' directly and omit the un-needed "--zero=y" and omit using libstorage6.so. I've suggested using DVD-based or USB-based tools to set up the disk, set up the LVM and the LVs before starting the installation. Lets face it, I'm not alone in this; I'm just echoing what other people have suggested I do, what other people who deal with multiple drives, multiple installations, lots-a-lots-a partitions do. There's nothing new or innovative about this approach. I've pointed out that there are LVM tools to populate the /dev/for the LVM LVs. Like so much about Linux "there's more than one way to do it" depending on other factors. There's a lot I don't know about. Multiple boot comes into that category. I always seem to have enough problems with MBR, I can't dream of how people manage to boot multiple distributions! I realise that systemd is, like many things in Linux, an 'ongoing project' that has a few ragged, incomplete ends. I stay away from those bits of it. But I do know the core works. Perhaps its a bit like religion: if you are believer the miracles work for you, if you're not a believer then they don't. Perhaps the reason my boot is slower than Linda's is that I run a FSCK on *every* LV. Even if each one says "nothing to do here" there's still a cost. Lots-a-lots LVs. Every time I have an issue I create a new LV. They're dirt cheap. Load up with Reiser, find out the number of inodes I need, create another one with ext4 carefully provisioned. But I never seen to throw away they first one :-) :-) And of course os-prober wastes time looking at them as well, even if it finds nothing there. Systemd works for me. Thin pools work for me. I've explained how. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org