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!
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.
Linda you have many objections and I for one feel that you are inventing problems for yourself, creating a conservative stance just to be a conservative and rationalizing that stance rather than treating it rationally. Your obsession with a obsolete RFC is one example.
--- 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...
I've tried to politely show your inconsistencies, like your objections to a file /+/usr which barely adds up to 10G when you're going on about having 1TB /tmp. Like your going on about dangling symlinks that are only symlinks for broken programs that need backward computability.
Um...*Most* of the core utils have been in /bin since forever. Moving them for no reason is bad design. Saying you want to have all of them accessible in /usr/bin means you could leave the originals in /bin for several releases, and put symlinks in /usr/bin to the originals. After plenty of time -- and maybe not all at once, you let people get used to them in /usr/bin -- not cut off life support before their programs are ported (let alone their habits).
You claim to be a 'computer scientist' but I would have thought that such a role wound involve investigating 'the future ' and 'future directions' - whereas all we see is arch conservatism and rampant defence of recidivism.
Nope...computers revolved around being useful tools for people -- not instruments to terrorize and oppress them. Their role has changed over the years. It used to be companies did usability studies and hired users to come in use the product to see how they could improve usability and make the interfaces easier and more natural to use. Now? Those who write programs tell users they have to adapt to the computer -- immediately. no choice. Change is great done right... but hit the earth with a meteor the size of the moon and change would be hurting alot of people.
Its becoming clearer that you aren't actually a openSuse user, that you are really a Windows user. You are keeping Linux at arms length. I'm coming to believe that you're not ding enough with Linux to make the assertions
------------- Context, dear boy, context... it is everything (or so you say) Why would you think that because I don't do the same things you do I don't do enough with it? How many services do you run on your linux boxes that *serve* other computers? This has been about changes antithetical to good server hygiene but useful for a locked-down walled-garden app-player appliance. linux has been about *open*ness as was OpenSuse... closing it up so it only works one way, isn't open. Out of the over 30 some odd services, over 20 of those services are services other computers rely on to function. My linux computer is the backbone of my home network -- providing proxy/network routing, disk space, backup/domain server, mail server imap server, named/bind name resolution, time keeping, data sharing amongst several more. When I wasn't running 12.X or factory my system's uptime was measured in months... I don't use it for a desktop because -- it isn't as user friendly to people with RSI -- that and it's not as compatible with the applications I have used... though I constantly try to get linux-remote desktop working so I could use it more often... but so far, xrdp doesn't want to show me any desktops...though at least it answers the 'line' now when my remote desktop client knocks... I'd love to get remote sound working as well..but most of all, I'd like to get the GLX stuff working remotely... 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. With non-lvm system disks I have a way to repair the damage quickly...(or used to when things were more reliable...now it takes a bit longer sometimes)... It doesn't sounds like you are a computer scientist. If you were, you'd know that having a computer that is reliable in spite of what you've done to it is a huge bonus. Fragility sucks. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org