[opensuse] systemd
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577 "I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing." Thank you. :) Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ? -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 7/12/17 9:58 AM, Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
...And to add to that: User=0day considered harmful in systemd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 7/12/2017 1:42 PM, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
On 7/12/17 9:58 AM, Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
...And to add to that:
User=0day considered harmful in systemd
Yes that whole thing was perfect. The bug itself is perfectly normal and forgivable. The systemd developers response was a perfect example of what is so unforgivable. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 07/12/2017 11:58 AM, Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
You have to take his advise to heart. When he really gets wound up watch out..., e.g. old thoughts on C vs. C++ totally unleashing on a naysayer: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57918 Gotta like his style :) -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 7/12/2017 7:56 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 07/12/2017 11:58 AM, Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
You have to take his advise to heart. When he really gets wound up watch out..., e.g. old thoughts on C vs. C++ totally unleashing on a naysayer:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57918
Gotta like his style :)
That link doesn't work for me. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 13/07/17 10:31, Brian K. White wrote:
On 7/12/2017 7:56 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 07/12/2017 11:58 AM, Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
You have to take his advise to heart. When he really gets wound up watch out..., e.g. old thoughts on C vs. C++ totally unleashing on a naysayer:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57918
Gotta like his style :)
That link doesn't work for me.
Nor me. BC -- You are NOT entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Harlan Ellison -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 07/13/2017 01:17 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 13/07/17 10:31, Brian K. White wrote:
On 7/12/2017 7:56 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 07/12/2017 11:58 AM, Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
You have to take his advise to heart. When he really gets wound up watch out..., e.g. old thoughts on C vs. C++ totally unleashing on a naysayer:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57918
Gotta like his style :)
That link doesn't work for me.
Nor me.
BC
Sorry guys, Seems the gmane.org site reminds us of the Achilles heel of the internet (links don't stay working), this is the new location https://lwn.net/Articles/249460/ -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 13/07/17 17:44, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 07/13/2017 01:17 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 13/07/17 10:31, Brian K. White wrote:
On 7/12/2017 7:56 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 07/12/2017 11:58 AM, Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
You have to take his advise to heart. When he really gets wound up watch out..., e.g. old thoughts on C vs. C++ totally unleashing on a naysayer:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57918
Gotta like his style :)
That link doesn't work for me. Nor me.
BC
Sorry guys,
Seems the gmane.org site reminds us of the Achilles heel of the internet (links don't stay working), this is the new location
Thanks, David. Read what Linus wrote and agree with your comment re his style :-). BC -- You are NOT entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Harlan Ellison -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 7/13/2017 3:44 AM, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 07/13/2017 01:17 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 13/07/17 10:31, Brian K. White wrote:
On 7/12/2017 7:56 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 07/12/2017 11:58 AM, Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
You have to take his advise to heart. When he really gets wound up watch out..., e.g. old thoughts on C vs. C++ totally unleashing on a naysayer:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57918
Gotta like his style :)
That link doesn't work for me.
Nor me.
BC
Sorry guys,
Seems the gmane.org site reminds us of the Achilles heel of the internet (links don't stay working), this is the new location
That is excellent. :) I won't presume to say "he's right" because I am not qualified to say such a thing in relation to someone of his calibre, on this and related topics. But I can say I agree on all points. I think Poettering might be quite smart, but there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. They often go together and overlap. Intelligence does often produce more wisdom and faster, but they are still distinct things, and you can actually have a lot of either one without much of the other. If Poettering has a lot of intelligence, he has only that, and no wisdom. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 07/14/2017 11:47 AM, Brian K. White wrote:
That is excellent. :)
I won't presume to say "he's right" because I am not qualified to say such a thing in relation to someone of his calibre, on this and related topics. But I can say I agree on all points.
I think Poettering might be quite smart, but there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. They often go together and overlap. Intelligence does often produce more wisdom and faster, but they are still distinct things, and you can actually have a lot of either one without much of the other. If Poettering has a lot of intelligence, he has only that, and no wisdom.
Brian, I think you identified the competing sides with laser-beam precision. Intelligence is not wisdom. When you get those rare discussions on the deeper issue, (regardless of the diplomacy used) it's worth taking a moment to (try) and understand what is being said -- and why. It applies in all facets of life and if only there were a way to include that lesson as part of the standard curriculum -- this ole world would only be the better for it. Whether the wisdom be about software design paradigms, civil responsibility, or each singular issue in between. And... if it just also happens to have all the hallmarks for a good street fight where one side is being intellectually pummeled in a colorful way -- that's just icing on the cake :) -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:02 PM, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
I think you identified the competing sides with laser-beam precision. Intelligence is not wisdom. When you get those rare discussions on the deeper issue, (regardless of the diplomacy used) it's worth taking a moment to (try) and understand what is being said -- and why. It applies in all facets of life and if only there were a way to include that lesson as part of the standard curriculum -- this ole world would only be the better for it. Whether the wisdom be about software design paradigms, civil responsibility, or each singular issue in between. And... if it just also happens to have all the hallmarks for a good street fight where one side is being intellectually pummeled in a colorful way -- that's just icing on the cake :)
Part of the problem with "progress" is that people are either forced to accept it or forced to find ways around it. The systemd devs have created a great many tools that some people find useful(avahi, pulseaudio, etc) but which others do not. I personally don't find any value in them, but I don't care if others use them(semantic desktop anyone??). I just prefer to be able to not have them installed. I remember when I once tried to remove avahi from an openSUSE install years ago, and it basically would have broken everything. However, a fresh install with it tabooed worked just fine. Linux is a great tool, but as with any tool, it has it's uses. When a change is made, it can have a positive or negative benefit depending on the user. I personally didn't move to KDE4 even when I was told to "get over it and get with the times". Fortunately for me, I have the ability to install and use TDE instead, which serves my desktop purposes. Unfortunately, systemd has basically become a dependency on installation for so many things that it's not like a choice between Desktop environments or editors(vi vs emacs - I use neither - Midnight Commanders built-in editor does what I need). And while I have made use of susestudio, it's lagging behind as has been pointed out before. While I personally don't really care for the philosophy of systemd, I can make use of it. Honestly my biggest issue is with Firefox. Once again earlier I had to kill it because it was hogging all the resources of my laptop and I could barely do anything with it. Desktop Environments have become less important since so much is now done on-line in a browser anyway. In the almost 20 years I have used Linux, and I've used S.u.S.E. and it's descendants for most of it, the biggest issue I've always ran into was dependency hell. Trying to figure out why something needs something else(when it really shouldn't) used to drive me nuts. Especially before I had high speed net access. In the long run, it's up to each person to decide if the changes implemented by the project leaders(who can't please everybody) are a deal breaker or not. Resources are far from infinite and IMNSHO Linux's biggest problem is fragmentation more than anything else. With Windows or Mac OS, you have 1 OS and several versions to choice from. With Linux, you have hundreds of distros and many versions of each. You even have dozens of BSDs to chose from. Projects like the Linux Standard Base and others tried to make things more uniform, but even then you have .deb vs .rpm and so much more. Sometimes too much choice is worse than having basically no choice at all. People are stubborn and will support their choice no matter what anyone says. To each their own. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Larry Stotler:
In the long run, it's up to each person to decide if the changes implemented by the project leaders(who can't please everybody) are a deal breaker or not. Resources are far from infinite and IMNSHO Linux's biggest problem is fragmentation more than anything else. With Windows or Mac OS, you have 1 OS and several versions to choice from. With Linux, you have hundreds of distros and many versions of each. You even have dozens of BSDs to chose from. Projects like the Linux Standard Base and others tried to make things more uniform, but even then you have .deb vs .rpm and so much more.
Sometimes too much choice is worse than having basically no choice at all. People are stubborn and will support their choice no matter what anyone says.
To each their own.
this has been my complaint about linux all along - fragmented. i used it from '99 to '06 when i became ill. then used windows because it was easy for me. when i was better, i went to mac. my mac died recently and i tried kubuntu, devuan, and settled on opensuse because i felt it was the most stable when compared to .deb. so here i am. i most likely wont go back to windows or mac now. there are just too many choices out there. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Larry Stotler <larrystotler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:02 PM, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
I think you identified the competing sides with laser-beam precision. Intelligence is not wisdom. When you get those rare discussions on the deeper issue, (regardless of the diplomacy used) it's worth taking a moment to (try) and understand what is being said -- and why. It applies in all facets of life and if only there were a way to include that lesson as part of the standard curriculum -- this ole world would only be the better for it. Whether the wisdom be about software design paradigms, civil responsibility, or each singular issue in between. And... if it just also happens to have all the hallmarks for a good street fight where one side is being intellectually pummeled in a colorful way -- that's just icing on the cake :)
Part of the problem with "progress" is that people are either forced to accept it or forced to find ways around it. The systemd devs have created a great many tools that some people find useful(avahi, pulseaudio, etc) but which others do not. I personally don't find any value in them, but I don't care if others use them(semantic desktop anyone??). I just prefer to be able to not have them installed. I remember when I once tried to remove avahi from an openSUSE install years ago, and it basically would have broken everything. However, a fresh install with it tabooed worked just fine.
Linux is a great tool, but as with any tool, it has it's uses. When a change is made, it can have a positive or negative benefit depending on the user. I personally didn't move to KDE4 even when I was told to "get over it and get with the times". Fortunately for me, I have the ability to install and use TDE instead, which serves my desktop purposes. Unfortunately, systemd has basically become a dependency on installation for so many things that it's not like a choice between Desktop environments or editors(vi vs emacs - I use neither - Midnight Commanders built-in editor does what I need). And while I have made use of susestudio, it's lagging behind as has been pointed out before.
<snip>
In the long run, it's up to each person to decide if the changes implemented by the project leaders(who can't please everybody) are a deal breaker or not. Resources are far from infinite and IMNSHO Linux's biggest problem is fragmentation more than anything else. With Windows or Mac OS, you have 1 OS and several versions to choice from. With Linux, you have hundreds of distros and many versions of each. You even have dozens of BSDs to chose from. Projects like the Linux Standard Base and others tried to make things more uniform, but even then you have .deb vs .rpm and so much more.
Sometimes too much choice is worse than having basically no choice at all. People are stubborn and will support their choice no matter what anyone says.
I am confused by these arguments. At the beginning you complain there is not enough fragmentation, then at the end you complain there is too much. Which is it? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 07/15/2017 07:16 AM, Todd Rme wrote:
I am confused by these arguments. At the beginning you complain there is not enough fragmentation, then at the end you complain there is too much. Which is it?
That is not what I understood at all from the post. At first it was a discussion about progress [in Linux development] and it being forced on the user base or the base forced to find a work-around. Not a complaint, but a valid observation that has played out time and again In the opensource world where, at times, we too a guilty of failing to learn what history has to teach... Nowhere did I see the simplified dichotomy you have sized upon. It is more a reflection of the awkward leaps and starts that have occurred in Linux development and the impacts of the various changes on the user base as traditional approaches are replaced by monoliths that subsume the functions of what were once collections of simple tools each doing their jobs and doing them well. (there were also a couple of anecdotes thrown in for good measure) I find it difficult to believe you are actually interested in an answer to the question you posited, "Which is it?" As if a post is not capable of containing but a single topic. It's far more probable the attempt to force a choice was meant as surreptitious criticism or off-hand comment. That has a name. It's called "trolling". It is unwelcome here. This is a community and we all have to get along in a, hopefully, productive way. Sometimes that encompasses debate over the way Linux or openSuSE is developing, and sometimes there a strong feelings on each side of the argument, but it should never include argumentum ad hominem. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Saturday, 15 July 2017 08:20:41 BST Larry Stotler wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:02 PM, David C. Rankin
<drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
I think you identified the competing sides with laser-beam precision.
Intelligence is not wisdom.
When you get those rare discussions on the deeper issue, (regardless of the
diplomacy used) it's worth taking a moment to (try) and understand what is being said -- and why. It applies in all facets of life and if only there were a way to include that lesson as part of the standard curriculum -- this ole world would only be the better for it.
Whether the wisdom be about software design paradigms, civil responsibility,> or each singular issue in between.
And... if it just also happens to have all the hallmarks for a good street
fight where one side is being intellectually pummeled in a colorful way -- that's just icing on the cake :)
Part of the problem with "progress" is that people are either forced to accept it or forced to find ways around it. The systemd devs have created a great many tools that some people find useful(avahi, pulseaudio, etc) but which others do not. I personally don't find any value in them, but I don't care if others use them(semantic desktop anyone??). I just prefer to be able to not have them installed. I remember when I once tried to remove avahi from an openSUSE install years ago, and it basically would have broken everything. However, a fresh install with it tabooed worked just fine.
Linux is a great tool, but as with any tool, it has it's uses. When a change is made, it can have a positive or negative benefit depending on the user. I personally didn't move to KDE4 even when I was told to "get over it and get with the times". Fortunately for me, I have the ability to install and use TDE instead, which serves my desktop purposes. Unfortunately, systemd has basically become a dependency on installation for so many things that it's not like a choice between Desktop environments or editors(vi vs emacs - I use neither - Midnight Commanders built-in editor does what I need). And while I have made use of susestudio, it's lagging behind as has been pointed out before.
While I personally don't really care for the philosophy of systemd, I can make use of it. Honestly my biggest issue is with Firefox. Once again earlier I had to kill it because it was hogging all the resources of my laptop and I could barely do anything with it. Desktop Environments have become less important since so much is now done on-line in a browser anyway.
In the almost 20 years I have used Linux, and I've used S.u.S.E. and it's descendants for most of it, the biggest issue I've always ran into was dependency hell. Trying to figure out why something needs something else(when it really shouldn't) used to drive me nuts. Especially before I had high speed net access.
In the long run, it's up to each person to decide if the changes implemented by the project leaders(who can't please everybody) are a deal breaker or not. Resources are far from infinite and IMNSHO Linux's biggest problem is fragmentation more than anything else.
Systemd is one of the things reducing fragmentation where you can have a standard across all distros that use it.
With Windows or Mac OS, you have 1 OS and several versions to choice from. With Linux, you have hundreds of distros and many versions of each. You even have dozens of BSDs to chose from. Projects like the Linux Standard Base and others tried to make things more uniform, but even then you have .deb vs .rpm and so much more.
Sometimes too much choice is worse than having basically no choice at all. People are stubborn and will support their choice no matter what anyone says.
To each their own. Indeed, if only people could accept that then we would not have any silly flame wars no matter how polite they try to be with their denigration of each others choices.
-- opensuse:tumbleweed:20170712 Qt: 5.9.1 KDE Frameworks: 5.35.0 KDE Plasma: 5.10.3 kwin 5.10.3 kmail2 5.5.2 akonadiserver 5.5.2 Kernel: 4.11.8-1-default Nouveau: 1.0.15_1.2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 15/07/17 03:20 AM, Larry Stotler wrote:
Linux's biggest problem is fragmentation more than anything else. With Windows or Mac OS, you have 1 OS and several versions to choice from. With Linux, you have hundreds of distros and many versions of each. You even have dozens of BSDs to chose from.
To me, that represents a strength not a liability. *NIX and FOSS are inherently adaptable an able to change and address specifics. Thank for things like Kali, Knoppix (which seems to be able to run on any hardware I've ever encountered, even things that Ubuntu can't), Puppy (for discarded desktops that pre-date even XP), Porteus (under 300M), AV-linux, and of course Android. There are versions optimized for kiosks, for network analysis, for servers, for security. Oh, and of course ones optimized for the Cloud. Many of these are available as LiveCD aka USB. As people have pointed out, Suse has the great advantage of the build System, https://build.opensuse.org/ where anyone can put together customized version of any of the FOSS tools, up to and including building their own distribution. All the 'heavy lifting' is done for you; you just have to specify what you want. Ff you want to micromanage code, regress, enable or disable specific features, yes you can. https://www.howtoforge.com/tutorial/how-to-build-a-linux-distribution-with-s... https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_Tutorial If you feel that you need to "Make Linux Great Again" by regressing, then you can do so. You can even publicise your 'systemd-free kde3 based' distribution for all to "share and enjoy". And if people decide they don't want to use that, then they don't need to. Just like you don't have to use the mainstream distributions. Oh, wait! There are lots of people who have used to Build System to make their own highly customized distributions. https://build.opensuse.org/project With options like these, complaining about the used of systemd in the mainstream (pen)SUSE is futile. -- 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
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Anton Aylward <opensuse@antonaylward.com> wrote:
If you feel that you need to "Make Linux Great Again" by regressing, then you can do so. You can even publicise your 'systemd-free kde3 based' distribution for all to "share and enjoy". And if people decide they don't want to use that, then they don't need to. Just like you don't have to use the mainstream distributions. Oh, wait! There are lots of people who have used to Build System to make their own highly customized distributions. https://build.opensuse.org/project
From what I have seen, a lot of people just don't like the devs, LP
I wasn't complaining about systemd per se. I personally just don't think it's a good idea to put so much into an init system. Microsoft always had a policy of trying to hijack stuff by "extending" a standard so they could control it and systemd "seems" to do a lot of that. And it's not portable to the BSDs(which some think is a good thing). the least. For all his ranting, in some ways he is as arrogant as Linus is "mean". However, when you get right down to it, most users(and I include myself in this group) are not programmers and don't have time to try to get that deeply involved in things. They just want a system that works the way they expect. There are many ways to support a project. Money(I used to but the boxed versions of S.u.S.E.), time(coding, teaching, helping, etc) and more. When the openSUSE project was started it gave users more of a voice in the direction of the distro, but at the end of the day, decisions have to be made and you can't please everyone. As for fragmentation being a strength, it is also a weakness. So many hours of developers times are taken to package each distro, when they could be working to move things forward or to help clean up code elsewhere. But I'm not here to dictate to people what they should do. Just making an observation. As someone who has worked on computers for others for over 25 years, I can say that most people just use what came with their computer and could care less about anything else. They'd rather pay me to fix it than move to something that may be better. Android has a similar, but reverse problem. I run 4.0.4 on my LG Mach. It was one of the last keyboard/slider phones and it is 4G so it does what I need. But I can't get security updates for it so I have to be careful what I do with it(of course it's rooted and has had most unsecure crap stripped from it). I don't know if I'd want to run 7.x on it, but i would be nice to be able to get some security updates.
With options like these, complaining about the used of systemd in the mainstream (pen)SUSE is futile.
Yep. Maybe I will migrate away at some point. Who knows? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Anton Aylward
<opensuse@antonaylward.com> wrote:
If you feel that you need to "Make Linux Great Again" by regressing, then you can do so. You can even publicise your 'systemd-free kde3 based' distribution for all to "share and enjoy". And if people decide they don't want to use that, then they don't need to. Just like you don't have to use the mainstream distributions. Oh, wait! There are lots of people who have used to Build System to make their own highly customized distributions. https://build.opensuse.org/project
I wasn't complaining about systemd per se. I personally just don't think it's a good idea to put so much into an init system. How do you think is actually in the init system? Don't get fooled into
On Saturday, 15 July 2017 18:52:24 BST Larry Stotler wrote: thinking the "extras" in the systemd project are actually in the init system itself.
Microsoft always had a policy of trying to hijack stuff by "extending" a standard so they could control it and systemd "seems" to do a lot of that. And it's not portable to the BSDs(which some think is a good thing). BSD has to get Cgroups before it can be used anyway.
From what I have seen, a lot of people just don't like the devs, LP the least. For all his ranting, in some ways he is as arrogant as Linus is "mean". This is the main reason, professional jealousy.
However, when you get right down to it, most users(and I include myself in this group) are not programmers and don't have time to try to get that deeply involved in things. They just want a system that works the way they expect. There are many ways to support a project. Money(I used to but the boxed versions of S.u.S.E.), time(coding, teaching, helping, etc) and more. When the openSUSE project was started it gave users more of a voice in the direction of the distro, but at the end of the day, decisions have to be made and you can't please everyone.
As for fragmentation being a strength, it is also a weakness. So many hours of developers times are taken to package each distro, when they could be working to move things forward or to help clean up code elsewhere. But I'm not here to dictate to people what they should do. Just making an observation. systemd has gone quite a way to reduce fragmentation by providing a standardise way of running on all the distros without each distro having to reinvent the wheel.
As someone who has worked on computers for others for over 25 years, I can say that most people just use what came with their computer and could care less about anything else. They'd rather pay me to fix it than move to something that may be better.
Android has a similar, but reverse problem. I run 4.0.4 on my LG Mach. It was one of the last keyboard/slider phones and it is 4G so it does what I need. But I can't get security updates for it so I have to be careful what I do with it(of course it's rooted and has had most unsecure crap stripped from it). I don't know if I'd want to run 7.x on it, but i would be nice to be able to get some security updates.
With options like these, complaining about the used of systemd in the mainstream (pen)SUSE is futile.
Yep. Maybe I will migrate away at some point. Who knows?
-- opensuse:tumbleweed:20170712 Qt: 5.9.1 KDE Frameworks: 5.35.0 KDE Plasma: 5.10.3 kwin 5.10.3 kmail2 5.5.2 akonadiserver 5.5.2 Kernel: 4.11.8-1-default Nouveau: 1.0.15_1.2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 4:12 PM, ianseeks <bingmybong@btinternet.com> wrote:
How do you think is actually in the init system? Don't get fooled into thinking the "extras" in the systemd project are actually in the init system itself.
It's not really the extras so much as the other projects that intend to make systemd a dependency(ie Gnome). What if someone releases something better in the future? Then these dependencies would discourage adoption.
BSD has to get Cgroups before it can be used anyway.
Most BSDs don't seem to want systemd from what I have seen anyway.
From what I have seen, a lot of people just don't like the devs, LP the least. For all his ranting, in some ways he is as arrogant as Linus is "mean". This is the main reason, professional jealousy.
I can't comment on that though I have seen many articles about the issues with systemd pro and con.
systemd has gone quite a way to reduce fragmentation by providing a standardise way of running on all the distros without each distro having to reinvent the wheel.
Maybe, but we still have hundreds of distros(many unmaintained) compared to the "competition" on the desktop. Seems to be a lot of duplicative effort(but effort that peoplke chose to make). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Larry Stotler <larrystotler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 4:12 PM, ianseeks <bingmybong@btinternet.com> wrote:
How do you think is actually in the init system? Don't get fooled into thinking the "extras" in the systemd project are actually in the init system itself.
It's not really the extras so much as the other projects that intend to make systemd a dependency(ie Gnome). What if someone releases something better in the future? Then these dependencies would discourage adoption.
systemd uses publickly-available, documented interfaces. If, in the future, someone wants to replace it, they can provide backwards-compatibility shims, just as systemd has done for sysv. In fact some groups have already done that with parts of systemd. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 4:12 PM, ianseeks <bingmybong@btinternet.com> wrote:
How do you think is actually in the init system? Don't get fooled into thinking the "extras" in the systemd project are actually in the init system itself.
It's not really the extras so much as the other projects that intend to make systemd a dependency(ie Gnome). What if someone releases something better in the future? Then these dependencies would discourage adoption. Its the other higher level software projects that decide to use systemd bits and pieces thereby creating the dependency but the anti-crowd incorrectly say
On Saturday, 15 July 2017 23:50:25 BST Larry Stotler wrote: that systemd forces that dependency.
BSD has to get Cgroups before it can be used anyway.
Most BSDs don't seem to want systemd from what I have seen anyway. They are looking into their own version of a new init system, they cannot use systemd because of the lack of cgroups.
From what I have seen, a lot of people just don't like the devs, LP the least. For all his ranting, in some ways he is as arrogant as Linus is "mean".
This is the main reason, professional jealousy.
I can't comment on that though I have seen many articles about the issues with systemd pro and con. Issues exist for all software, it just gets personal and playground b1tchy by the anti-crowd when LP is involved in the development.
systemd has gone quite a way to reduce fragmentation by providing a standardise way of running on all the distros without each distro having to reinvent the wheel.
Maybe, but we still have hundreds of distros(many unmaintained) compared to the "competition" on the desktop. Seems to be a lot of duplicative effort(but effort that peoplke chose to make). Thats seems par the course for open source, the better ones survive and weak one wither.
-- opensuse:tumbleweed:20170712 Qt: 5.9.1 KDE Frameworks: 5.35.0 KDE Plasma: 5.10.3 kwin 5.10.3 kmail2 5.5.2 akonadiserver 5.5.2 Kernel: 4.11.8-1-default Nouveau: 1.0.15_1.2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 15/07/17 01:52 PM, Larry Stotler wrote:
And it's not portable to the BSDs(which some think is a good thing).
When it comes down to it, there are a lot of features that Linux has, supported from the kernel all the way down, that don't exist, even in some analogous form of functionality, in BSD. Systemd makes use of these, so of course it isn't portable to BSD, or for that matter, any other vendor version of UNIX, that doesn't have them all. I suppose a conditional compile might get around this, but lacing code with a plethora of #IFDEF statements makes it a difficult to read and therefore difficult to understand and maintain. Whether or not its a good thing that BSD doesn't have systemd is beside the point if you need certain kernel functionality that BSD doesn't supply, if your application level depends on it. Any such application, never mind systemd, is not portable to BSD. -- 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
On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 17:58:32 BST Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
Yawn.... Please don't try to start another flame war, they are pointless. Use another distro then if opensuse is not for you. You have choices, use them. -- opensuse:tumbleweed:20170710 Qt: 5.9.0 KDE Frameworks: 5.35.0 KDE Plasma: 5.10.3 kwin 5.10.3 kmail2 5.5.2 akonadiserver 5.5.2 Kernel: 4.11.8-1-default Nouveau: 1.0.15_1.2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 13/07/17 16:26, ianseeks wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ? Yawn.... Please don't try to start another flame war, they are pointless. Use another distro then if opensuse is not for you. You have choices, use
On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 17:58:32 BST Brian K. White wrote: them.
The choice of moving to another "respectable" distro is rather limited in my opinion, and I am not in any way contributing to a "flame war" as I am indifferent to whether or not a distro uses systemd but simply responding to your comment re choices. Have a read of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd BC -- You are NOT entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Harlan Ellison -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 10:18:16 BST Basil Chupin wrote:
On 13/07/17 16:26, ianseeks wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 17:58:32 BST Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
Yawn.... Please don't try to start another flame war, they are pointless. Use another distro then if opensuse is not for you. You have choices, use them.
The choice of moving to another "respectable" distro is rather limited in my opinion, and I am not in any way contributing to a "flame war" as I am indifferent to whether or not a distro uses systemd but simply responding to your comment re choices. Have a read of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd
BC
Distros deemed respectable or not, there are choices and they need to add devuan to that list as its not on the wiki. According to the wiki there seems to be more that can run without systemd than not. -- opensuse:tumbleweed:20170710 Qt: 5.9.0 KDE Frameworks: 5.35.0 KDE Plasma: 5.10.3 kwin 5.10.3 kmail2 5.5.2 akonadiserver 5.5.2 Kernel: 4.11.8-1-default Nouveau: 1.0.15_1.2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 7/13/2017 11:36 AM, ianseeks wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 10:18:16 BST Basil Chupin wrote:
On 13/07/17 16:26, ianseeks wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 17:58:32 BST Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
Yawn.... Please don't try to start another flame war, they are pointless. Use another distro then if opensuse is not for you. You have choices, use them.
The choice of moving to another "respectable" distro is rather limited in my opinion, and I am not in any way contributing to a "flame war" as I am indifferent to whether or not a distro uses systemd but simply responding to your comment re choices. Have a read of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd
BC
Distros deemed respectable or not, there are choices and they need to add devuan to that list as its not on the wiki. According to the wiki there seems to be more that can run without systemd than not.
Actually, another choice is to improve the thing you are already invested in, and anyone who doesn't like THAT, is free to choose something else. You're right, there are choices! What is so magical about your particular preferences that it's valid for you to suggest someone else's only option is to get lost, but not the other way around? I don't see any arguments based on technical merit. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 7/13/2017 2:26 AM, ianseeks wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 17:58:32 BST Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
Yawn.... Please don't try to start another flame war, they are pointless. Use another distro then if opensuse is not for you. You have choices, use them.
I reject the premise that the only rational response to defects is to abandon everything rather than work to correct the defect. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 14/07/17 12:53 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
I reject the premise that the only rational response to defects is to abandon everything rather than work to correct the defect.
A perfectly rational statement because the word "only" is there. Sometimes the solution to a problem is to "do something else". As I see Einstein being quoted as saying "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." As far as I can make out systemd does solve problems that are either insoluble using SysVinit or are simply so rococo using SysVinit as to be unintelligible and unmaintainable by us mere mortals. However, many Linux user are not facing those problems. And that, like hamlet said, is the rub. As for 'wisdom', that seems to be a $10 word when what was really lacking was a ten-cent word: TACT. -- 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
On 7/14/2017 1:09 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 12:53 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
I reject the premise that the only rational response to defects is to abandon everything rather than work to correct the defect.
A perfectly rational statement because the word "only" is there.
Sometimes the solution to a problem is to "do something else". As I see Einstein being quoted as saying "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
As far as I can make out systemd does solve problems that are either insoluble using SysVinit or are simply so rococo using SysVinit as to be unintelligible and unmaintainable by us mere mortals.
However, many Linux user are not facing those problems. And that, like hamlet said, is the rub.
As for 'wisdom', that seems to be a $10 word when what was really lacking was a ten-cent word: TACT.
The idea of stagnation or inflexibility does not apply to basic principles. If we decided 100, or 50,000 years ago that murder is wrong, when does that idea expire? -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 14/07/17 01:43 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
The idea of stagnation or inflexibility does not apply to basic principles. If we decided 100, or 50,000 years ago that murder is wrong, when does that idea expire?
There are quite a few direct and indirect logical fallacies there, quite apart from it being a ridiculous counterargument. It bring to mind this latest 'bon mot' by yet another politician: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/14/forcing-facebook-google-t... <quote> This situation led tech reporter Asha McLean from ZDnet to ask the prime minister: “Won’t the laws of mathematics trump the laws of Australia? And then aren’t you also forcing people onto decentralised systems as a result?” To which Turnbull replied: “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.” Just how the law of Australia will override mathematics is still unclear. </quote> -- 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
On 7/14/2017 2:22 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 01:43 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
The idea of stagnation or inflexibility does not apply to basic principles. If we decided 100, or 50,000 years ago that murder is wrong, when does that idea expire?
There are quite a few direct and indirect logical fallacies there, quite apart from it being a ridiculous counterargument.
It bring to mind this latest 'bon mot' by yet another politician:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/14/forcing-facebook-google-t... <quote> This situation led tech reporter Asha McLean from ZDnet to ask the prime minister: “Won’t the laws of mathematics trump the laws of Australia? And then aren’t you also forcing people onto decentralised systems as a result?”
To which Turnbull replied: “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.”
Just how the law of Australia will override mathematics is still unclear. </quote>
I fail to see how this relates or what your point is in quoting it, and history does not suggest it's because I just fail to see things in general. The principles of flexibility, predictability, simplicity, agnosticism, and interoperability which I allude to have not been obsoleted or superseded by any of the statements of purpose offered by systemd. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Op vrijdag 14 juli 2017 19:09:31 CEST schreef Anton Aylward:
On 14/07/17 12:53 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
I reject the premise that the only rational response to defects is to abandon everything rather than work to correct the defect.
A perfectly rational statement because the word "only" is there.
Sometimes the solution to a problem is to "do something else". As I see Einstein being quoted as saying "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
As far as I can make out systemd does solve problems that are either insoluble using SysVinit or are simply so rococo using SysVinit as to be unintelligible and unmaintainable by us mere mortals.
Hear, hear. It's like Windows users sticking to XP and moaning that the latest Office performs badly. Ooops. Furthermore I'd like to state I'm not a friend of Lennart, never met him actually, but that I do dislike the bashing of him. IMHO he's one of the FOSS people that have dared to step up and do something. Which, IMNSHO deserves respect.
However, many Linux user are not facing those problems. And that, like hamlet said, is the rub.
As for 'wisdom', that seems to be a $10 word when what was really lacking was a ten-cent word: TACT.
> Q: Are you sure? > >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >> >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
-- Gertjan Lettink, a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Board Member openSUSE Forums Team -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 14/07/17 03:11 PM, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink wrote:
Furthermore I'd like to state I'm not a friend of Lennart, never met him actually, but that I do dislike the bashing of him. IMHO he's one of the FOSS people that have dared to step up and do something. Which, IMNSHO deserves respect.
Indeed. In one of the classic texts on logical circuit design, so fundamental that its idea are probably embedded in every design tool and now taken for granted in the profession, is a quotation from the Roman poet Homer. In translation it reads: Brother, if you have a better idea, propose it freely. If not, make use of mine. Or, idiomatically: Put up or shut up. Its easy being a critic. Contributing something that is effective, lasting, easy to understand and maintain, and extensible is quite another matter. -- 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
On 7/14/2017 3:34 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 03:11 PM, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink wrote:
Furthermore I'd like to state I'm not a friend of Lennart, never met him actually, but that I do dislike the bashing of him. IMHO he's one of the FOSS people that have dared to step up and do something. Which, IMNSHO deserves respect.
Indeed.
In one of the classic texts on logical circuit design, so fundamental that its idea are probably embedded in every design tool and now taken for granted in the profession, is a quotation from the Roman poet Homer. In translation it reads:
Brother, if you have a better idea, propose it freely. If not, make use of mine.
Or, idiomatically:
Put up or shut up.
Its easy being a critic. Contributing something that is effective, lasting, easy to understand and maintain, and extensible is quite another matter.
Uh, the better idea had already been proposed, and it proved itself for decades. Nothing about systemd improves upon it. systemd is like saying you think you invented a better way to do accounting. All that best-practices stuff they taught everyone for decades, so old and obsolete, we have a better way where we don't have to do all that annoying double entry stuff. Oh ok. Got it. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Op vrijdag 14 juli 2017 22:22:18 CEST schreef Brian K. White:
On 7/14/2017 3:34 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 03:11 PM, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink wrote:
Furthermore I'd like to state I'm not a friend of Lennart, never met him actually, but that I do dislike the bashing of him. IMHO he's one of the FOSS people that have dared to step up and do something. Which, IMNSHO deserves respect.
Indeed.
In one of the classic texts on logical circuit design, so fundamental that its idea are probably embedded in every design tool and now taken for granted in the> profession, is a quotation from the Roman poet Homer. In translation it reads: Brother, if you have a better idea, propose it freely. If not, make use of mine.
Or, idiomatically: Put up or shut up.
Its easy being a critic. Contributing something that is effective, lasting, easy to understand and maintain, and extensible is quite another matter.
Uh, the better idea had already been proposed, and it proved itself for decades. Nothing about systemd improves upon it.
systemd is like saying you think you invented a better way to do accounting. All that best-practices stuff they taught everyone for decades, so old and obsolete, we have a better way where we don't have to do all that annoying double entry stuff. Oh ok. Got it.
-- bkw Yep. And KDE3 is the only desktop. And kernel 2.6 is the best ever made.
We've heard all this lots and lots of times over the years. These days we have an openSUSE Project which follows upstream directions. You're free to use OBS / Studio to create your own distro using sysvinit or whatever. We provide the tools, take some time and you're hassles re. systemd will be gone. Until the sysvinit devs kill their own project. -- Gertjan Lettink, a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Board Member openSUSE Forums Team -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 7/14/2017 4:48 PM, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink vv wrote:
Op vrijdag 14 juli 2017 22:22:18 CEST schreef Brian K. White:
On 7/14/2017 3:34 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 03:11 PM, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink wrote:
Furthermore I'd like to state I'm not a friend of Lennart, never met him actually, but that I do dislike the bashing of him. IMHO he's one of the FOSS people that have dared to step up and do something. Which, IMNSHO deserves respect.
Indeed.
In one of the classic texts on logical circuit design, so fundamental that its idea are probably embedded in every design tool and now taken for granted in the> profession, is a quotation from the Roman poet Homer. In translation it reads: Brother, if you have a better idea, propose it freely. If not, make use of mine.
Or, idiomatically: Put up or shut up.
Its easy being a critic. Contributing something that is effective, lasting, easy to understand and maintain, and extensible is quite another matter.
Uh, the better idea had already been proposed, and it proved itself for decades. Nothing about systemd improves upon it.
systemd is like saying you think you invented a better way to do accounting. All that best-practices stuff they taught everyone for decades, so old and obsolete, we have a better way where we don't have to do all that annoying double entry stuff. Oh ok. Got it.
-- bkw Yep. And KDE3 is the only desktop. And kernel 2.6 is the best ever made.
You have that exactly backwards. A useful tool does not demand that you use kde3, OR kde5. It does not even demand or care one whit if you use any desktop at all. What a perfectly illustrative assumption you make by even saying "kde3". There is nothing about init that prevents you from using any desktop, or from developing it to new different ones. This new vs old fixation is what's idiotic. Assumptions are what's wrong. Assumptions always need to be as few and necessary as possible. The old init makes *fewer* assumptions, and inflicts no demands upon how the higher level applications do things. It allows you to replace kde3 with kde5 or kde18 without caring at all. It is systemd which creates incompatibility out of thin air for no justifiable reason. There is no feature which systemd provides, which had to be implemented the way systemd does it, requiring the exclusion of, and breaking the function of any and all other methods of system set-up. You say you have heard it all before, but how does that change any of the facts? And if you've heard it all before, then really that's just embarrassing for you, since it means you can no longer claim ignorance to excuse or explain your lack of understanding. Let me ask another question: What is so magic about this decision that makes it so unassailable? The init system can only change once in the history of time? It can change from init to systemd, but that was it, now it can only be systemd until the heat-death of the universe? You make ludicrous arguments based only on other ludicrous arguments. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Op zaterdag 15 juli 2017 00:02:05 CEST schreef Brian K. White:
On 7/14/2017 4:48 PM, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink vv wrote:
Op vrijdag 14 juli 2017 22:22:18 CEST schreef Brian K. White:
On 7/14/2017 3:34 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 03:11 PM, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink wrote:
Furthermore I'd like to state I'm not a friend of Lennart, never met him actually, but that I do dislike the bashing of him. IMHO he's one of the FOSS people that have dared to step up and do something. Which, IMNSHO deserves respect.
Indeed.
In one of the classic texts on logical circuit design, so fundamental that its idea are probably embedded in every design tool and now taken for granted in the> profession, is a quotation from the Roman poet Homer. In translation it
reads:
Brother, if you have a better idea, propose it freely. If not, make use of mine.
Or, idiomatically: Put up or shut up.
Its easy being a critic. Contributing something that is effective, lasting, easy to understand and maintain, and extensible is quite another matter.
Uh, the better idea had already been proposed, and it proved itself for decades. Nothing about systemd improves upon it.
systemd is like saying you think you invented a better way to do accounting. All that best-practices stuff they taught everyone for decades, so old and obsolete, we have a better way where we don't have to do all that annoying double entry stuff. Oh ok. Got it.
-- bkw
Yep. And KDE3 is the only desktop. And kernel 2.6 is the best ever made.
You have that exactly backwards. A useful tool does not demand that you use kde3, OR kde5.
It does not even demand or care one whit if you use any desktop at all. What a perfectly illustrative assumption you make by even saying "kde3".
There is nothing about init that prevents you from using any desktop, or from developing it to new different ones. This new vs old fixation is what's idiotic. Assumptions are what's wrong. Assumptions always need to be as few and necessary as possible. The old init makes *fewer* assumptions, and inflicts no demands upon how the higher level applications do things. It allows you to replace kde3 with kde5 or kde18 without caring at all. It is systemd which creates incompatibility out of thin air for no justifiable reason. There is no feature which systemd provides, which had to be implemented the way systemd does it, requiring the exclusion of, and breaking the function of any and all other methods of system set-up.
You say you have heard it all before, but how does that change any of the facts? And if you've heard it all before, then really that's just embarrassing for you, since it means you can no longer claim ignorance to excuse or explain your lack of understanding.
Let me ask another question: What is so magic about this decision that makes it so unassailable? The init system can only change once in the history of time? It can change from init to systemd, but that was it, now it can only be systemd until the heat-death of the universe?
You make ludicrous arguments based only on other ludicrous arguments.
No. Just saying that things move on. If someone had found a way to make sysvinit meet with modern requirements ..... And systemd will have a successor as well. It's what we do, create/improve things. My reference to KDE3 was just a joke. -- Gertjan Lettink, a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Board Member openSUSE Forums Team -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 07/14/2017 03:02 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
What is so magic about this decision that makes it so unassailable? The init system can only change once in the history of time?
Who made that argument? Is this another straw man that you set up and smartly knock down, hoping all the while that we won't notice you were the only one making such a claim? -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday, 14 July 2017 23:02:05 BST Brian K. White wrote:
On 7/14/2017 4:48 PM, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink vv wrote:
Op vrijdag 14 juli 2017 22:22:18 CEST schreef Brian K. White:
On 7/14/2017 3:34 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 03:11 PM, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink wrote:
Furthermore I'd like to state I'm not a friend of Lennart, never met him actually, but that I do dislike the bashing of him. IMHO he's one of the FOSS people that have dared to step up and do something. Which, IMNSHO deserves respect.
Indeed.
In one of the classic texts on logical circuit design, so fundamental that its idea are probably embedded in every design tool and now taken for granted in the> profession, is a quotation from the Roman poet Homer. In translation it
reads:
Brother, if you have a better idea, propose it freely. If not, make use of mine.
Or, idiomatically: Put up or shut up.
Its easy being a critic. Contributing something that is effective, lasting, easy to understand and maintain, and extensible is quite another matter.
Uh, the better idea had already been proposed, and it proved itself for decades. Nothing about systemd improves upon it. systemd is like saying you think you invented a better way to do accounting. All that best-practices stuff they taught everyone for decades, so old and obsolete, we have a better way where we don't have to do all that annoying double entry stuff. Oh ok. Got it.
-- bkw
Yep. And KDE3 is the only desktop. And kernel 2.6 is the best ever made.
You have that exactly backwards. A useful tool does not demand that you use kde3, OR kde5. It does not even demand or care one whit if you use any desktop at all. What a perfectly illustrative assumption you make by even saying "kde3".
There is nothing about init that prevents you from using any desktop, or from developing it to new different ones. This new vs old fixation is what's idiotic. Assumptions are what's wrong. Assumptions always need to be as few and necessary as possible. The old init makes *fewer* assumptions, and inflicts no demands upon how the higher level applications do things. It allows you to replace kde3 with kde5 or kde18
You'll need to speak to the developers of kde3/5/18/999 about that, its their choice how they run and what dependencies they build in. Quote from Dave Edmundson on plasma "The init system. We don't care. It doesn't affect us. The init system is one part of systemd that doesn't affect us at all, and any other could be used." http://blog.davidedmundson.co.uk/blog/systemd-and-plasma Here LP talks bout Gnome/consolekit https://www.linuxvoice.com/interview-lennart-poettering/ - search out this question "LV: Some people see it as a requirement for Gnome…" These 2 links might quell your fears..
without caring at all. It is systemd which creates incompatibility out of thin air for no justifiable reason. There is no feature which systemd provides, which had to be implemented the way systemd does it, requiring the exclusion of, and breaking the function of any and all other methods of system set-up. You say you have heard it all before, but how does that change any of the facts? And if you've heard it all before, then really that's just embarrassing for you, since it means you can no longer claim ignorance to excuse or explain your lack of understanding.
Let me ask another question: What is so magic about this decision that makes it so unassailable? The init system can only change once in the history of time? It can change from init to systemd, but that was it, now it can only be systemd until the heat-death of the universe?
It will probably evolve/morph into something else when the need arises, remember sysvinit wasn't the first init system.
You make ludicrous arguments based only on other ludicrous arguments.
-- opensuse:tumbleweed:20170712 Qt: 5.9.1 KDE Frameworks: 5.35.0 KDE Plasma: 5.10.3 kwin 5.10.3 kmail2 5.5.2 akonadiserver 5.5.2 Kernel: 4.11.8-1-default Nouveau: 1.0.15_1.2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 15/07/17 01:09 PM, ianseeks wrote:
It will probably evolve/morph into something else when the need arises, remember sysvinit wasn't the first init system.
Quite true. And even so, SysVinit, or rather the collection of start-up scripts under /etc in the organization we recognise. evolved a long way between its first appearance in the early USG packages, though SYSIII into SYSV and though the revisions of SYSV1...4, through the "great etc rationalization", underwent a sea change when it was incorporated into Linux, has turned out differently in different branches of Linux. Along the way, the BSD variations of *NIX have always done the start-up and initialization differently from the mainstream UNIX and Linux. The of course there are the Big Name Vendor version of UNIX that were never actually called UNIX, running on various Big Iron. Many of them at lest started with different ways of doing things to ameliorate the discomfort of the sysadmins more used to the archaic Big Iron operating systems. Those too evolved, learning from each other, learning form small systems like SCO. To claim that SysVInit is the One Way, the Right Way, The Way It has Always Been, is incorrect to start with and exceedingly fatuous. -- 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
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Anton Aylward <opensuse@antonaylward.com> wrote:
To claim that SysVInit is the One Way, the Right Way, The Way It has Always Been, is incorrect to start with and exceedingly fatuous.
My understanding is that most of the biggest complaints is that systemd doesn't do things the Unix way - do one thing and do it well. Like I said, I don't have a reason to not use it. There were many other init system replacements in the mix before systemd "won". Upstart was one that Ubuntu was working on. Further, we still have many DEs - KDE, Gnome, xfce, etc. Sometimes it's not about winning. It's having people willing to maintain it. If you go back to the OS/2 vs Windows era, the winner isn't always considered the best but the one that took over. I came to linux from OS/2. I've kept up with OS/2 developments, and there is even a new release by a company called Arca Noae. https://www.arcanoae.com/blue-lion/ I still make use of WinCE on my Workpad Z50 even tho I can run NetBSD on it. Sometimes you just have to go with what works. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Larry Stotler <larrystotler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Anton Aylward <opensuse@antonaylward.com> wrote:
To claim that SysVInit is the One Way, the Right Way, The Way It has Always Been, is incorrect to start with and exceedingly fatuous.
My understanding is that most of the biggest complaints is that systemd doesn't do things the Unix way - do one thing and do it well. Like I said, I don't have a reason to not use it.
systemd is a project made up of lots of small, purpose-specific tools. It follows "the Unix way" quite well. Some people argue that this doesn't count because these different tools are under a big umbrella project. The problem with that logic is that if we apply that argument consistently, then then coreutils wouldn't be "the Unix way", either. But systemd opponents don't complain about it. Other people argue that since the since these tools interact with each other that systemd is "monolithic". The problem with that logic is that systemd's components talk to each other through publicly-available, documented interfaces. People can and have made replacement components that talk to other parts of systemd using these interfaces. That is the exact opposite of "monolithic". By that logic GTK is monolithic, but systemd opponents don't complain about it either. On top of that, even if it were true that systemd doesn't follow "the Unix way", well neither does the Linux kernel. But opponents of systermd exclude it from that rule. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Saturday, 15 July 2017 23:43:42 BST Larry Stotler wrote:
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Anton Aylward
<opensuse@antonaylward.com> wrote:
To claim that SysVInit is the One Way, the Right Way, The Way It has Always Been, is incorrect to start with and exceedingly fatuous.
My understanding is that most of the biggest complaints is that systemd doesn't do things the Unix way - do one thing and do it well. Like I said, I don't have a reason to not use it. Thats desperate mis-information from the anti-crowd.
There were many other init system replacements in the mix before systemd "won". Upstart was one that Ubuntu was working on. Further, we still have many DEs - KDE, Gnome, xfce, etc. Sometimes it's not about winning. It's having people willing to maintain it. Systemd "won" because it solved more problems than the others. RedHat was as upstart advocate until systemd solved more problems than upstart.
If you go back to the OS/2 vs Windows era, the winner isn't always considered the best but the one that took over. I came to linux from OS/2. I've kept up with OS/2 developments, and there is even a new release by a company called Arca Noae.
https://www.arcanoae.com/blue-lion/
I still make use of WinCE on my Workpad Z50 even tho I can run NetBSD on it. Sometimes you just have to go with what works.
-- opensuse:tumbleweed:20170712 Qt: 5.9.1 KDE Frameworks: 5.35.0 KDE Plasma: 5.10.3 kwin 5.10.3 kmail2 5.5.2 akonadiserver 5.5.2 Kernel: 4.11.8-1-default Nouveau: 1.0.15_1.2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 14/07/17 04:22 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
Uh, the better idea had already been proposed, and it proved itself for decades. Nothing about systemd improves upon it.
They probably said the same thing about 'horseless carriages' back when. I mean, after all, the horse had proven itself for not just decades, but for centuries! Some of are old enough to remember when USG introduced what we now call SysVinit. That "SysV" refers to System V, which they introduced in the early 1980s. They declared it to be the "last ever" revision of UNIX. HA! The firm I worked for at the time wanted an evaluation of the 'changes'. The introduction of what we now call 'SysVinit" was minor in comparison to some of the others. Some of the code base went from the extremely elegant version of the 'founders' to stuff that was such spaghetti as to be unmanageable. The whole print subsystem had been reworked. Eventually that got discarded; it was supposed to be a glorious, script driven subsystem characterized by being, among other things, " flexible, extensible, simple, deterministic, media and hardware agnostic, and easily ported across machine architectures. I'll grant you that it was all those things. everybody ripped it out and replaced it with 3rd party. One of the side effects to the awful USG code was the work by henry Spencer, then at University of Toronto, to reimplement vast tracts of code, starting with the basic C libraries, from the V7 manual definitions and put his code in the public domain.
systemd is like saying you think you invented a better way to do accounting. All that best-practices stuff they taught everyone for decades, so old and obsolete, we have a better way where we don't have to do all that annoying double entry stuff. Oh ok. Got it.
Once again you've come up with a ridiculous argument. I'm sure anyone who is familiar with the classic Logical Facilities can point out the details. No, in actual fact double entry, which is a BOOKKEEPING system, not an accounting system, met resistance compared to the system of book-keeping it was to replace back hen it was introduced, since the previous system had been in used for thousands for years. Not quite as long as we'd been riding horses, but certainly a very long time. It is a BOOK-KEEPING system that was originally developed to deal with fraud, by having what amounts to dual independent ledgers that are then reconciled. For many systems single entry is quite adequate and the IRS advises small business to use it. Some things are difficult with double entry and hence it has sometimes been replaced by a 'triple entry' system. -- 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
On 14/07/17 04:22 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
Uh, the better idea had already been proposed, and it proved itself for decades. Nothing about systemd improves upon it.
They probably said the same thing about 'horseless carriages' back when. I mean, after all, the horse had proven itself for not just decades, but for centuries! Some of are old enough to remember when USG introduced what we now call SysVinit. That "SysV" refers to System V, which they introduced in the early 1980s. They declared it to be the "last ever" revision of UNIX. HA! The firm I worked for at the time wanted an evaluation of the 'changes'. The introduction of what we now call 'SysVinit" was minor in comparison to some of the others. Some of the code base went from the extremely elegant version of the 'founders' to stuff that was such spaghetti as to be unmanageable. The whole print subsystem had been reworked. Eventually that got discarded; it was supposed to be a glorious, script driven subsystem characterized by being, among other things, " flexible, extensible, simple, deterministic, media and hardware agnostic, and easily ported across machine architectures. I'll grant you that it was all those things. everybody ripped it out and replaced it with 3rd party. One of the side effects to the awful USG code was the work by henry Spencer, then at University of Toronto, to reimplement vast tracts of code, starting with the basic C libraries, from the V7 manual definitions and put his code in the public domain.
systemd is like saying you think you invented a better way to do accounting. All that best-practices stuff they taught everyone for decades, so old and obsolete, we have a better way where we don't have to do all that annoying double entry stuff. Oh ok. Got it.
Once again you've come up with a ridiculous argument. I'm sure anyone who is familiar with the classic Logical Facilities can point out the details. No, in actual fact double entry, which is a BOOKKEEPING system, not an accounting system, met resistance compared to the system of book-keeping it was to replace back hen it was introduced, since the previous system had been in used for thousands for years. Not quite as long as we'd been riding horses, but certainly a very long time. It is a BOOK-KEEPING system that was originally developed to deal with fraud, by having what amounts to dual independent ledgers that are then reconciled. For many systems single entry is quite adequate and the IRS advises small business to use it. Some things are difficult with double entry and hence it has sometimes been replaced by a 'triple entry' system. -- 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
On 2017-07-14 21:34, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 03:11 PM, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink wrote:
Furthermore I'd like to state I'm not a friend of Lennart, never met him actually, but that I do dislike the bashing of him. IMHO he's one of the FOSS people that have dared to step up and do something. Which, IMNSHO deserves respect.
Indeed.
In one of the classic texts on logical circuit design, so fundamental that its idea are probably embedded in every design tool and now taken for granted in the profession, is a quotation from the Roman poet Homer. In translation it reads:
Brother, if you have a better idea, propose it freely. If not, make use of mine.
Or, idiomatically:
Put up or shut up.
Nonono. Homer says to propose ideas, not to implement them yourself. Many have proposed ideas. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)
On Friday, 14 July 2017 17:53:22 BST Brian K. White wrote:
On 7/13/2017 2:26 AM, ianseeks wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 17:58:32 BST Brian K. White wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
"I no longer feel like I can trust "init" to do the sane thing."
Thank you. :)
Like we've said all along... opensuse leading the way behind the rest of the herd right over the same cliff as everyone else because...why again? What hard defensible reason? "RedHat is doing it." ? "Everyone else is doing it." ? "It's cool and new." ?
Yawn.... Please don't try to start another flame war, they are pointless. Use another distro then if opensuse is not for you. You have choices, use them.
I reject the premise that the only rational response to defects is to abandon everything rather than work to correct the defect.
It is the only response if you want to refer to the whole of systemd as a "defect", the decision was taken years ago and its in opensuse, like it or not. If referring to bugs fixed in systemd then i agree, jumping ship is not really clever. -- opensuse:tumbleweed:20170712 Qt: 5.9.1 KDE Frameworks: 5.35.0 KDE Plasma: 5.10.3 kwin 5.10.3 kmail2 5.5.2 akonadiserver 5.5.2 Kernel: 4.11.8-1-default Nouveau: 1.0.15_1.2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 14/07/17 01:29 PM, ianseeks wrote:
If referring to bugs fixed in systemd then i agree, jumping ship is not really clever.
Indeed. Expecting any software created by man, directly or indirectly, to be free of bugs and errors, is the height of stupidity. Having a regular and consistent architecture/design, as opposed to an ad-hoc one, makes the errors easier to find (both by hackers and developers) and to address. Those of us who are old enough will remember the maintenance problems 'spaghetti code' of the days before Edgar Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" and the problems doing development before Codd's advocacy of SQL. Disciplined structure gives poser though focus. An alternative would be converting cities and countryside to a paved expanse where you could drive in any direction and any speed with no protocols preventing you ... 'interacting' with other vehicles. Hmm. Yes, it seems that there are cities like that in some places in the world. People do in fact choose to live there. I'd rather not. It's bad enough in North America. http://www.investors.com/politics/perspective/gun-vs-traffic-accident-deaths... http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/01/18/news/guns-are-more-deadly-cars-21... -- 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
On 7/14/2017 2:51 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 01:29 PM, ianseeks wrote:
If referring to bugs fixed in systemd then i agree, jumping ship is not really clever.
Indeed. Expecting any software created by man, directly or indirectly, to be free of bugs and errors, is the height of stupidity.
Having a regular and consistent architecture/design, as opposed to an ad-hoc one, makes the errors easier to find (both by hackers and developers) and to address.
Those of us who are old enough will remember the maintenance problems 'spaghetti code' of the days before Edgar Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" and the problems doing development before Codd's advocacy of SQL.
Disciplined structure gives poser though focus. An alternative would be converting cities and countryside to a paved expanse where you could drive in any direction and any speed with no protocols preventing you ... 'interacting' with other vehicles.
Hmm. Yes, it seems that there are cities like that in some places in the world. People do in fact choose to live there.
The box of tools and workbench provided by init and a scripting language of your choice is already the sane system of roads. Systemd is 5 trains that only go certain places at certain times in certain ways, AND, require the removal of all the other roads. If you discover, after the trains have been built, that you need to move something that doesn't fit in the train cars, too bad. You can't put some other kind of vehicle on the tracks. If you discover, after the trains have been built, that you need to stop mid way for a detour along the way, too bad. etc etc. systemd is actually simply thoughtless and inconsiderate. You don't need anything like systemd to provide a system of standards or "disciplined structure". It's ironic. systemd itself benefits, and is only even possible, thanks to other parts of the system being exactly as agnostic as systemd itself fails to be, adhering to principles systemd itself fails to. The kernel lets you specify whatever you want to run as "init". Why doesn't the kernel insist on some "discipline and structure" and decree exactly what the binary is that will run as init? Or better yet, just have the init functionality built in to the kernel itself? Because it would be wildly shortsighted and inflexible and plain dickish to do that. systemd is essentially android or a game console. It provides a particular special environment, which might be a pretty cool environment with many desirable features, but it is the opposite of flexible and it is not unix. I'm quite "old enough to remember" all the reasons the agnostic box of tools IS the sane and useful and considerate framework, and this all-singing-all-dancing thing is just a fat, limiting, monstrosity with vendor lock-in as an added bonus icing feature. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 07/14/2017 01:10 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
Systemd is 5 trains that only go certain places at certain times in certain ways, AND, require the removal of all the other roads. If you discover, after the trains have been built, that you need to move something that doesn't fit in the train cars, too bad. You can't put some other kind of vehicle on the tracks.
This is just nonsense, showing you don't know the first thing about systemd, or you've never bothered to read the very simple manual. You certainly CAN have other thins and other ways to start systems, run tasks, do If-this-then-that sort of jobs. I have jobs running in systemd computers that have migrated from older systems and didn't have change anything to get them to run. There are other tasks that I threw out all together and just wrote a 8-10 line systemd service because it was FAR more Flexible and far easier to maintain. You keep making these ridiculous assertions. You put forth patently absurd analogies. You are right about one thing: systemd is not unix. But then neither is linux. Being "unix", or being Linux is not something YOU get to decide. Its above your pay grade. And your skill level. -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
You certainly CAN have other thins and other ways to start systems, run tasks, do If-this-then-that sort of jobs. I have jobs running in systemd computers that have migrated from older systems and didn't have change anything to get them to run. Ok, simple "want". I want to run my own 'init' process as pid=1. I want to be able to use my current recovery methods when things go south, including being able to bring up a system by manually starting each script "by hand" from a shell -- being able to easily determine
John Andersen wrote: the proper starting order by listing a directory or file. To start system: run all 'start scripts in "xxx" in the order specified by "yyy". Where, ideally it separates out HW boot tasks from system services... So for sysV-start, I can cd to /etc/init.d/boot.d and run the "S" scripts in the order shown. If I don't feel confident about all of them, I can run any subset of them, then I can try for either single or multi user... I've had times where some problem prevented an automatic boot, and the only way I had my system up was by manually starting everything from the 'emergency console' and using it (for a few weeks) from there. From what I've seen and experienced, you just can't do that w/sysd. That's my biggest obstacle in using systemd to control a normal automated boot, at this point. I don't know how many other show stoppers might be in the way -- but sysd's lack of configurability prevents it from running unless I give up my right to manually debug, fix, and continue a system's startup. If you wanted an example of its inflexibility -- this is pretty much the first I run into which aways scares the *** out of me. ;-( If this is no longer a problem, please let me know, and I can move forward (though working on my system booting, is not a real high priority task right now -- am just focusing on the "using" of it. ;-) Cheers! Linda -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 14/07/17 08:42 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
You certainly CAN have other thins and other ways to start systems, run tasks, do If-this-then-that sort of jobs. I have jobs running in systemd computers that have migrated from older systems and didn't have change anything to get them to run. Ok, simple "want". I want to run my own 'init' process as pid=1. I want to be able to use my current recovery methods when things go south, including being able to bring up a system by manually starting each script "by hand" from a shell -- being able to easily determine
John Andersen wrote: the proper starting order by listing a directory or file.
To start system: run all 'start scripts in "xxx" in the order specified by "yyy".
Where, ideally it separates out HW boot tasks from system services...
So for sysV-start, I can cd to /etc/init.d/boot.d and run the "S" scripts in the order shown. If I don't feel confident about all of them, I can run any subset of them, then I can try for either single or multi user...
I've had times where some problem prevented an automatic boot, and the only way I had my system up was by manually starting everything from the 'emergency console' and using it (for a few weeks) from there.
From what I've seen and experienced, you just can't do that w/sysd.
That's my biggest obstacle in using systemd to control a normal automated boot, at this point. I don't know how many other show stoppers might be in the way -- but sysd's lack of configurability prevents it from running unless I give up my right to manually debug, fix, and continue a system's startup.
If you wanted an example of its inflexibility -- this is pretty much the first I run into which aways scares the *** out of me. ;-(
If this is no longer a problem, please let me know, and I can move forward (though working on my system booting, is not a real high priority task right now -- am just focusing on the "using" of it. ;-)
Your problem here is not that you CAN'T but that, as you say
I want to be able to use my current recovery methods
Systemd does have beet debug capabilities, but they are different because systemd is not SysVInit. They exists. They work differently. And if you try to use your old methods you will find they don't work because this is systemd not SysVInit or the BSD-like ad-hoc scripting set. There's the old tale about 'how to capture a money, with the chained vase and the candy'. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/how-to-avoid-monkey-tra... At https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems there is a section on "Systemd boot parameters" The first example, "systemd.unit=", offers the ability for you to write your own unit or series of units - the sequence you talk of - to do specific things that are different from a normal boot. That may be to simply give you a shell and you can do individual 'systemctl' to run arbitrary units, some of which may be your own creation. There's a lot of potential here for experimentation to find what best suits your specific needs. -- 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
On 07/14/2017 07:31 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 08:42 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
You certainly CAN have other thins and other ways to start systems, run tasks, do If-this-then-that sort of jobs. I have jobs running in systemd computers that have migrated from older systems and didn't have change anything to get them to run. Ok, simple "want". I want to run my own 'init' process as pid=1. I want to be able to use my current recovery methods when things go south, including being able to bring up a system by manually starting each script "by hand" from a shell -- being able to easily determine
John Andersen wrote: the proper starting order by listing a directory or file.
To start system: run all 'start scripts in "xxx" in the order specified by "yyy".
Where, ideally it separates out HW boot tasks from system services...
So for sysV-start, I can cd to /etc/init.d/boot.d and run the "S" scripts in the order shown. If I don't feel confident about all of them, I can run any subset of them, then I can try for either single or multi user...
I've had times where some problem prevented an automatic boot, and the only way I had my system up was by manually starting everything from the 'emergency console' and using it (for a few weeks) from there.
From what I've seen and experienced, you just can't do that w/sysd.
That's my biggest obstacle in using systemd to control a normal automated boot, at this point. I don't know how many other show stoppers might be in the way -- but sysd's lack of configurability prevents it from running unless I give up my right to manually debug, fix, and continue a system's startup.
If you wanted an example of its inflexibility -- this is pretty much the first I run into which aways scares the *** out of me. ;-(
If this is no longer a problem, please let me know, and I can move forward (though working on my system booting, is not a real high priority task right now -- am just focusing on the "using" of it. ;-)
Your problem here is not that you CAN'T but that, as you say
I want to be able to use my current recovery methods
Systemd does have beet debug capabilities, but they are different because systemd is not SysVInit. They exists. They work differently. And if you try to use your old methods you will find they don't work because this is systemd not SysVInit or the BSD-like ad-hoc scripting set.
I came to say the same thing. Linda, your system (as described by you) is so different than the stock opensuse that I suspect you're well on your way to writing your own init system. I'd be surprised if anything worked for you the exact way you want it. Good for you. You're way better at this stuff than I am. (I'm rather surprised you start with opensuse, only to customize it so much.) For the Record, my opensuse 42.2 is pretty stock. I've changed very little. My Manjaro system has a lot of tweaking, but still all within the confines of systemd. I've got a server within a softball pitch away from my seat that is still old-school SysVinit from older Suse versions. Its not exposed and its not getting updated any time soon. I always found the old rc way a pain, but finally got adept at doing what I needed with it. Sure, I bitched and moaned about systemd but the learning curve was short, so I learned to do it the systemd way, because I wasn't all that good at the old way either. You change some procedures. Not that big of a deal. Can't help you fix your system in your hypothetical case. Pretty much assumed your question was a rhetorical corner case, but its a corner you live in (and painted yourself into) and I'd be out of my depth playing on your court. -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
John Andersen wrote:
Linda, your system (as described by you) is so different than the stock opensuse that I suspect you're well on your way to writing your own init system.
I'd be surprised if anything worked for you the exact way you want it. Good for you. You're way better at this stuff than I am.
(I'm rather surprised you start with opensuse, only to customize it so much.)
--- For the record. I went with opensuse because it already had the features I currently run. I didn't have to modify my system to get it to run -- I just had to NOT allow various files or packages to be removed or replaced with things that didn't work. Open suse did my disk partitioning -- it was standard to separate things. XFS-only systems were supported too. So was lilo, so was booting from disk. My system processes came from opensuse. It isn't so different from earlier opensuse systems. Opensuse branched away from its roots. Things already worked the way I wanted them to which was why I lobbied for sysd to continue to allow the old methods to work while implementing new, and maybe better methods to replace them. Then I could adopt the ones that showed clear benefit rather than having one big "one-size-fits-all" set that is "take the whole thing, or leave it".
You change some procedures. Not that big of a deal.
Can't help you fix your system in your hypothetical case. Pretty much assumed your question was a rhetorical corner case, but its a corner you live in (and painted yourself into) and I'd be out of my depth playing on your court.
---- Very simple -- how to not have systemd need to run as pid=1. It won't. I didn't create the need or make the changes to be able to launch /bin/bash from the lilo prompt -- they were already there. Don't think I created my system by myself. I just didn't adopt new methods that removed functionality. In some cases, things changed so I wasn't supported, then changed again, later, supporting my setup again. It's only been since sysd adoption that differences have expanded -- mostly due to the encroachment of an expanding sysd. I know the truth isn't nearly as interesting as the myths, but C'est la vi. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Anton Aylward wrote:
O
Your problem here is not that you CAN'T but that, as you say
I want to be able to use my current recovery methods
Systemd does have beet debug capabilities, but they are different because systemd is not SysVInit.
1) Recovery means I can run xfsrestore from repair mode. 2) I can try starting 1 more services manually. 3) I can look at all of the startup operations in one place for a given service. If I need to make a change in a utility's startup while in emergency -- I can. 4) When I have worked around a problem, I can continue to boot. I've had network problems due to naming issues that were very difficult to work with and I wanted the system "up" so I could work on them. I should be able to manually bring up the network and start needed services, so I can login from a normal GUI. There are multiple reasons why that doesn't work on sysd, not the least is it doesn't allow you to continue from after a problem-point. Those are not sysvinit features: they are *basic* features.
They exists. They work differently.
--- Oh? How do you continue after a boot problem and not have to restart? If it isn't possible, then please don't claim such methods exist. They don't work. You can't modify or look at the source and rebuild and continue execution. It's not a matter of different, it's a matter of not having basic features. BTW, what is a 'beet' debug capability? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 15/07/17 06:11 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
O
Your problem here is not that you CAN'T but that, as you say
I want to be able to use my current recovery methods
Systemd does have beet debug capabilities, but they are different because systemd is not SysVInit.
1) Recovery means I can run xfsrestore from repair mode.
Yes, you can set up a unit to do that, out of the normal boot sequence but accessible via the boot command line. Not a problem.
2) I can try starting 1 more services manually.
Yes you can still do that with systemd.
3) I can look at all of the startup operations in one place for a given service. If I need to make a change in a utility's startup while in emergency -- I can.
By my interpretation of what you are asking for, yes I can do that under systemd. My reservation is that what you say is ambiguous.
4) When I have worked around a problem, I can continue to boot.
That is entirely dependent on HOW you worked around the problem. It may be that with the problem dealt with you can simply reboot. It may be that you want to step though each stage of the boot, one unit at a time, to make sure that there are not further ... complications. Once again, there are many ways to interpret your requirement.
I've had network problems due to naming issues that were very difficult to work with and I wanted the system "up" so I could work on them.
Are we talking about device names, names of the ethernet devices, for example? We've had many threads on that issue! As I understand it, the modern tools allow for over-riding the naming and other tools allow any dynamic naming to be determined. I use NetworkManager and have it set up to configure my primary port with the static name 'eth0' even though it's connection is called 'ethernet-1'. No big deal. YMMV, but the ability to assign static names is there. IT IS NOT A SYSTEMD ISSUE
I should be able to manually bring up the network and start needed services, so I can login from a normal GUI.
Yes, I do that with NetworkManager. OK, so systemd started NetworkManager, but so what? It really doesn't matter if it is started with systemd or or a SysVInit script. It is the NetworkManager that starts, or doesn't, the network connection(s). So I boot, I don't login in at the GUI. I hotkey ctl-alt-f1 to VT1, log in as toot and run the various NetworkManager commands. RTFM.
Oh? How do you continue after a boot problem and not have to restart? If it isn't possible, then please don't claim such methods exist.
It entirely depends on that the problem is.Network problems, file system problems, I've been able to repair without the need to reboot. Even so, sometimes its better to reboot for reassurance that you HAVE rectified the matter and can boot clean.
They don't work. You can't modify or look at the source and rebuild and continue execution. It's not a matter of different, it's a matter of not having basic features.
It is so a matter of 'different'. The difference is this: Long before I encountered UNIX in the mid 1970s, I was taught a few principles of good engineering and good software engineering. You can read those in things like Fred Brooks' "The Mythical man Month" and the works of Ed Yourdon and his associates from those days. The people involved in the UNIX of that era took them to heart and not people are calling them basic UNIX principles. HA! One of them is that using parameters is better than having in-line code. Another is that having parameters in a table, especially a text file that can be modified by an editor, is a good way to work. So we had things like /etc/passwd, a 'database' as text, one like per 'row' with colons as 'column' separators. And simple text tools like 'grep' and 'sed, can easily extract fields. You know all this. A bit more history. The students at BSD took Dennis's work on networks and made a hash of it. Network services had one deamon process per function, each listening on a specific port. That got cleaned up with the 'inet' daemon, listening on all ports and using a comma separated 'database. But that proved inflexible, and was replaced by the Xinet daemon, which is an architectural precursor of systemd, and where the database is replaced with text based unit files, one per protocol or service, which had a a lot more flexibility in many ways. So, how many people were there screaming that the Xinet daemon was a monstrosity, an abomination, and should be ripped out and the God-Sanctioned older inet daemon reinstalled? I didn't notice any. Why the diversion? Well another software architecture BAD practice of the old days was what was termed 'stamp coding'. That is the code in different modules reads, essentially, the same, We can see that throughout SysVInit with the case statements for start/stop/status. In systemd, this has been factored out, just like in the inet daemon the listening and dispatching code has been factored out. Factoring out common code into a parameter-driven 'dispatcher' is good design practice. Could all this have been done in a different way? if we're asking could there be a SysVInit Mk2 that was entirely script driven? We, no, not really. A general 'start-up' feature does things that scripts aren't doing, certainly that that we saw in the Xinet model that the basic inet daemon wasn't doing, such as control over uniqueness, rate of restarts, selective logging, and specific parameters. This is just the beginning of what systemd is addressing. TBC.
BTW, what is a 'beet' debug capability?
s/e/o/g -- 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
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 15/07/17 06:11 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
1) Recovery means I can run xfsrestore from repair mode.
Yes, you can set up a unit to do that, out of the normal boot sequence but accessible via the boot command line.
Not a problem.
--- Anything that isn't setup, *by default* at the time the problem occurs is *NOT AVAILABLE*. There is no "can set up" its either is included or not. Your answer confirms it isn't available.
2) I can try starting 1 more services manually.
Yes you can still do that with systemd.
---- By default, before anything is loaded other than kernel and a shell from the rootfs?
3) I can look at all of the startup operations in one place for a given service. If I need to make a change in a utility's startup while in emergency -- I can.
By my interpretation of what you are asking for, yes I can do that under systemd.
---- Very little was available in emergency mode when I encountered it. Again -- is it there by default, or does someone have to know how to configure it in advance?
4) When I have worked around a problem, I can continue to boot.
That is entirely dependent on HOW you worked around the problem.
That has never been true before in any of the cases I encountered. Short of needing to run from a different kernel -- anything but that. Again, no advance preparation was required.
It may be that with the problem dealt with you can simply reboot.
--- Rebooting reapplies the error condition. I didn't say a patch was in place or the problem was fixed. I made a change (like mounting a disk, or configuring a network, or did a modload of a needed kernel module. A few months ago I tried installing the stable "leap" into a VM. Wouldn't boot because a supported config, configured by setup didn't load a needed kernel module. I manually loaded the module but could not continue. Rebooting unloaded the module. So: FAIL.
It may be that you want to step though each stage of the boot, one unit at a time, to make sure that there are not further ... complications.
--- Wasn't what I asked. If that was the case, I'd move on to the next problem.
Once again, there are many ways to interpret your requirement.
You mean there are many ways to ask questions that are not relevant to what I asked. You could also ask if I needed the interface in Chinese because I didn't specify the interface language -- but again if I didn't mention it, then the default would taken. Default: not start single stepping after a an error dumps you into the error console and you've applied a fix.
I've had network problems due to naming issues that were very difficult to work with and I wanted the system "up" so I could work on them.
Are we talking about device names, names of the ethernet devices, for example? We've had many threads on that issue!
--- Threads are irrelevant. (Network is down at that point, among other reasons).
As I understand it, the modern tools allow for over-riding the naming and other tools allow any dynamic naming to be determined.
---- Tools were irrelevant. They didn't exist the first time it happened. Even after fixes (not patches) were applied, future xD policy changes forced the problem again, and again, things broke. That was fixed, but somewhere along the line it broke again -- fortunately after the 2nd break I had already introduced my own override script to set the names regardless of changing policies and config methods -- something that wouldn't work under xD, as it requires being done as part of the HW bringup (that also mounts /usr) because /usr became a requirement for starting OS functions. If xD people want to make these recovery mechanisms available by default, without someone needing to have pre-configured things before their first encounter w/a problem, then you can say these issues are handled by xD. But until then, they are not. BTW, your answers are overwhelmingly unrelated to the original problem of xD not being flexible or configurable. You can't claim it is because it isn't designed to be easily modified by the user -- and certainly not at boot/emergency repair time. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 15/07/17 08:02 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
Anything that isn't setup, *by default* at the time the problem occurs is *NOT AVAILABLE*. There is no "can set up" its either is included or not. Your answer confirms it isn't available.
That's a specious argument if ever I heard one, especially coming from you, Linda, who modifies systems so they diverge well 'out of the box'. The whole point of something like Linux and having text based configuration files is that you can manipulate them, make use of the standard interfaces. You seem to think nothing of writing a script that isn't "default", but the idea of setting up a unit rather than a script is a no-no for you. Sorry, your argument is false.
2) I can try starting 1 more services manually.
Yes you can still do that with systemd.
---- By default, before anything is loaded other than kernel and a shell from the rootfs?
*sigh* You don't seem to have assimilated, if you read that is, the references I pointed to. The answer is yes.
3) I can look at all of the startup operations in one place for a given service. If I need to make a change in a utility's startup while in emergency -- I can.
By my interpretation of what you are asking for, yes I can do that under systemd.
---- Very little was available in emergency mode when I encountered it. Again -- is it there by default, or does someone have to know how to configure it in advance?
They answer is yes to both ways. I'm assuming that we're not talking about someone new to Linux who has never seen a systemd implementation before, loading it for the very first time, never having read the documentation, man pages or any of the 'how-to' available. As I said above, you seem to be OK with preparing scripts and other facilities that can be added, but not in doing other preventive or pre-diagnostic things where systemd is concerned. Perhaps you should just forget your approach and use a LiveCD, then use the debug and diagnostic tools on the CD. There are many such in the LiveCD list. But basically, if you mount the RootFS and get a shell, even in emergency mode, all the functions of 'systemctl' are available to you as well as all the tools in /{usr/,}bin, and the out-of-the-box configuration will let you run 'journalctl -b' in its various forms to let you see what went wrong with the previous boot. of course you would know this if you'd read the documentation. That's how I found out about. I then took the time out to experiment so that I knew in advance what to do if there was a real life problem. And documented it. But then the corporate culture I grew up in practised 'fire drills' and the IT culture exercised it DR plans.
4) When I have worked around a problem, I can continue to boot.
That is entirely dependent on HOW you worked around the problem.
That has never been true before in any of the cases I encountered.
Then you've only ever encountered a small and limited set of problems. On the list, we've had reports of 'bad kernel' (or perhaps bad installation) that even went so far as to damage the RootFS. So you repair the RootFS and reboot WITH A DIFFERENT KERNEL. That happened to me with an early version of BtrFS. I'm sure I'm not alone in such.
It may be that with the problem dealt with you can simply reboot.
--- Rebooting reapplies the error condition.
I said "with the problem dealt with". If its deal with then rebooting happens without the problem.
I didn't say a patch was in place or the problem was fixed. I made a change (like mounting a disk, or configuring a network, or did a modload of a needed kernel module.
Then what's the point of this discussion if you aren't going to fix the problem? . A few months ago I tried installing the stable "leap"
into a VM. Wouldn't boot because a supported config, configured by setup didn't load a needed kernel module. I manually loaded the module but could not continue. Rebooting unloaded the module. So: FAIL.
This is not a boot problem, this is not a systemd problem. Its probably a VM problem. You don't say why you can't continue after manually loading the module. You don't say HOW you loaded the module. You don't say what was in dmesg after loading the module. Did you note any of these? Did you log in your daybook any of these? It may be the module was loaded incorrectly or in the wrong order. Without checking the documented order and dependencies and method of loading, who knows. The loading of kernel modules is a kernel issue and not a systemd issue
It may be that you want to step though each stage of the boot, one unit at a time, to make sure that there are not further ... complications.
It may be so, and as far as I can see and have practised, you can. But what you are describing above is to do with the kernel loading, which is quite a different aspect of the boot process. Systemd, the init(1) process, is to do with starting and managing user level processes. They may make system calls. You're asking me to prognosticate in the absence of adequate detail.
Once again, there are many ways to interpret your requirement.
You mean there are many ways to ask questions that are not relevant to what I asked. You could also ask if I needed the interface in Chinese because I didn't specify the interface language
You're being quite ridiculous, Linda. As I went into above, you simply don't give adequate information for a comprehensive reply. if the questions I ask seem irrelevant it is because the context you give is ambiguous.
I've had network problems due to naming issues that were very difficult to work with and I wanted the system "up" so I could work on them.
Are we talking about device names, names of the ethernet devices, for example? We've had many threads on that issue!
--- Threads are irrelevant. (Network is down at that point, among other reasons).
That is why I have other machines, my laptop, my table, with which I can read this list and access the list archives and search the net. Like many others on this list I have separate hardware that act as my CPE router/firewall and my wifi, so even if my Suse box gets hosed I can still communicate. I really find it hard to believe that you in your setting don't have similar facilitates available to you. Heck, if I were to have everything zapped buy a power surge that got though my UPS, a lightening strike, Then I can always walk across the road to a coffee shop or the library and use the wifi there. You are getting quite ridiculous, Linda.
As I understand it, the modern tools allow for over-riding the naming and other tools allow any dynamic naming to be determined.
---- Tools were irrelevant. They didn't exist the first time it happened.
You contradict yourself. I'm not talking about 3rd party tools, I'm talking about things that are out-of-the-box in a normal distribution; in my case that is the NetworkManager. You are being ridiculous.
Even after fixes (not patches) were applied, future xD policy changes forced the problem again, and again, things broke.
Assertions like that are meaningless without details, Linda. -- 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
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 15/07/17 08:02 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
Anything that isn't setup, *by default* at the time the problem occurs is *NOT AVAILABLE*. There is no "can set up" its either is included or not. Your answer confirms it isn't available.
That's a specious argument if ever I heard one, especially coming from you, Linda, who modifies systems so they diverge well 'out of the box'.
The whole point of something like Linux and having text based configuration files is that you can manipulate them, make use of the standard interfaces. You seem to think nothing of writing a script that isn't "default", but the idea of setting up a unit rather than a script is a no-no for you.
Sorry, your argument is false.
---- Not at all. The point is, at the point of failure, I can't modify the system. All tools are offline. That's the nature of the problem. The fact that I *CAN'T* fix it is why it is broken. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 15/07/17 11:18 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
Sorry, your argument is false.
---- Not at all.
The point is, at the point of failure, I can't modify the system.
All tools are offline. That's the nature of the problem.
The fact that I *CAN'T* fix it is why it is broken.
Your argument is false. I've described how to address that failure mode in a previous post. I know it works because I have done it, back when my RootFS was hosed in an early version of BtrFS. You're being ridiculous. -- 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
On Sunday, 16 July 2017 04:39:16 BST Anton Aylward wrote:
On 15/07/17 11:18 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
Sorry, your argument is false.
----
Not at all.
The point is, at the point of failure, I can't modify the system.
All tools are offline. That's the nature of the problem.
The fact that I *CAN'T* fix it is why it is broken.
Your argument is false. I've described how to address that failure mode in a previous post. I know it works because I have done it, back when my RootFS was hosed in an early version of BtrFS.
You're being ridiculous.
I think you are flogging a dead horse here, once you've answered all the arguments, systemd will cause the tea to be the wrong colour or the coffee too milky
> Q: Are you sure? > >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >> >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
-- opensuse:tumbleweed:20170712 Qt: 5.9.1 KDE Frameworks: 5.35.0 KDE Plasma: 5.10.3 kwin 5.10.3 kmail2 5.5.2 akonadiserver 5.5.2 Kernel: 4.11.8-1-default Nouveau: 1.0.15_1.2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 16/07/17 04:04 AM, ianseeks wrote:
I think you are flogging a dead horse here, once you've answered all the arguments, systemd will cause the tea to be the wrong colour or the coffee too milky
If the coffee is too milky we'll call it a 'latte' and charge extra. heck, it works for Starbucks, doesn't it? -- 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
On Sunday, 16 July 2017 12:21:24 BST Anton Aylward wrote:
On 16/07/17 04:04 AM, ianseeks wrote:
I think you are flogging a dead horse here, once you've answered all the arguments, systemd will cause the tea to be the wrong colour or the coffee too milky
If the coffee is too milky we'll call it a 'latte' and charge extra. heck, it works for Starbucks, doesn't it? And it tastes awful too..... :)
> Q: Are you sure? > >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >> >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
-- opensuse:tumbleweed:20170712 Qt: 5.9.1 KDE Frameworks: 5.35.0 KDE Plasma: 5.10.3 kwin 5.10.3 kmail2 5.5.2 akonadiserver 5.5.2 Kernel: 4.11.8-1-default Nouveau: 1.0.15_1.2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 07/16/2017 06:46 AM, ianseeks wrote:
On Sunday, 16 July 2017 12:21:24 BST Anton Aylward wrote:
On 16/07/17 04:04 AM, ianseeks wrote:
I think you are flogging a dead horse here, once you've answered all the arguments, systemd will cause the tea to be the wrong colour or the coffee too milky
If the coffee is too milky we'll call it a 'latte' and charge extra. heck, it works for Starbucks, doesn't it?
And it tastes awful too..... :)
Really? I would not know that, because I was clever enough not to give Starbucks the extra cash. ;-) -- -Gerry Makaro aka Fraser_Bell on the forums, IRC, and mail at openSUSE.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Anton Aylward wrote:
They answer is yes to both ways.
I'm assuming that we're not talking about someone new to Linux who has never seen a systemd implementation before, loading it for the very first time, never having read the documentation, man pages or any of the 'how-to' available.
---- I can't modify Windows either -- that means I don't do much in the way of development on windows.
As I said above, you seem to be OK with preparing scripts and other facilities that can be added, but not in doing other preventive or pre-diagnostic things where systemd is concerned.
Out of the box, I was able to modify open suse because I could read up on standards -- not so with xD.
But basically, if you mount the RootFS and get a shell, even in emergency mode, all the functions of 'systemctl' are available to you as well as all the tools in /{usr/,}bin, and the out-of-the-box configuration will let you run 'journalctl -b' in its various forms to let you see what went wrong with the previous boot.
Usually there are no man pages available at that point. I know how to use a shell, how to use a POSIX compatible toolset. Where is the basic compatibility. There is none. I don't want a foreign system on my server. I just want it to work.
Then you've only ever encountered a small and limited set of problems.
On the list, we've had reports of 'bad kernel' (or perhaps bad installation) that even went so far as to damage the RootFS. So you repair the RootFS and reboot WITH A DIFFERENT KERNEL.
That happened to me with an early version of BtrFS. I'm sure I'm not alone in such.
--- There's a reason why I didn't use BtrFS. I'm a bit more conservative than you in some areas.
Then what's the point of this discussion if you aren't going to fix the problem?
--- Getting the system up and running so I'm able to do anything.
--- Threads are irrelevant. (Network is down at that point, among other reasons).
That is why I have other machines, my laptop, my table, with which I can read this list and access the list archives and search the net. Like many others on this list I have separate hardware that act as my CPE router/firewall and my wifi, so even if my Suse box gets hosed I can still communicate.
This is the difference between you and me. I rely on my linux box -- it is my interface to the world. If it is down, I'm off line. I don't have a fleet of computers in a dusty old closet like you have mentioned having. Would that I could, but neither would I want a fleet or the maintenance of such.
I really find it hard to believe that you in your setting don't have similar facilitates available to you.
---- I don't.
Heck, if I were to have everything zapped buy a power surge that got though my UPS, a lightening strike, Then I can always walk across the road to a coffee shop or the library and use the wifi there.
--- I don't have anything that would use Wifi. I don't get out much and the library has restricted hours due to budget cuts.
You are getting quite ridiculous, Linda.
You are getting showing your privileged environment.
Even after fixes (not patches) were applied, future xD policy changes forced the problem again, and again, things broke.
Assertions like that are meaningless without details, Linda.
--- I don't need to give you details about why I make choices. You don't really need to know. They are my choices. I don't have the problems you claim to have had, but don't have the resources you apparently do either. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 15/07/17 11:29 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
Out of the box, I was able to modify open suse because I could read up on standards -- not so with xD.
Please clarify: is "xD" an abbreviation for systemd or what? Are you pulling some kind of switcheroo and not updating the subject line? -- 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
On 15/07/17 11:29 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
But basically, if you mount the RootFS and get a shell, even in emergency mode, all the functions of 'systemctl' are available to you as well as all the tools in /{usr/,}bin, and the out-of-the-box configuration will let you run 'journalctl -b' in its various forms to let you see what went wrong with the previous boot.
Usually there are no man pages available at that point. I know how to use a shell, how to use a POSIX compatible toolset. Where is the basic compatibility. There is none. I don't want a foreign system on my server. I just want it to work.
I really really really think that you're being ridiculous. There are always man pages available. Even when I have no power and all my network is shut down and I don't have my laptop I can take my tablet across to the coffee shop and use the wifi there to read on-line man pages. What you are really saying here is that you expect to be able to deal with these problems by never having bothered to familiarise yourself with the capabilities when you do have an up and running system, read the man pages and the on-line how-to articles, keep a daybook where you note these things, try them out, experiment and familiarise yourself with their workings. I've never *HAD* to run 'journalctl -b' to diagnose a boot problem, but I've looked at at how it works so that I know about it in advance in case I ever do. -- 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
Anton Aylward wrote:
I really really really think that you're being ridiculous. There are always man pages available. Even when I have no power and all my network is shut down and I don't have my laptop I can take my tablet across to the coffee shop and use the wifi there to read on-line man pages.
---- If there is no power, how does your tablet work? FWIW, I don't have a tablet.
What you are really saying here is that you expect to be able to deal with these problems by never having bothered to familiarise yourself with the capabilities when you do have an up and running system, read the man pages and the on-line how-to articles, keep a daybook where you note these things, try them out, experiment and familiarise yourself with their workings.
---- "when I have a up and running system" -- that's when things work. Every time I've tried anything associated with xD (=sysD from subj), I've never gotten to a working system.
Well, BtrFS is the FS that's the default setting in an out-of-the-box instillation.
--- If you installed when it was the default setting. I didn't. When I installed my system there was no initrd. Things booted from disk.
As for 'conservative', I beg to differ. I'm a lot more conservative than you. I run a very vanilla system, a plain old initrd.
That's not conservative -- that's modern/latest fad. Systems booted from disk long before booting from an initrd.
I don't install any of the features or modification that you have discussed in the past.
--- As I stated before. My system has been configure when the current features were opensuse standard. Even XFS was the suse standard FS when I installed it. Initrd, btrfs, etc. All those are recent, bleeding edge innovations. They are not well vetted or tested for my primary system.
The difference between us is that I'm obsessive about reading: tech papers, development notes, developers blogs, man pages, hot-to pages. And I make notes, I keeps a daybook, I note ideas and the results of things I try out.
--- I can't read my writing, not to mention I type faster than write. If it isn't in my computer, I won't find it.
Many of the things I try out result form matters discussed on this list, which I also read, excepting only matters that are so far away from anything I'm running, things about, for example, KDE3.
The things I try, there is usually no answer for. Someone claimed xD used standard methods to talk between xD modules so it was "open". I have tried running dbus on my desktop and on my server, and tried to get them to communicate -- turns out no one had ever bothered to put in networking -- it's speced for it, but no one ever implemented it. I used shell-script files to patch something together that worked. That's what I do on boot when something doesn't work -- if it is in an unfinished and non-standard tool (xD), then I can't expect to use it to get anything to work. xD isn't stable and hasn't stabilized YET. Each new release breaks more things. I don't call using it on your primary systems "conservative". -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 16/07/17 01:25 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
If there is no power, how does your tablet work? FWIW, I don't have a tablet.
Don't you have a cell phone? -- 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
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 16/07/17 01:25 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
If there is no power, how does your tablet work? FWIW, I don't have a tablet.
Don't you have a cell phone?
No. I don't get good reception where I live and I'm usually at home. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 16/07/17 08:17 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 16/07/17 01:25 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
If there is no power, how does your tablet work? FWIW, I don't have a tablet.
Don't you have a cell phone?
No. I don't get good reception where I live and I'm usually at home.
Don't you have wifi? -- 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
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 16/07/17 08:17 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
Don't you have a cell phone?
No. I don't get good reception where I live and I'm usually at home.
Don't you have wifi?
How is that different than using a cellular network for internet connectivity? See "bad reception" mentioned above. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 07/16/2017 08:51 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
How is that different than using a cellular network for internet connectivity?
I assume you have an Internet connection. Many people have WiFi set up in their homes, to provide Internet service to their portable devices. Also many businesses and other organizations have WiFi available for their customers. WiFi is totally different than the cell network, in that it's just an extension of an Internet connection, not a separate service. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
James Knott wrote:
On 07/16/2017 08:51 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
How is that different than using a cellular network for internet connectivity?
I assume you have an Internet connection. Many people have WiFi set up in their homes, to provide Internet service to their portable devices. Also many businesses and other organizations have WiFi available for their customers. WiFi is totally different than the cell network, in that it's just an extension of an Internet connection, not a separate service.
Oh... I was confusing WiFi w/Cell, WiFi is the group of 802.11 [a/b/g/n, etc] protos I see... Don't bother w/them, even the wifi stuff doesn't give very good results -- tried a few wireless type products -- even speakers across the room (wanted to use them for back speakers in a 7.2 setup) didn't work w/o noticeable interference. Ug! So computer is wired all the way -- though have a 5.8GHz telephone handset (with a noticeable buzz interference that appeared several months ago), and a few assorted wireless outdoor thermometers that didn't work reliably when they still worked. Thanks for the update though. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 07/16/2017 09:19 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
James Knott wrote:
On 07/16/2017 08:51 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
How is that different than using a cellular network for internet connectivity?
I assume you have an Internet connection. Many people have WiFi set up in their homes, to provide Internet service to their portable devices. Also many businesses and other organizations have WiFi available for their customers. WiFi is totally different than the cell network, in that it's just an extension of an Internet connection, not a separate service. Oh... I was confusing WiFi w/Cell, WiFi is the group of 802.11 [a/b/g/n, etc] protos I see...
Don't bother w/them, even the wifi stuff doesn't give very good results -- tried a few wireless type products -- even speakers across the room (wanted to use them for back speakers in a 7.2 setup) didn't work w/o noticeable interference. Ug!
So computer is wired all the way -- though have a 5.8GHz telephone handset (with a noticeable buzz interference that appeared several months ago), and a few assorted wireless outdoor thermometers that didn't work reliably when they still worked.
Thanks for the update though.
WiFi is the wireless (RF) connection from your wired (from outside) modem to all your wirelesslly connected devices in the house, including, if you have it "connected", your cell phone. It usually runs on 2.4 GHz and 5.6 GHz frequencies. Your cell phone may be able to connect with this at around 2GHx--not too familiear with the frequencies involved. There is a lot of stuff on these frequencies nowadays, but you may be able to switch to a different frequency in each band. You'll have to consult the instructions for your device. That MAY get rid of the buzz. --doug, WA2SAY, retired RF Engineer
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Doug wrote:
On 07/16/2017 09:19 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
So computer is wired all the way -- though have a 5.8GHz telephone handset (with a noticeable buzz interference that appeared several months ago), and a few assorted wireless outdoor thermometers that didn't work reliably when they still worked.
WiFi is the wireless (RF) connection from your wired (from outside) modem to all your wirelesslly connected devices in the house, including, if you have it "connected", your cell phone. It usually runs on 2.4 GHz and 5.6 GHz frequencies.
My cordless landline uses 5.8GHz DSS (Digitally splits the call over multiple channels). I went to it to get away from the 2.4GHz hotspot hit by alot of consumer devices including microwave ovens, apparently. The older handsets used 2.4GHz, prev generation used 900MHz, and before that 46-49MHz (short lived, I think). As for cell freqencies, Google "cell phone freqencies". for tables and such. 700-800, 1700, 1800, 2100 frequencies (all rounded and in MHz). Anyway, my landline handset doesn't offer user configurability for channels, as they are digitally split and moved around.
There is a lot of stuff on these frequencies nowadays, but you may be able to switch to a different frequency in each band.
The newer handsets do switching for you to supposedly avoid these problems (sigh). It worked for years, but I guess some device is now generating "better" interference! I'm thinking some electrical interference, but not sure. Anyway, all of these interferences lead me strongly away from trying to connect computers wirelessly. One of my housemates used a a wireless connection for a few years and thought it was something I setup for my house -- but wasn't me. Guess it was a neighbor. No wonder I encountered interference. I run debugging "passes" on problems like this when I have extra interest, energy & time. Have tried antennae changes, and electrical circuit changes, but no luck yet... I should try testing the outdoor phone service hookup and see if I hear it there, if so, I can tell my phone company to fix it -- just have been lazy. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Anton Aylward composed on 2017-07-16 20:31 (UTC-0400):
L A Walsh wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
L A Walsh wrote:
If there is no power, how does your tablet work? FWIW, I don't have a tablet.
Don't you have a cell phone?
No. I don't get good reception where I live and I'm usually at home.
Don't you have wifi?
I have neither "cell phone" nor "tablet". Cell phones get poor reception where I live. I'm usually at home. Every working PC here (there are many) has openSUSE as its primary OS. I must replace several UPS batteries every year. My car is midnight blue. Liquid and wired utilities are not on a "network" here (I live on a small island connected to civilization by one bridge). How might "wifi" help Linda or me? What does any of this sub-thread have to do with openSUSE? -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2017-07-17 02:17, L A Walsh wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 16/07/17 01:25 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
If there is no power, how does your tablet work? FWIW, I don't have a tablet.
Don't you have a cell phone?
No. I don't get good reception where I live and I'm usually at home.
We should get on the offtopic mail list for this ;-) I have read on NNTP of people in the USA using a home cell to get their mobile phones to work at home on areas with too bad coverage. The device connects to your landline internet connection and gives service to your phone while in range. No, I don't know brands or how they work. Maybe I can dig out some more info from posts, but searching nntp is not that easy (client refuses to search). -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)
On 07/17/2017 06:05 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No. I don't get good reception where I live and I'm usually at home.
We should get on the offtopic mail list for this ;-)
I have read on NNTP of people in the USA using a home cell to get their mobile phones to work at home on areas with too bad coverage. The device connects to your landline internet connection and gives service to your phone while in range.
No, I don't know brands or how they work. Maybe I can dig out some more info from posts, but searching nntp is not that easy (client refuses to search).
My wireless carrier here in the States is Sprint. I affectionately call them the Interstate Telephone Company because if you get very far away from the interstate highways they stop working. That's not really true now as they fill in their coverage area but where I live I'm in the margin between 3 of their towers. For a while I used one of their micro-cells (repeater?) at my house and it was generally ok BUT it had its limitations: 3G, not 4G, no handoff to cell network when I left home when on a call, etc. I finally sent it back to them and try not to lean back in my chair now when on a call so the phone doesn't slip into the black hole there. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Op maandag 17 juli 2017 16:26:10 CEST schreef Stevens:
On 07/17/2017 06:05 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No. I don't get good reception where I live and I'm usually at home.
We should get on the offtopic mail list for this ;-)
Yes, please. Just have a look at the subject of this mail. All landing in the archives, searchable for almost anything. Just imagine, you're looking for systemd support ( or whatever ) and you bump into this. Honestly I would think direction "hacked".
I have read on NNTP of people in the USA using a home cell to get their mobile phones to work at home on areas with too bad coverage. The device connects to your landline internet connection and gives service to your phone while in range.
No, I don't know brands or how they work. Maybe I can dig out some more info from posts, but searching nntp is not that easy (client refuses to search).
My wireless carrier here in the States is Sprint. I affectionately call them the Interstate Telephone Company because if you get very far away from the interstate highways they stop working. That's not really true now as they fill in their coverage area but where I live I'm in the margin between 3 of their towers. For a while I used one of their micro-cells (repeater?) at my house and it was generally ok BUT it had its limitations: 3G, not 4G, no handoff to cell network when I left home when on a call, etc. I finally sent it back to them and try not to lean back in my chair now when on a call so the phone doesn't slip into the black hole there.
-- Gertjan Lettink, a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Board Member openSUSE Forums Team -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Anton, stop the ad hominem! -dnh -- You really know you're in trouble when your boss decides upon a suicide pact... and agrees to go first. -- Chris King -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 07/16/2017 07:22 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 16/07/17 01:25 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
If there is no power, how does your tablet work? FWIW, I don't have a tablet.
Don't you have a cell phone?
Mine runs on the internal battery for several hours. -- Ken Schneider SuSe since Version 5.2, June 1998 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
* Ken Schneider - openSUSE <suse-list3@bout-tyme.net> [07-17-17 11:23]:
On 07/16/2017 07:22 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 16/07/17 01:25 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
If there is no power, how does your tablet work? FWIW, I don't have a tablet.
Don't you have a cell phone?
Mine runs on the internal battery for several hours.
And it runs openSUSE and you are asking a question here about openSUSE OR TAKE IT TO opensuse-offtopic. Thankyou, -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 07/16/2017 01:25 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
If there is no power, how does your tablet work? FWIW, I don't have a tablet.
Tablets have built in batteries. You could do the same with a notebook computer. Just the other day, I used my computer for a couple of hours at a customer's site, as I couldn't be bothered to get out the power supply and plug it in. I also often carry a tablet with me and read, surf the web etc., all while running on battery. Many businesses etc. have open WiFi for customers to use. How is it possible that you don't know about such new fangled inventions? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
James Knott wrote:
On 07/16/2017 01:25 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
If there is no power, how does your tablet work? FWIW, I don't have a tablet.
Tablets have built in batteries.
So it's not exactly accurate to say one doesn't have power? I have a UPS to keep my linux server running
You could do the same with a notebook computer. ... How is it possible that you don't know about such new fangled inventions?
When I traveled and commuted I had one, but they are hard to upgrade and not worth the extra expense. So I make due with a linux server and a Windows desktop that I've upgraded over the years. OTOH, I'll consider accepting cash donations to upgrade my equipment -- might even install sysd & Win10 on new systems (though maybe not. :-)). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 15/07/17 11:29 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
That happened to me with an early version of BtrFS. I'm sure I'm not alone in such.
--- There's a reason why I didn't use BtrFS.
I'm a bit more conservative than you in some areas.
Well, BtrFS is the FS that's the default setting in an out-of-the-box instillation. As for 'conservative', I beg to differ. I'm a lot more conservative than you. I run a very vanilla system, a plain old initrd. I don't install any of the features or modification that you have discussed in the past. The difference between us is that I'm obsessive about reading: tech papers, development notes, developers blogs, man pages, hot-to pages. And I make notes, I keeps a daybook, I note ideas and the results of things I try out. Many of the things I try out result form matters discussed on this list, which I also read, excepting only matters that are so far away from anything I'm running, things about, for example, KDE3. -- 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
On 14/07/17 08:02 PM, John Andersen wrote:
This is just nonsense, showing you don't know the first thing about systemd, or you've never bothered to read the very simple manual.
+1 Or perhaps Brian is emulating a fnord? its kinda hard to argue with someone who throws up -- as you say -- straw man issues, makes claims that are contradicting what has been documented and, even with my limited use of systemd, doable and done. It's sort of like arguing with a Conspiracy Theorist who is telling you that the Government has hidden the evidence for Christ's Second Coming on a rainy Sunday afternoon at Hyde Park corner. When you ask "which government" you get a lecture, not telling you a specific one, or even "All Of Them!", but on how Plato predicted it in the suppressed eleventh book, and how this was explained in the movie "Spinal Tap" but cut out of the cinema and DVD releases. If that makes sense to you then I suggest you read Shea & Wilson's "Illuminatus!" Trilogy. -- 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
On 7/14/2017 10:12 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 08:02 PM, John Andersen wrote:
This is just nonsense, showing you don't know the first thing about systemd, or you've never bothered to read the very simple manual.
+1 Or perhaps Brian is emulating a fnord?
its kinda hard to argue with someone who throws up -- as you say -- straw man issues, makes claims that are contradicting what has been documented and, even with my limited use of systemd, doable and done. It's sort of like arguing with a Conspiracy Theorist who is telling you that the Government has hidden the evidence for Christ's Second Coming on a rainy Sunday afternoon at Hyde Park corner. When you ask "which government" you get a lecture, not telling you a specific one, or even "All Of Them!", but on how Plato predicted it in the suppressed eleventh book, and how this was explained in the movie "Spinal Tap" but cut out of the cinema and DVD releases.
If that makes sense to you then I suggest you read Shea & Wilson's "Illuminatus!" Trilogy.
Yep, me & Linus, just two hopelessly clueless dolts. I have wifi though, so whatever the reason was for counting that against Linda for being insufficiently "normal", it doesn't apply to me, so, it's almost like it was never a valid part of this topic in the first place. That's kind of a large part of the problem right there. The system is not supposed to be dictating to the user how it shall be used. "What??? You don't have an initrd???? You are so flagrantly deviant that all bets are off and you don't even deserve to be supported." Such "standardized" canned systems do have their place, and they are game consoles and phones and chromebooks. A general purpose OS loses value when it becomes more like chromebook. It gets "better" only from the perspective of someone wanting to either use, or support the back end for a chromebook. init is supposed to be tiny and predictable and dependable. The less the black box binary part of it does, the better. This is a general pronciple that applies no matter what sort of structure of higher level things you want to build on top of it does. It's not because I just happen to like it that way better, or because that's the way it was yesterday so that's all I can imagine today. It's because yesterday the basic truth was recognized, and remains a basic truth today for the same reasons. You can neither modify, nor even examine the actual source of systemd directly at boot time. You can do so with scripts, and it doesn't matter if they are SCO init scripts or freebsd init scripts or openrc or even upstart. The exact types of files init reads and in what order don't much matter. I don't care if /etc/inittab exists or is replaced with something completely different. You can't do so with the init binary itself, or the kernel, but *those* things which can not be helped, and especially in the case of init, at least the problem is *minimized*, as an explicit intentional design goal, by making the inscrutable/immutable binary part of it small, simple, and debugged like crazy for decades and *not* feature-added like crazy for decades. All the desired features can perfectly well be added elsewhere. systemd makes fundamental philosophy choice that says "You don't need any ultimate fall back ability to handle problems systemd failed to handle, because systemd will never fail, and will always allow for every possible need you might have, and anything systemd doesn't allow for, was invalid and you didn't actually need it or have a valid reason for wanting it." A tiny init that just starts reading a script and goes from there, makes no such assumptions, and therefor, is still serving users correctly 30 years later, who are doing things the original authors never imagined or explicitly allowed for. What they imagined, *correctly*, was that they can't possibly know what people will ever need to do, and that therefor it would be wrong to try in the first place. init is like having a language. systemd is like having a phrasebook. With init, you can still write that phrasebook if you want, but with only a phrasebook, you can't create a missing phrase. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
participants (22)
-
Anton Aylward -
Basil Chupin -
Brian K. White -
Bruce Ferrell -
Carlos E. R. -
David C. Rankin -
David Haller -
Doug -
Felix Miata -
Fraser_Bell -
ianseeks -
James -
James Knott -
John Andersen -
Ken Schneider - openSUSE -
Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink -
Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink vv
-
L A Walsh -
Larry Stotler -
Patrick Shanahan -
Stevens -
Todd Rme