On Tuesday 08 October 2013, Hans Witvliet wrote:
# lsof -i -n -P |grep 631 systemd 1 root 36u IPv6 6063 0t0 TCP *:631 (LISTEN) systemd 1 root 38u IPv4 6064 0t0 UDP *:631 cupsd 363 root 4u IPv6 6063 0t0 TCP *:631 (LISTEN) cupsd 363 root 5u IPv4 6064 0t0 UDP *:631 cupsd 363 root 10u IPv4 8580 0t0 TCP 127.0.0.1:631
So this is probaly systemd's start on demand feature. It listens on port 631 and starts cupsd if there is incomming traffic.
cu, Rudi N�����r��y隊Z)z{.�ﮞ˛���m�)z{.��+�: �{Zr�az�'z��j)h���Ǿ� ޮ�^�ˬz��
El 08/10/13 18:18, Ruediger Meier escribió:
So this is probaly systemd's start on demand feature. It listens on port 631 and starts cupsd if there is incomming traffic.
Yes, exactly and while it still needs some love, it is correct.
From: Cristian Rodríguez crrodriguez@opensuse.org To: opensuse@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse] systemd vs cups Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:54:46 -0300
El 08/10/13 18:18, Ruediger Meier escribió:
So this is probaly systemd's start on demand feature. It listens on port 631 and starts cupsd if there is incomming traffic.
Yes, exactly and while it still needs some love, it is correct. -----Original Message-----
Ok, that systemd listens on 631 to check if cups needs to be started up. No problem with that, sounds reasonable enough But why does it still listens _after_ it did startup...
Could very well be the internal mechanisms of systemd, but it look odd, (at least at first glance). Is that to be expected for all daemons that are started up (by systemd)?
Hans
On 10/8/2013 2:54 PM, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 08/10/13 18:18, Ruediger Meier escribió:
So this is probaly systemd's start on demand feature. It listens on port 631 and starts cupsd if there is incomming traffic.
Yes, exactly and while it still needs some love, it is correct.
Shouldn't SystemD stop listening after cupsd is running? Who gets to answer a connection request?
El 08/10/13 20:32, John Andersen escribió:
Shouldn't SystemD stop listening after cupsd is running?
Nope, that will defeat its purpose.
Who gets to answer a connection request?
the service in question (be cups or any other) is given the open descriptor to handle the request.
On 10/8/2013 4:56 PM, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 08/10/13 20:32, John Andersen escribió:
Shouldn't SystemD stop listening after cupsd is running?
Nope, that will defeat its purpose.
Who gets to answer a connection request?
the service in question (be cups or any other) is given the open descriptor to handle the request.
Seems kludgey. If SystemD is going to do socket handoffs, why would Cupsd have to listen? Maybe this is an intermediate step till all the daemons start accepting handed-off sockets?
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 08/10/13 18:18, Ruediger Meier escribió:
So this is probaly systemd's start on demand feature. It listens on port 631 and starts cupsd if there is incomming traffic.
Yes, exactly and while it still needs some love, it is correct.
Correct brehavior would be: SystemD listens on the cupsd port SystemD picks up activity on the cupsd port SystemD starts cupsd [optional short delay] SystemD relinquishes the cupsd port because now cupsd is listening.
El 08/10/13 23:49, Dirk Gently escribió:
SystemD relinquishes the cupsd port because now cupsd is listening.
nope, it is doing exactly what it should, as designed and intented. otherwise it could not monitor, stop, perform any kind of operation if the socket fails.. or provide any kind of support for ordering other components after the socket goes down/up etc..
-----Original Message----- From: Cristian Rodríguez crrodriguez@opensuse.org To: opensuse@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse] systemd vs cups Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 01:08:27 -0300
El 08/10/13 23:49, Dirk Gently escribió:
SystemD relinquishes the cupsd port because now cupsd is listening.
nope, it is doing exactly what it should, as designed and intented. otherwise it could not monitor, stop, perform any kind of operation if the socket fails.. or provide any kind of support for ordering other components after the socket goes down/up etc..
-----Original Message----- I thought along the same lines as Dirk....
If i got a (any) client-program, setting up an connection on 1.2.3.4::abcd who is answering the call?
If i understood you correctly, systemd steals away all connection-setups How does i get to the intended service? Can you define priorities on ports?
If systemd passes connection-request-setup towards an underlying daemon, fine, but in that case the daemon does not need also to be listening. So either one, but not both.
I sincerely hope, that not _all_ traffic passes first through systemd before it arrives at the intended daemon......
Hans
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 08/10/13 23:49, Dirk Gently escribió:
SystemD relinquishes the cupsd port because now cupsd is listening.
nope, it is doing exactly what it should, as designed and intented. otherwise it could not monitor, stop, perform any kind of operation if the socket fails.. or provide any kind of support for ordering other components after the socket goes down/up etc..
If that's the case, then SystemD is violating FUNDAMENTAL Unix design principles.
Who's writing SystemD, a bunch of Windows-kluge-ers?
On 04/15/2014 04:42 PM, Dirk Gently wrote:
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 08/10/13 23:49, Dirk Gently escribió:
SystemD relinquishes the cupsd port because now cupsd is listening.
nope, it is doing exactly what it should, as designed and intented. otherwise it could not monitor, stop, perform any kind of operation if the socket fails.. or provide any kind of support for ordering other components after the socket goes down/up etc..
If that's the case, then SystemD is violating FUNDAMENTAL Unix design principles.
Who's writing SystemD, a bunch of Windows-kluge-ers?
Bwahahaha! I had the same thought a long time ago! I had the thought that what better way would Microsoft have to bork Linux than to rot it with cancer from the inside? To turn it into a poor Windows imitation?
Don't get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for the developers working on this, but there does seem to be a clash of paradigms going on.
Regards, Lew
El 15/04/14 20:56, Lew Wolfgang escribió:
Don't get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for the developers working on this, but there does seem to be a clash of paradigms going on.
Exactly the same clash as horses vs cars, coal trains vs high speed railways.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 21:25:37 -0300 Cristian Rodríguez crrodriguez@opensuse.org wrote:
El 15/04/14 20:56, Lew Wolfgang escribió:
Don't get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for the developers working on this, but there does seem to be a clash of paradigms going on.
Exactly the same clash as horses vs cars, coal trains vs high speed railways.
Subsonic jets vs the Concorde. Oh, wait....
On 4/15/2014 4:56 PM, Lew Wolfgang wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for the developers working on this, but there does seem to be a clash of paradigms going on.
I lost that respect when SystemD made such a mockery of stability and serviceability. After PulseAudio, Poettering has worn pretty thin.
John Andersen wrote:
On 4/15/2014 4:56 PM, Lew Wolfgang wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for the developers working on this, but there does seem to be a clash of paradigms going on.
I lost that respect when SystemD made such a mockery of stability and serviceability. After PulseAudio, Poettering has worn pretty thin.
With his snotty attitude towards answering reasonable questions, it would serve him right if Linux revoked his commit privileges, too, like Kay Seivert's
On 04/15/2014 07:42 PM, Dirk Gently wrote:
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 08/10/13 23:49, Dirk Gently escribió:
SystemD relinquishes the cupsd port because now cupsd is listening.
nope, it is doing exactly what it should, as designed and intented. otherwise it could not monitor, stop, perform any kind of operation if the socket fails.. or provide any kind of support for ordering other components after the socket goes down/up etc..
If that's the case, then SystemD is violating FUNDAMENTAL Unix design principles.
Please explain that assertion.
Please tale into account how things like inetd and xinetd work. Or, for that matter, how apache works.
El 15/04/14 21:22, Anton Aylward escribió:
Please explain that assertion.
Please tale into account how things like inetd and xinetd work. Or, for that matter, how apache works.
I suspect Dirk is trolling or is deluded by thinking any current mainstream OS works following the "unix principles" (whatever that means)
On 04/15/2014 09:02 PM, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 15/04/14 21:22, Anton Aylward escribió:
Please explain that assertion.
Please tale into account how things like inetd and xinetd work. Or, for that matter, how apache works.
I suspect Dirk is trolling or is deluded by thinking any current mainstream OS works following the "unix principles" (whatever that means)
The 'whatever that means' is the issue here. He's not saying what those are, apart from Pike's Dictum, which he seems to think systemd violates.
If that's the case then about 85% of what we use under Linux today violates that principle.
He also seems to fail to realise that systemd is a _dispatcher_ and that dispatchers have always had things like logging, the ability to kill and restart their children and other 'internal' functions.
If he wants a KISS-violater he needs look no further than the Korn Shell. That too is a dispatcher, but has a lot more built in to it and is a long way from the "one thing and only one thing" of a simple CLI. Heck, compared to the Bourne Shell of UNIX/V7 its incredibly complex!
If by "unix principles" he means the experimentation and offering up of the prototype to the user base for feedback and testing, which has been a tradition of "UNIX" since the universities got hold of it and which has *always* been a key part of the way Linux works, then I don't understand what he's complaining about.
If he wants a polished, finished product then I suggest he goes to IBM or HP.
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/15/2014 07:42 PM, Dirk Gently wrote:
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 08/10/13 23:49, Dirk Gently escribió:
SystemD relinquishes the cupsd port because now cupsd is listening.
nope, it is doing exactly what it should, as designed and intented. otherwise it could not monitor, stop, perform any kind of operation if the socket fails.. or provide any kind of support for ordering other components after the socket goes down/up etc..
If that's the case, then SystemD is violating FUNDAMENTAL Unix design principles.
Please explain that assertion.
Please tale into account how things like inetd and xinetd work. Or, for that matter, how apache works.
inet and xinet listen to a port, and when traffic comes in, start up the corresponding service, and hand-off the traffic to that service.
SystemD tries to *BE* every freaking service....
Unix philosophy -- each program does one thing, and does that one thing VERY WELL.
In contrast, SystemD tries to do EVERYTHING, and does NONE of it well -- which is straight out of the Microsoft/Windows way of doing things.
On 04/16/2014 04:45 AM, Dirk Gently wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/15/2014 07:42 PM, Dirk Gently wrote:
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 08/10/13 23:49, Dirk Gently escribió:
SystemD relinquishes the cupsd port because now cupsd is listening.
nope, it is doing exactly what it should, as designed and intented. otherwise it could not monitor, stop, perform any kind of operation if the socket fails.. or provide any kind of support for ordering other components after the socket goes down/up etc..
If that's the case, then SystemD is violating FUNDAMENTAL Unix design principles.
Please explain that assertion.
Please tale into account how things like inetd and xinetd work. Or, for that matter, how apache works.
inet and xinet listen to a port, and when traffic comes in, start up the corresponding service, and hand-off the traffic to that service.
SystemD tries to *BE* every freaking service....
That is so clearly not so I can't understand why you are so asserting it.
Like XinetD, systemd has single control files that say what service is to be dispatched and and associated with that port, monitors the service for when it exits. The 'out of the box' set of services for XinetD are straight forward in that they don't have pre- or post-conditional actions, but I've seen some specialized, custom uses of XinetD which, for example, ensure services are always available, restarting them when they die or time-out.
Everything that systemd does requires a descriptor, a control file, a 'unit' file [systemd.unit(5)], though they are more sophisticated than those of XinetD. You don't see many of the unit files because, as the documentation says, they are generated automatically by axillary programs which, for example, read /etc/fstab and produce a unit file for each entry. Such generators are documented and there's no reason you can't write your own, custom ones, as well as your own basic unit files. I've done the latter.
To assert that system tries to be the service is demonstrably false: the example of cusp makes that quite clear. Systemd starts cups, it isn't cups.
To assert that this "isn't the UNIX way" is also demonstrably false. Table driven controls have a long history in UNIX What makes UNIX/Linux different from other operating systems is that those table are text files and can be changed with a text editor.
As for the scanning and transformation, that too has precedence in UNIX from before the days of Linux. The original 'termcap' files were text based but later were scanned and transformed to a binary format - 'terminfo'. We see similar scanning and transformation for language files and for timezone. The only thing that makes systemd different here is that it invokes the auxiliary programs itself on demand rather than relies on the sysadmin to do so from the command line.
Unix philosophy -- each program does one thing, and does that one thing VERY WELL.
Yes, and systemd meets that in the same way that other pre- and post Linux utilities do.
If you want to complain about things that violate Pike's Dictum then I suggest you look elsewhere. Certainly modern GUI based tools such as email handlers and web browsers violate that precept.
I might even go so far as to say that compared to the original Bourne Shell the Korn Shell and the shell we have today grossly violate that rule, but I don't see you complaining about them!
In contrast, SystemD tries to do EVERYTHING, and does NONE of it well -- which is straight out of the Microsoft/Windows way of doing things.
You assert that although its patently false. Systemd is a dispatcher. Just as XinetD also has internal functions (for example logging, rate limiting, killing and restarting services) so too does systemd.
You quote the example of cups. The old man page for CUPS (available via googling) says quite explicitly
<quote> cups-lpd does not act as a standalone network daemon but instead operates using the Internet "super-server" inetd(8) or xinetd(8) </quote>
It goes on to give the xinetd "unit" descriptor needed.
Although the details differ when we look at how systemd handles cups, the basics are the same: systemd is a dispatcher; there is a control file that specifies the 'what', the program and the parameters.
Systemd dispatches and monitors cups. It doesn't try to do what cups does. Your assertions are unfounded and demonstrably false.
If systemd had any failing it was that, as has been the UNIX/Linux tradition, it was released before it was complete and fully functional. The Open Source movement, as we see with the Heartbleed/SSL problem, is not as funded as the commercial operations and cannot complete development and testing in house to ensure that when a product is released it is as polished as we see from the likes of HP and IBM. (Yes you are right to criticise Microsoft, they do seem to do their beta testing on the public.)
Yes, compared to XinetD, systemd is very sophisticated. My point here is to show that systemd is not the violation of any basic UNIX principles but an evolution of them. If you want to be reductionist, then all of networking, all of job control, all of virtual memory, all of the journalled file systems are a violation of the KISS principles of UNIX V6/V7 as embodied on the 9-track takes that came with the "Love, Dennis" note.
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/16/2014 04:45 AM, Dirk Gently wrote:
In contrast, SystemD tries to do EVERYTHING, and does NONE of it well -- which is straight out of the Microsoft/Windows way of doing things.
---- There could be a perfectly good explanation why the design follows MS's serviced and why even the config files look like microsoft setup file (besides under the table payments).
At the very least, linux is moving toward a locked-down appleian walled garden -- just as Windows is. Windows 8 *almost* required secureboot on any PC shipping windows. They did on everything BUT the PC platform. PC platform is in the near future. The idea is to be able to lock down people's PC's so corporations can sell you computer based services rather than sell you products. The economy is moving toward 'service based' rather than product based, because, as Adobe has found out, having to develop a product in order to get income is hard work.
As PC's have become more complex, keeping programs working while releasing new features is becoming impossible. Many large companies are releasing SW as perpetual beta products while they see how they can sell related services. MS has been converting most of the business customers to contract support -- not sales of licenses. The newest version of office she has requires her computer be online in order to activate and requires running a full-time license and security daemon in the background. Stop the daemon (I mean stop, not disable), and office stops functioning. None of the components will start.
The idea is to use the TPM to hold keys to verify the SW at boot time and maintain a trusted (by the corporations) software base. Users won't be able to run programs on their computers unless they are approved.
They MIGHT be able to boot in an 'insecure' mode, but that will get old really fast.... basically think of the PC as becoming an expensive game and media playback console -- that you'll have to shell out for.
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/15/2014 07:42 PM, Dirk Gently wrote:
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
SystemD relinquishes the cupsd port because now cupsd is listening.
nope, it is doing exactly what it should, as designed and intented. otherwise it could not monitor, stop, perform any kind of operation if the socket fails.. or provide any kind of support for ordering other components after the socket goes down/up etc..
If that's the case, then SystemD is violating FUNDAMENTAL Unix design principles.
Please explain that assertion.
Please tale into account how things like inetd and xinetd work. Or, for that matter, how apache works.
----
Apache is a web server -- of course it wouldn't get out of the way. xinetd can apply controls to each TCP connection it manages.
The problem comes in that there have always been some daemons/utilities that couldn't deal with that paradigm and need to do their own listening.
Examples: apache -- does it relinquish it's ports to systemd? Samba, nfs, sendmail and many others. Cups *likely* doesn't need continuous connection to it's listening CPU port, but try that for samba or a busy webserver, and you are going to see performance degradation.
Another problem with the monolith model -- in Win 7 MS moved all the large I/O's into their System(Daemon), where they cannot be monitored, limited or controlled. In fact, if you try to control regulate MS's systemd, by adjusting it's priority -- it will blue screen your system "for your protection" (what it says on the blue screen). Wonder how long it will be before the linux systemd does something similar. On a regular basis, MS's systemd will noticeably cause system performance problems -- and they justify it by having it linked into and controlling other needed services, leading to the next point:
inet and xinet listen to a port, and when traffic comes in, start up the corresponding service, and hand-off the traffic to that service.
---
right -- are you saying systemd continue to sit in the middle and passes the traffic through itself? or does it spawn the child and hand off STDIN/OUT/ERR linked to the network socket and the child daemon then talks direct. If it is doing the latter, that's pretty much the way inetd and xinetd work. If it is going the former, that's an impending nightmare.
SystemD tries to *BE* every freaking service....
That is so clearly not so I can't understand why you are so asserting it.
----
Well, first there was "sysVinit", then "syslog", then went "udevd", then went "powerd"., um... now it's taking out "xinetd/inetd". Also, only last week there as an exchange of systemd proponents asking for samba to "toe-the-line", as it seems to do things systemd doesn't expect (yet another daemon is now 'bad and wrong' because of systemd?)
A few months back there was a lively exchange between RedHat and Linus as they pressured him to accept their trusted code into the kernel so they can boot Redndoes. While linus told them to use existing means, they'll likely try again in other ways to get better control of the kernel under systemd.
All of these actions bespeak of systemd being on an acquisition course.
So if you can't understand why someone might assert that it's trying to become everything, you haven't been paying attention.
Yes, compared to XinetD, systemd is very sophisticated. My point here is to show that systemd is not the violation of any basic UNIX principles but an evolution of them.
Open and simple? Using text files for config rather than binary? Um... going for small pieces that do single things so other competing products can be dropped in to replace functionality (like mlocate being dropped in for locate -- as an example, or the hopping between boot loaders). If there is only 1 large systemd that does all of the funcions that previously had "competition", then we no longer have modularity or the ability to choose the better implementations.
Monolithic tools have not been been considered good players in the unix environment.
So what does systemd do? Does it stay in the middle for each byte, or does it hand over the connections 1 at a time?
On 04/16/2014 11:25 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
[...].... basically think of the PC as becoming an expensive game and media playback console -- that you'll have to shell out for.
Or there's this as the future of Linux: http://www.zdnet.com/linux-is-about-to-take-over-the-desktop-but-not-like-yo...
Le 17/04/2014 12:39, Anton Aylward a écrit :
Or there's this as the future of Linux: http://www.zdnet.com/linux-is-about-to-take-over-the-desktop-but-not-like-yo...
when we all have an optical fiber network at any moment, well...
I have a so bas experience of network each time a go out of my house...
jdd
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 06:39:07 Anton Aylward wrote:
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable...A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. -- H. L. Mencken
This definition of faith makes no sense to me and I'm a Christian. Isaac Newton both was a man full of faith (Christian) and obviously had the capacity for clear and realistic thought, as evidenced by the opinions of most famous physicists and mathematicians throughout history and his accomplishments, too numerous to even mention at the moment. Some obscure atheist calling him and other Christians ill because of their faith is really too much to warrant a response from a sensible person, so I'll leave it at that. You've managed with this quote to demonstrate to the entire world how much out of contact with reality certain atheists are, although I don't think this was your purpose; that's quite an accomplishment.
To the moderators: Personal attacks are unacceptable in openSUSE mailing lists, according to the netiquette, https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette#Don.27t_be_aggressi.... Calling Christians, among others, ill, because they're Christians is actually stupid in the best case, and if this were the first time such an incident occurs, I wouldn't bother reporting it, but some in openSUSE mailing lists seem to think it is acceptable to insult and slander others for no reason at all.
Regards, Peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2014-04-17 14:12, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 06:39:07 Anton Aylward wrote:
To the moderators: Personal attacks are unacceptable in openSUSE mailing lists, according to the netiquette,
Arguably, signatures are not part of the content of the email and are not subject to the general "rules".
https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette#Don.27t_be_aggressi....
The only rule specified of signatures is this:
+++················· Signatures
Signatures in emails should be not longer then 4 lines long.
Information: McQuary Limit ·················++-
And that signature matches that rule.
You may push for a netiquette rule restricting content in signatures, but so far, we don't have it. I suggest you take that to the project mail list.
( And in any case, that text in the signature you object to, is in fact signed by somebody else. You should direct your opinion to that person instead, IMO. And freedom of speech applies. :-) )
- -- Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 04/17/2014 08:28 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The only rule specified of signatures is this:
+++················· Signatures
Signatures in emails should be not longer then 4 lines long.
I'll ask the developer of the random signature tool if that can be added.
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 14:28:04 Carlos E. R. wrote:
Arguably, signatures are not part of the content of the email and are not subject to the general "rules".
You may push for a netiquette rule restricting content in signatures, but so far, we don't have it. I suggest you take that to the project mail list.
So, if one puts part of his slanderous answer in a signature, that means that the project condones this behaviour?
( And in any case, that text in the signature you object to, is in fact signed by somebody else. You should direct your opinion to that person instead, IMO. And freedom of speech applies. :-) )
There's a gap here between what the quotation was about and what you and others claim. According to the quotation, a man of faith is ill. Since being ill is not someone's opinion but a factual statement, which in this case is plainly false (what medical condition is caused by or is the consequence of faith?) and illness carries negative connotation, this quotation is slanderous, it is not just an opinion. Slanderous statements are by definition attacks against a person by denigrating his inherent qualities, one of which is his health. Imagine, for example, someone claiming that "people whose name is Carlos are sick". Is this merely an opinion? Also, this quotation was not presented in this mailing list by the one who said it, it was presented here by Anton Aylward, who apparently agrees with it. Are you implying that one cannot be offensive or slanderous if he quotes someone else's words?
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
Regards, Peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2014-04-17 16:16, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 14:28:04 Carlos E. R. wrote:
There's a gap here between what the quotation was about and what you and others claim. According to the quotation, a man of faith is ill. Since being ill is not someone's opinion but a factual statement, which in this case is
I will not even discuss what goes in the text of a signature.
- -- Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 16:21:34 Carlos E. R. wrote:
I will not even discuss what goes in the text of a signature.
Would I be asking too much to get an answer for my questions? I notice that in general you don't end discussions abruptly.
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
Regards, Peter
Le 17/04/2014 17:21, auxsvr@gmail.com a écrit :
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 16:21:34 Carlos E. R. wrote:
I will not even discuss what goes in the text of a signature.
Would I be asking too much to get an answer for my questions? I notice that in general you don't end discussions abruptly.
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.Regards, Peter
Please stop this off-topic discussion on a Suse list. And remember, don't feel the troll.
On 17/04/14 17:25, Dsant wrote:
Please stop this off-topic discussion on a Suse list. And remember, don't feel the troll.
Oh I don't know. I think what many trolls probably need is to be felt ;) Feeding, on the other hand...
(Other) Peter
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 17:25:43 Dsant wrote:
Please stop this off-topic discussion on a Suse list. And remember, don't feel the troll.
It says a lot about you and several others on this list that you didn't ask this for James Knott's inconclusive post, among others, about religion, which is way off-topic for the subject of this thread and the list, and you ask this for my attempt to simply call attention to violations of netiquette.
Regards, Peter
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46 PM, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 17:25:43 Dsant wrote:
Please stop this off-topic discussion on a Suse list. And remember, don't feel the troll.
It says a lot about you and several others on this list that you didn't ask this for James Knott's inconclusive post, among others, about religion, which is way off-topic for the subject of this thread and the list, and you ask this for my attempt to simply call attention to violations of netiquette.
Regards, Peter
Peter,
I agree James post is the most off-topic and therefore the most improper post in this thread. This is not the place to discuss religion, atheism, etc. I hope he doesn't post about it again.
But Peter, you should be communicating with the list owner about your complaint, please do that without the rest of the list in copy.
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
If there is another place to send netiquette complaints, he/she can point you to the right place.
Thanks Greg
On 04/17/2014 09:52 AM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46 PM, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 17:25:43 Dsant wrote:
Please stop this off-topic discussion on a Suse list. And remember, don't feel the troll.
It says a lot about you and several others on this list that you didn't ask this for James Knott's inconclusive post, among others, about religion, which is way off-topic for the subject of this thread and the list, and you ask this for my attempt to simply call attention to violations of netiquette.
Regards, Peter
Peter,
I agree James post is the most off-topic and therefore the most improper post in this thread. This is not the place to discuss religion, atheism, etc. I hope he doesn't post about it again.
But Peter, you should be communicating with the list owner about your complaint, please do that without the rest of the list in copy.
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
If there is another place to send netiquette complaints, he/she can point you to the right place.
This is a good place for me to jump in.
We on the sweet-haven offtopic list invite invite all of you who'd like to discuss religion in an open environment to join us. Indeed, we seem to have continuous religious discussions, especially in regard to same-sex marriage. Come over and join the fun! This wouldn't be the first time that posters here signed up at sweet-haven over a signature flap.
http://sweet-haven.com/mailman/listinfo/offtopic
We really need some man-made global warming proponents to join us to defend their faith. Any takers?
Regards, Lew
On 04/17/2014 12:14 PM, Lew Wolfgang wrote:
This is a good place for me to jump in.
We on the sweet-haven offtopic list invite invite all of you who'd like to discuss religion in an open environment to join us. Indeed, we seem to have continuous religious discussions, especially in regard to same-sex marriage. Come over and join the fun! This wouldn't be the first time that posters here signed up at sweet-haven over a signature flap.
http://sweet-haven.com/mailman/listinfo/offtopic
We really need some man-made global warming proponents to join us to defend their faith. Any takers?
Regards, Lew
Comon over. We could use the new blood. *<]:oD
auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
that you didn't ask this for James Knott's inconclusive post
Ummm..., you were the one who dragged religion in here, when you responded to a sig. I was simply responding to you. You're the one who made things "personal".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2014-04-17 17:21, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 16:21:34 Carlos E. R. wrote:
I will not even discuss what goes in the text of a signature.
Would I be asking too much to get an answer for my questions? I notice that in general you don't end discussions abruptly.
I have my beliefs on the matter, but I will not air them, in any direction, in a Linux public forum.
My understanding, regarding netiquette, is that people get a free hand in what they write in the signature part of emails, This is a tradition. Sometimes what gets there is put by an automatic program, getting random texts from somewhere, not directly by the email writer, outside of his direct control.
I consider those signatures not to be part of the email, and thus, not subject to the general netiquette rules. So I will not enter a discussion about what they contain.
At most, if I like one a lot, it makes me laugh, or if I want further info, I may comment. I never criticize the sender.
Thus, the only written rule in the netiquette link you provided is that it should be 4 lines at most, it does not say anything about the contents. If you want that changed, well, propose to change that. But not in this list.
- -- Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 18/04/14 03:55, Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2014-04-17 17:21, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 16:21:34 Carlos E. R. wrote:
I will not even discuss what goes in the text of a signature.
Would I be asking too much to get an answer for my questions? I notice that in general you don't end discussions abruptly.
I have my beliefs on the matter, but I will not air them, in any direction, in a Linux public forum.
My understanding, regarding netiquette, is that people get a free hand in what they write in the signature part of emails, This is a tradition.
**WRONG!**
*Do Not Pass GO Do Not Collect $200*!
You should well remember that one valuable member of this list was thrown out by the Administrator of this list, Henne, because some religious wowser (identity claimed to be known) complained to Henne about the Signature line that Fred was using.
Remember that?
And do you remember the arguments about this at that time?
Now Fred was thrown out because of the *Signature* and not the contents of his posts.
However, there was another one, Aaron, who was also banned from all oS mailing lists for using offensive language in the *BODY* of messages - but who still posts here (and elsewhere) under yet another alias name (at the moment, Dirk).
So, there is NO tradition, and nobody is allowed a free hand to write whatever they want in the Signature to ANY post in openSUSE mailing lists.
Just to refresh your memory and everyone else's if they had forgotten the past, and to tell all new comers, that the reason why Fred was turfed out was because the openSUSE mail lists are PRIVATE lists, hosted by the owner; and if you enter a host's house you play by the house rules she/he decides.
(I won't add to this last para.)
[pruned]
BC
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:16 PM, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
A bunch of off topic nonsense.
Geez, drop it already. You've proved your pointless point. No one here cares. You're perceived offense is a non-issue and NOT related to openSUSE in any way shape or form.
C.
auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
According to the quotation, a man of faith is ill. Since being ill is not someone's opinion but a factual statement, which in this case is plainly false (what medical condition is caused by or is the consequence of faith?)
What do you call delusion then? Delusional people often seek help from psychologists or psychiatrists.
Religion is believing in something that not only has absolutely no evidence to support it, but is contradicted by historical and archaeological fact. What's that if not delusion?
On 04/17/2014 10:16 AM, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
There's a gap here between what the quotation was about and what you and others claim. According to the quotation, a man of faith is ill. Since being ill is not someone's opinion but a factual statement,
Not so. Many people claim they are ill and doctors disagree. Many so-called illnesses are 'politically correct' rather than factual. ADD used to e kids just running about in low density towns&country, not its an 'illness'.
Under various political regimes disagreeing with the government is considered a 'mental illness' and not an 'opinion'.
YMMV.
All this amounts to is kids arguing: "I have faith that I can pizz higher on the wall than you can."
Lets drop this thread in a deep well.
On 04/17/2014 10:16 AM, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
Slanderous statements are by definition attacks against a person by denigrating his inherent qualities, one of which is his health.
There are two flaws in that assertion. First it assumes that health is an inherent quality. Its not. Sometimes people can be ill, sometimes well. Sometimes they can be 'walking wounded'.
Second, telling someone they are ill regardless of how they feel is not slanderous. If it was then doctors would not be able to tell of diagnoses. For example, an x-ray may show up a previously unsuspected condition, cancer or TB, for example.
Also, this quotation was not presented in this mailing list by the one who said it, it was presented here by Anton Aylward, who apparently agrees with it.
Can you detail the basis for that assertion? Please, don't confuse me with James while doing so. The fact that I'm not denying it vociferously doesn't mean I agree with it. The fact that I think illness is sometimes an opinion doesn't mean I agree with it. The fact that I'm, by training and education, an engineer, doesn't mean I think religious belief is an mental illness.
Are you implying that one cannot be offensive or slanderous if he quotes someone else's words?
I think he's stating something that is a legal fact.
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 11:34:55 Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/17/2014 10:16 AM, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
Slanderous statements are by definition attacks against a person by denigrating his inherent qualities, one of which is his health.
There are two flaws in that assertion. First it assumes that health is an inherent quality. Its not. Sometimes people can be ill, sometimes well. Sometimes they can be 'walking wounded'.
Second, telling someone they are ill regardless of how they feel is not slanderous. If it was then doctors would not be able to tell of diagnoses. For example, an x-ray may show up a previously unsuspected condition, cancer or TB, for example.
I'm not a lawyer, although I could ask a relative of mine about the matter, but saying that someone is ill is not merely an opinion, since doctors can decide based on facts whether this is true or false. What you and others are trying to convince me about here frankly does not make any sense at all.
Also, this quotation was not presented in this mailing list by the one who said it, it was presented here by Anton Aylward, who apparently agrees with it.
Can you detail the basis for that assertion? Please, don't confuse me with James while doing so. The fact that I'm not denying it vociferously doesn't mean I agree with it. The fact that I think illness is sometimes an opinion doesn't mean I agree with it. The fact that I'm, by training and education, an engineer, doesn't mean I think religious belief is an mental illness.
I based it on the assumption that what one posts on the internet is not by accident or mistake. If I were wrong, I retract this comment, but I don't think I'm wrong, because you never apologized for it.
Are you implying that one cannot be offensive or slanderous if he quotes someone else's words?
I think he's stating something that is a legal fact.
Actually, both of you are wrong, otherwise journalists would be immune to defamation lawsuits. I'm not trying to invoke legal arguments here, I'm just stating the obvious fact that falsely calling people collectively sick is against the netiquette. Seriously, is this so hard to understand? If I call you sick and you're healthy or if I say that engineers are sick people, isn't this slanderous, abusive or aggressive?
Regards, Peter
On 04/17/2014 12:47 PM, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
Second, telling someone they are ill regardless of how they feel is not
slanderous. If it was then doctors would not be able to tell of diagnoses. For example, an x-ray may show up a previously unsuspected condition, cancer or TB, for example.
I'm not a lawyer, although I could ask a relative of mine about the matter, but saying that someone is ill is not merely an opinion, since doctors can decide based on facts whether this is true or false. What you and others are trying to convince me about here frankly does not make any sense at all.
Sorry, I think you lawyer relative will agree with me. There are deterministic tests and non deterministic tests. Not all are 'facts'. They are evidence, and like evidence in a law court, there can be differing reasons and explanations of how those 'observations' came about. Cancers, for example, have vanished for no apparent reason; patients have lived well past the life expectancy their doctors have given them. There's no shortage in law or medicine of 'other explanations' coming to light.
Both are also examples of 'complex systems' and such systems rarely have single and simplistic cause-effect.
Peter, et al --
...and then auxsvr@gmail.com said... % ... % against the netiquette. Seriously, is this so hard to understand? If I call % you sick and you're healthy or if I say that engineers are sick people, isn't % this slanderous, abusive or aggressive?
Nope.
% % Regards, % Peter
HANN
:-D
auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
So, if one puts part of his slanderous answer in a signature, that means that the project condones this behaviour?
---- The project *ignores* stuff in a sig. It is not part of the content of the discussion. It may come from a random sig generator. It can be a quote that the author of the note MAY not even agree with -- it simple is a quote from some random source. To get worked up about it is illogical, a sign of insecurity, and perhaps even illness, so if the foo fits, wear it -- i.e. the more you complain about it, the more you assert to everyone that it applied to you.
So if you don't like it, best to ignore it -- unless you are board and want to create a side discussion like this.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Linda Walsh suse@tlinx.org wrote:
auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
So, if one puts part of his slanderous answer in a signature, that means that the project condones this behaviour?
The project *ignores* stuff in a sig. It is not part of the content of the discussion. It may come from a random sig generator. It can be a quote that the author of the note MAY not even agree with -- it simple is a quote from some random source. To get worked up about it is illogical, a sign of insecurity, and perhaps even illness, so if the foo fits, wear it -- i.e. the more you complain about it, the more you assert to everyone that it applied to you.
So if you don't like it, best to ignore it -- unless you are board and want to create a side discussion like this.
Peter may be bored, or not, but I don't think he qualifies as a piece of wood. ;-) (sorry, couldn't resist. ;-) )
Not to hijack this thread, but do these automated, random sig generators not provide a means for the author of the email to have it generate another if he or she doesn't like/agree with the one provided on a given instance? I have never used one, but I would regard a failure to provide me the ability to veto specific quotes provided a serious design flaw.
If we look at Anton's signatures, some, like the one Peter is objecting to, are offensive, but others are great. He had one today that quoted Bertrand Russell, that I quite liked, and actually agreed with (a surprise because Russel and I agree on so few things). If I were using the generator that Anton is using, I would want the ability to have the offensive one replaced by another, such as the quote of Russell.
I don't know about others, but I take responsibility for everything in emails I send, whether it is a question of quoting another author fairly, or material I write, and, yes, even my signature (which you'll notice is short and sweet). I have not been much interested in using sig generators, but I could be, provided I had final control over what the generator put into my sig. But perhaps that's just me.
Cheers
Ted
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:23:07 -0700 Linda Walsh suse@tlinx.org wrote:
auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
So, if one puts part of his slanderous answer in a signature, that means that the project condones this behaviour?
The project *ignores* stuff in a sig. It is not part of thecontent of the discussion. It may come from a random sig generator. It can be a quote that the author of the note MAY not even agree with -- it simple is a quote from some random source. To get worked up about it is illogical, a sign of insecurity, and perhaps even illness, so if the foo fits, wear it -- i.e. the more you complain about it, the more you assert to everyone that it applied to you.
Ignore?
It's amzing that the various rules of list etiquette, in existence for decades, have so consistently been overlooked.
Traditionally, signatures are not required to be relevant to a topic of a message. However, it has never been tradition to ignore signatures, especially offensive or outrageous ones, whether they are a quote or quip.
Admins are not bound by law to permit intolerant, offensive or other outrageous speech. They have discretion and authority, and obligation, to delete offensive messages or ban members for being jerks.
And to tell someone they're being unreasonable regarding some offensive remark in a signature--Then all women must be unreasonable. And ill.
How do you want people to think of you? Your signature is a reflection of you and it is how people will see you.
A lot of lists strip out the signature. And a lot of people use filters that strip signatures. These might be useful to help keep people from letting everyone else know how big a jerk they are.
jd
jdebert wrote:
The project *ignores* stuff in a sig. It is not part of thecontent of the discussion. It may come from a random sig generator. It can be a quote that the author of the note MAY not even agree with -- it simple is a quote from some random source. To get worked up about it is illogical, a sign of insecurity, and perhaps even illness, so if the foo fits, wear it -- i.e. the more you complain about it, the more you assert to everyone that it applied to you.
Ignore?
It's amzing that the various rules of list etiquette, in existence for decades, have so consistently been overlooked.
Traditionally, signatures are not required to be relevant to a topic of a message. However, it has never been tradition to ignore signatures, especially offensive or outrageous ones, whether they are a quote or quip.
---- It has always been a the standard to ignore signatures, else every message would be an invitation to an off-topic discussion.
Only a small minority of sigs rise to the point of being sufficiently offensive, that action needs to be taken -- but if you look at the number of sigs, and look at the number that are even commented on, I think you will find what I said is true -- the project, as a whole, ignores what is in a sig.
My body ignores dust that settles on it. That's a reasonably true statement, but if it was some deadly toxin that cause my skin to rot, or if it was enough dust to suffocate me, THEN it's gone beyond "normal" and my body can't ignore it.
Admins are not bound by law to permit intolerant, offensive or other outrageous speech.
==== Um... Where is the law mentioned? Where is it said that admins are bound by law? Or that anyone was talking about admins?
When I say "the project", I mean the majority (or vocal minority, perhaps) that post here and make themselves known as regular members. The admin is not the project -- they may have final say so on what can and can't be done, but they probably want to interfere in children's squabbles about as much as change someone else's kids diapers.
The discretion, and authority, yes. The obligation? Now you are the one dictating "rules" to the "admin[s]". They have no obligation to listen to what you consider to be their obligations. ;-)
And to tell someone they're being unreasonable regarding some offensive remark in a signature--Then all women must be unreasonable. And ill.
---- I didn't say they were unreasonable, I said if they get worked up over a random quote-generator output, that may not even represent the opinion of the writer, they are not engaging in 'reasonable' discussion or expectations.
And of course -- too many men throughout history -- women have been unreasonable and ill. The word 'hysteria' comes the Greek word for "uterus". In a similar way "dick" comes from slang for a male organ that is one degree less than a full blown asshole. Does that imply a male tendency to go overboard a bit on things -- seriously I want to KNOW RIGHT NOW!!!!.... (not to be hysterical or anything...)...(that was a rhetorical question)...
How do you want people to think of you? Your signature is a reflection of you and it is how people will see you.
---- If that's how people see me, then they won't. I don't have one.
Too bad people don't see people for what they are saying... That would require too much constant thought...
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Linda Walsh suse@tlinx.org wrote:
jdebert wrote:
The project *ignores* stuff in a sig. It is not part of thecontent of the discussion. It may come from a random sig generator. It can be a quote that the author of the note MAY not even agree with -- it simple is a quote from some random source. To get worked up about it is illogical, a sign of insecurity, and perhaps even illness, so if the foo fits, wear it -- i.e. the more you complain about it, the more you assert to everyone that it applied to you.
Ignore?
It's amzing that the various rules of list etiquette, in existence for decades, have so consistently been overlooked.
Traditionally, signatures are not required to be relevant to a topic of a message. However, it has never been tradition to ignore signatures, especially offensive or outrageous ones, whether they are a quote or quip.
It has always been a the standard to ignore signatures, elseevery message would be an invitation to an off-topic discussion.
Only a small minority of sigs rise to the point of beingsufficiently offensive, that action needs to be taken -- but if you look at the number of sigs, and look at the number that are even commented on, I think you will find what I said is true -- the project, as a whole, ignores what is in a sig.
My body ignores dust that settles on it. That's a reasonably truestatement, but if it was some deadly toxin that cause my skin to rot, or if it was enough dust to suffocate me, THEN it's gone beyond "normal" and my body can't ignore it.
The two of you are describing the same behaviour, and are merely labelling it differently.
We see very few signatures that warrant a response, and so we don't see a response. Those few signatures that do warrant a response get responses. In fact, one goes so far as to say that sometimes it can not be ignored. One says, based on the former, that the standard is to ignore signatures, and the other says, based on the latter, that there is no tradition to ignore signatures. While it seems to me that the latter is more accurate, it also seems to me that that is a rather silly thing to argue about.
[snip]
And to tell someone they're being unreasonable regarding some offensive remark in a signature--Then all women must be unreasonable. And ill.
I didn't say they were unreasonable, I said if they get worked upover a random quote-generator output, that may not even represent the opinion of the writer, they are not engaging in 'reasonable' discussion or expectations.
Nonsense.
First, a response may be coloured by the passion one feels when one feels attacked (and it is quite reasonable to see an attack on a group of which one is a member as an attack on oneself), or it may be coloured by anger at such an attack, or both; or there may be other factors injecting emotion into the response. And, depending on the reaction one gets to his first reaction, matters may be exacerbated. Often, reacting to abuse opens one to further abuse. None of this implies, or can be taken to infer, that the person's discourse and expectations on the matter are unreasonable. I dare say that this whole thread could have been avoided if the first person to see the complaint attempted to understand the complainant's view and simply acknowledged that, and directed him to the right place to voice his complaint. Instead, it seems some took pleasure in throwing fuel into the fire, as it were.
Second, use of a random quote generator does not make the person who uses it 'not responsible' for what it produces. We are all responsible for everything that ends up in our emails (or anything else that we write). When we quote another person, we are responsible to ensure that we quote fairly. We are responsible for what we write. And, whether we construct our own, static signature or use an autogenerated one, we are responsible for it. You seem to say that we're not responsible for the content of our signature when we use an autogenerated one, but the fact is that we choose whether or not to use such a thing, and therefore, but virtue of having made that choice, we are responsible for what we allow it to add to our email. No excuses. If that system lets us preview, and thus accept or reject what it has added in a given instance, then, when we find something we don't approve of, it behooves us to tell it to offer another (and if it does not support such a capability, then we are foolish to use such a system). We are responsible for our decisions to use such software and for what we allow it to add to our messages. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, regardless of the source of a signature, we approve of it's content. It is irresponsible to reply saying, my computer put those words in my mouth. Computers are really stupid things, doing only what they are told to do.
Cheers
Ted
On 2014-04-19 16:30, Ted Byers wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Linda Walsh <> wrote:
jdebert wrote:
Nonsense.
First, a response may be coloured by the passion one feels when one feels attacked (and it is quite reasonable to see an attack on a group of which one is a member as an attack on oneself), or it may be coloured by anger at such an attack, or both; or there may be other factors injecting emotion into the response. And, depending on the reaction one gets to his first reaction, matters may be exacerbated. Often, reacting to abuse opens one to further abuse. None of this implies, or can be taken to infer, that the person's discourse and expectations on the matter are unreasonable. I dare say that this whole thread could have been avoided if the first person to see the complaint attempted to understand the complainant's view and simply acknowledged that, and directed him to the right place to voice his complaint. Instead, it seems some took pleasure in throwing fuel into the fire, as it were.
I hate to enter this discussion, but I will, briefly.
I happen to be a christian, and I don't feel attacked. I strongly believe in freedom of religion and speech. I acknowledge the right of atheists and agnostics to voice what they think of religion, same as any religion may say what they think of any other religion. I see it as criticism, under freedom of speech and religion, not personal attack.
IMO, reacting to a quoted text in a signature should be addressed to the person that originally said that idea, not to the quoter. Even less if it is a random quote. Surely in the pool of random quotes there will be things that disgust many other groups. Are we going to enter endless discussions about all of those?
Reacting strongly to such a signature draws even more attacks, igniting a discussion about religion, which is off-topic here. If a person reacts strongly in Internet, he must be prepared to even more strong reactions against his reaction. If that is his wish, fine, but please do it in the offtopic mail list, not here.
A polite reaction might have been more useful.
And yes, at least I suggested to take this to the project list instead, asking for change of the netiquette rules on signatures, so that they explicitly say what can be written there or not.
As they currently are, a random signature generator is not in violation of the current rules. Maybe the rules should be modified, because it is not the first time we get similar brawls about signatures.
Enough said :-/
Does anyone here use one of the services that inserts advert, "banner adds" or the like, into their web pages, or possibly into the emails that you receive using the free email service they subscribe to?
So you have such banner ads on your web pages. By subscribing you are implicitly approving and endorsing the products that are being advertised? Even though they are randomly selected from a pool of adverts the selection of which you have no control. Perhaps your only "input" is that the service scans your page and selects an advert that is somehow related to some words that you use. That doesn't mean its apropos though.
Le 19/04/2014 22:32, Anton Aylward a écrit :
So you have such banner ads on your web pages. By subscribing you are implicitly approving and endorsing the products that are being advertised?
I don't do that, but people that do can always resign.
that said commercial advertisement a rarely offensive, it would be counter-productive
adversely, using random signature may be a bad idea if the signature is not thing you endorse.
I personally think it's a bad idea. I want to assume every bit of thing that I let in the net (even if signatures are usually not archived)
to be constructive one may look at "fortune" man page and see:
"When fortune is run with no arguments it prints out a random epigram. Epigrams are divided into several categories, where each category is sub-divided into those which are potentially offensive and those which are not."
and
"If a particular set of fortunes is particularly unwanted, there is an easy solution: delete the associated .dat file. This leaves the data intact, should the file later be wanted, but since fortune no longer finds the pointers file, it ignores the text file."
fortune is aimed to be displayed in own terminal, to use it on mail signature using non offending ones seems to be better IMHO
jdd
On 2014-04-19 22:48, jdd wrote:
that said commercial advertisement a rarely offensive, it would be counter-productive
Even when they offer you pornography and brothels? Because sometimes that's what I get! :-P And some people are deeply offended by such things.
What I'm offended by is getting commercials in Flash.
On 04/19/2014 06:01 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
What I'm offended by is getting commercials in Flash.
+1
I recall someone in the media commenting that no matter what the program is, no matter what the subject matter or how it is presented, there is always someone who will take offence at it for some reason, and at the same time someone who agrees firmly with it.
El 17/04/14 09:12, auxsvr@gmail.com escribió:
To the moderators: Personal attacks are unacceptable in openSUSE mailing lists, according to the netiquette,
It is not, it is called criticism of an ideology.
On 04/17/2014 08:36 AM, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 17/04/14 09:12, auxsvr@gmail.com escribió:
To the moderators: Personal attacks are unacceptable in openSUSE mailing lists, according to the netiquette,
It is not, it is called criticism of an ideology.
Thank you :-)
I'm sorry you are offended, Peter.
Perhaps you'd care to take this up with
(a) the person who wrote the random signature selector for Thunderbird
(b) the people that compile the heavy lists of signatures on the 'net
There's nothing personal here. Other signatures may offend people who, for example, choose to post in HTML; who are US citizens; who are _not_ US citizens; who are vegetarians; who are _not_ vegetarians...
And so it goes.
I'd really rather you focused on what *I* have to say in the BODY of my postings.
Anton Aylward wrote:
I'd really rather you focused on what *I* have to say in the BODY of my postings.
--- It's a slow day....
On 17/04/14 13:12, auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 06:39:07 Anton Aylward wrote:
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable...A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. -- H. L. Mencken
This definition of faith makes no sense to me and I'm a Christian. Isaac Newton both was a man full of faith (Christian) and obviously had the capacity for clear and realistic thought, as evidenced by the opinions of most famous physicists and mathematicians throughout history and his accomplishments, too numerous to even mention at the moment. Some obscure atheist calling him and other Christians ill because of their faith is really too much to warrant a response from a sensible person, so I'll leave it at that. You've managed with this quote to demonstrate to the entire world how much out of contact with reality certain atheists are, although I don't think this was your purpose; that's quite an accomplishment.
To the moderators: Personal attacks are unacceptable in openSUSE mailing lists, according to the netiquette, https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette#Don.27t_be_aggressi.... Calling Christians, among others, ill, because they're Christians is actually stupid in the best case, and if this were the first time such an incident occurs, I wouldn't bother reporting it, but some in openSUSE mailing lists seem to think it is acceptable to insult and slander others for no reason at all.
Regards, Peter
Oh please, send this somewhere else I don't read this or any other technical list to access discussions about faith. In any event the views expressed in the sig are those of H L Mencken. How that can be construed as a personal attack on members of this list is beyond me.
And the poster is a very frequent contributor to the list and as far as I can recall none of us has complained about the sig before
I repeat please stop.
Mike
auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 06:39:07 Anton Aylward wrote:
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable...A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. -- H. L. Mencken
This definition of faith makes no sense to me and I'm a Christian
Fact is, religion is, always was and always will be delusion. Newton lived at a time when people were finally starting to challenge religion for the nonsense it is. Religion was created at a time when people could not understand the world around them and so created myths to explain what they saw. Religion is rooted in those that ignorance, myth and superstition. There is plenty of real evidence that shows religion is false. There is absolutely nothing to support it. History, archaeology and even the bible itself are full of examples that contradict contradict religious claims. So, yes, if you "believe", you are delusional. If you think otherwise, it's your responsibility to provide real proof that there is in fact a god. Until then, religion is nonsense that's all too often used to justify bigotry, hatred and violence. It also causes some people to avoid taking responsibility for themselves or to deny proper medical care in favour of "faith". That is but an small example of the nonsense that is religion.
On 17/04/14 15:05, James Knott wrote:
auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 06:39:07 Anton Aylward wrote:
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable...A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. -- H. L. Mencken
This definition of faith makes no sense to me and I'm a Christian
Fact is, religion is, always was and always will be delusion. Newton lived at a time when people were finally starting to challenge religion for the nonsense it is. Religion was created at a time when people could not understand the world around them and so created myths to explain what they saw. Religion is rooted in those that ignorance, myth and superstition. There is plenty of real evidence that shows religion is false. There is absolutely nothing to support it. History, archaeology and even the bible itself are full of examples that contradict contradict religious claims. So, yes, if you "believe", you are delusional. If you think otherwise, it's your responsibility to provide real proof that there is in fact a god. Until then, religion is nonsense that's all too often used to justify bigotry, hatred and violence. It also causes some people to avoid taking responsibility for themselves or to deny proper medical care in favour of "faith". That is but an small example of the nonsense that is religion.
I repeat, please, this is not the place for this.
And I have no intention of declaring on this list what my personal views are on the subject.
Mike
Mike
Can we shut this down before Godwin gets involved
On 2014-04-17 10:05 (GMT-0400) James Knott composed:
Fact is, religion is, always was and always will be delusion...
That "fact" is an opinion...
...If you think otherwise, it's your responsibility to provide real proof that there is in fact a god.
On 2014-04-17 10:25 (GMT-0400) James Knott composed:
Religion is believing in something that not only has absolutely no evidence to support it, but is contradicted by historical and archaeological fact. What's that if not delusion?
FF your "Contact" DVD to the conversation beginning ~74 minutes:
Arroway: "So, what's more likely, an all powerful mysterious God created the universe and then decided not to provide proof of his existence, or, that He simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created Him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone."
Joss: "I don't know. I couldn't imagine living in a world where God didn't exist. I wouldn't want to."
Arroway: "How do you know you're not deluding yourself? I mean, for me, I'd need proof."
Joss: "Proof...Did you love your father?"
Arroway: "What?"
Joss: "Your dad, did you love him?"
Arroway: "Yes, very much."
Joss: "Prove it."
auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 06:39:07 Anton Aylward wrote:
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable...A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. -- H. L. Mencken
This definition of faith makes no sense to me and I'm a Christian. Isaac Newton both was a man full of faith (Christian) and obviously had the capacity for clear and realistic thought, as evidenced by the opinions of most famous physicists and mathematicians throughout history and his accomplishments, too numerous to even mention at the moment. Some obscure atheist calling him and other Christians ill because of their faith is really too much to warrant a response from a sensible person, so I'll leave it at that. You've managed with this quote to demonstrate to the entire world how much out of contact with reality certain atheists are, although I don't think this was your purpose; that's quite an accomplishment.
To the moderators: Personal attacks are unacceptable in openSUSE mailing lists, according to the netiquette, https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette#Don.27t_be_aggressi.... Calling Christians, among others, ill, because they're Christians is actually stupid in the best case, and if this were the first time such an incident occurs, I wouldn't bother reporting it, but some in openSUSE mailing lists seem to think it is acceptable to insult and slander others for no reason at all.
Especially considering that the Scientific Method, which is so revered by the Christian-haters, was DEVELOPED BY CHRISTIANS.
Regards, Peter
Le 20/04/2014 09:44, Dirk Gently a écrit :
Especially considering that the Scientific Method, which is so revered by the Christian-haters, was DEVELOPED BY CHRISTIANS.
well... at the moment not to claim to be was pretty dangerous (think of Giordano Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#Imprisonment.2C_trial_and_execut...))
:-(
jdd
On Sunday 20 Apr 2014 03:44:33 Dirk Gently wrote:
auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 17 of April 2014 06:39:07 Anton Aylward wrote:
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable...A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. -- H. L. Mencken
This definition of faith makes no sense to me and I'm a Christian. Isaac Newton both was a man full of faith (Christian) and obviously had the capacity for clear and realistic thought, as evidenced by the opinions of most famous physicists and mathematicians throughout history and his accomplishments, too numerous to even mention at the moment. Some obscure atheist calling him and other Christians ill because of their faith is really too much to warrant a response from a sensible person, so I'll leave it at that. You've managed with this quote to demonstrate to the entire world how much out of contact with reality certain atheists are, although I don't think this was your purpose; that's quite an accomplishment.
To the moderators: Personal attacks are unacceptable in openSUSE mailing lists, according to the netiquette, https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette#Don.27t_be_aggres sive. Calling Christians, among others, ill, because they're Christians is actually stupid in the best case, and if this were the first time such an incident occurs, I wouldn't bother reporting it, but some in openSUSE mailing lists seem to think it is acceptable to insult and slander others for no reason at all.
Especially considering that the Scientific Method, which is so revered by the Christian-haters, was DEVELOPED BY CHRISTIANS.
Probably more like scientists who were also christians but then didn't apply the scientific method to their delusional belief (maybe due to being threatened by the religious)
Regards, Peter
Dirk Gently wrote:
Especially considering that the Scientific Method, which is so revered by the Christian-haters, was DEVELOPED BY CHRISTIANS.
Some of them were subject to persecution by the church for heresy. So it was developed by people such as Galeleo and Copernicus despite the church & religion. They had sense enough to say that religion was wrong and put their lives on the line to say so.
* James Knott james.knott@rogers.com [04-20-14 08:02]:
Dirk Gently wrote:
Especially considering that the Scientific Method, which is so revered by the Christian-haters, was DEVELOPED BY CHRISTIANS.
Some of them were subject to persecution by the church for heresy. So it was developed by people such as Galeleo and Copernicus despite the church & religion. They had sense enough to say that religion was wrong and put their lives on the line to say so.
It's OFF-TOPIC here TAKE it to Off-Topic DROP it HERE!
Have a small amount of courtesy. We are adults, not kindergardeners.
On 2014-04-17 05:25, Linda Walsh wrote:
SystemD tries to *BE* every freaking service....
That is so clearly not so I can't understand why you are so asserting it.
Well, first there was "sysVinit", then "syslog", then went "udevd",then went "powerd"., um... now it's taking out "xinetd/inetd".
You forget cron.
A few months back there was a lively exchange between RedHatand Linus as they pressured him to accept their trusted code into the kernel so they can boot Redndoes. While linus told them to use existing means, they'll likely try again in other ways to get better control of the kernel under systemd.
Have a look at this one:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY1MzA Linux Kernel Developers Fed Up With Ridiculous Bugs In Systemd
+++···················· That's where we now get another tirade by Linus Torvalds bashing systemd developers for making kernel developers work around their problems. Linus says he will refuse to merge any code from Red Hat's Kay Sievers until their code is cleaned up and not constantly causing problems. ... Key, I'm f*cking tired of the fact that you don't fix problems in the code *you* write, so that the kernel then has to work around the problems you cause. ····················++-
Yes, compared to XinetD, systemd is very sophisticated. My point here is to show that systemd is not the violation of any basic UNIX principles but an evolution of them.
Open and simple? Using text files for config rather than binary?Um... going for small pieces that do single things so other competing products can be dropped in to replace functionality (like mlocate being dropped in for locate -- as an example, or the hopping between boot loaders). If there is only 1 large systemd that does all of the funcions that previously had "competition", then we no longer have modularity or the ability to choose the better implementations.
That's my feeling, too.
El 17/04/14 08:05, Carlos E. R. escribió:
A few months back there was a lively exchange between RedHatand Linus as they pressured him to accept their trusted code into the kernel so they can boot Redndoes. While linus told them to use existing means, they'll likely try again in other ways to get better control of the kernel under systemd.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY1MzA Linux Kernel Developers Fed Up With Ridiculous Bugs In Systemd
There was no bug to be fixed (it was already fixed), they problem was somewhere else ..Kay was correct in his assessment and Torvalds..well thinks he can go around demanding things and acting like a complete douche, that is not tolerated in the systemd land, his tantrums will be summarily ignored and mocked.
[Big Snip]
While I'm sympathetic to Linus and his concerns about destabilization, I would not be so 'hissy fit' about it. And anyway, poor execution is not an argument against what systemd is doing, only against poor execution.
I've been in the position of a manager responsible for releases of updates [for an international bank] and know that having a stable PRODUCTION system is paramount. I've fought against developers releasing untested code to production, inadequately tested code and on one occasion of trying to do development on the production system. One and only once, when I was dealing with a similar case in another country [I said it was an international bank] did they get one by and it was a major embarrassment for the bank. Stricter controls were subsequently implemented.
But Linux isn't MS, HP or IBM, or even Apple. They all have professional in-house pre-release testing (and we know that's often still not enough) and large bankrolls to commit to avoiding embarrassment.
We have FOSS and we have just had Heartbleed. As some articles have pointed out, this critical function was done without a proper development budget and without aggressive testing. Where were the "Million Eyes"?
We have FOSS. We don't have a testing budget. The "release early, release often" principle applies and hopefully that reflects a progression, but as new features and capabilities are introduced its clearly not a strictly monotonic progression.
So we have a dichotomy here. We need a stable platform since Linux is used in so many commercial settings and those are "Business Critical". But at the same time Linux has to deal with virtualization, containerization and more, which is putting demands on system functions that are not met by sysvinit and are met by either systemd or the systemd design.
We can't stay concurrent with the demands of technology and business without progressing and letting go of the past.
The problem doesn't like with systemd or with Linus maintaining the integrity of the kernel and kernel API. If anything the problem lies, as Heartbleed demonstrates, with a flawed and inadequate testing/release model that demands the only way to test is to release.
Le 17/04/2014 14:52, Anton Aylward a écrit :
So we have a dichotomy here. We need a stable platform since Linux is used in so many commercial settings and those are "Business Critical".
may be those involved in "critical" should invest some money testing? If they use free code without any testing, so bad for them...
jdd
On 04/17/2014 10:20 AM, jdd wrote:
Le 17/04/2014 14:52, Anton Aylward a écrit :
So we have a dichotomy here. We need a stable platform since Linux is used in so many commercial settings and those are "Business Critical".
may be those involved in "critical" should invest some money testing? If they use free code without any testing, so bad for them...
I've read some articles saying that should be the case with things like SSL; if they are so 'business critical' and key to the operations of the Commercial 'Web then it should be properly funded.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2014-04-17 16:26, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/17/2014 10:20 AM, jdd wrote:
Le 17/04/2014 14:52, Anton Aylward a écrit :
So we have a dichotomy here. We need a stable platform since Linux is used in so many commercial settings and those are "Business Critical".
may be those involved in "critical" should invest some money testing? If they use free code without any testing, so bad for them...
I've read some articles saying that should be the case with things like SSL; if they are so 'business critical' and key to the operations of the Commercial 'Web then it should be properly funded.
That's a good point.
In fact, I'm surprised we are not attacked in strength from the proprietary software camp. They can say that the free software camp is not professional enough and that mission critical tasks should not be allowed to run in Linux.
Or, maybe they keep mildly silent because they are afraid of another similar fiasco being found on the proprietary camp...
- -- Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2014-04-17 16:26, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/17/2014 10:20 AM, jdd wrote:
Le 17/04/2014 14:52, Anton Aylward a écrit :
So we have a dichotomy here. We need a stable platform since Linux is used in so many commercial settings and those are "Business Critical".
may be those involved in "critical" should invest some money testing? If they use free code without any testing, so bad for them...
I've read some articles saying that should be the case with things like SSL; if they are so 'business critical' and key to the operations of the Commercial 'Web then it should be properly funded.
That's a good point.
In fact, I'm surprised we are not attacked in strength from the proprietary software camp.
It's not exactly a raging battle. Proprietary software vendors have already lost a lot of ground, attacking open source software now would only be counter-productive. Besides, "open source" does not mean "not professional".
They can say that the free software camp is not professional enough and that mission critical tasks should not be allowed to run in Linux.
Can you see anyone getting away with that without looking ridiculous?
On 4/17/2014 10:38 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
They can say that the free software camp is not professional enough and that mission critical tasks should not be allowed to run in Linux.
Can you see anyone getting away with that without looking ridiculous?
Yes, absolutely. There are Microsoft infested/invested shops where this mentality exists and is heavily enforced every day.
Do they look ridiculous? Perhaps to you and me, but not to their bosses and their bosses' boss.
You have no idea how much idiocy abounds in some big organizations.
On 04/17/2014 01:45 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On 4/17/2014 10:38 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
They can say that the free software camp is not professional enough and that mission critical tasks should not be allowed to run in Linux.
Can you see anyone getting away with that without looking ridiculous?
Yes, absolutely. There are Microsoft infested/invested shops where this mentality exists and is heavily enforced every day.
Do they look ridiculous? Perhaps to you and me, but not to their bosses and their bosses' boss.
You have no idea how much idiocy abounds in some big organizations.
My Wrong. You are right. I should know better. I've had to work in some of them and been ridiculed because my car says "UNIX - Yours to Discover" and because my laptop ran SAMBA under openSuse and that was more robust that the departmental WinNT server.
On 2014-04-17 19:45, John Andersen wrote:
On 4/17/2014 10:38 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
They can say that the free software camp is not professional enough and that mission critical tasks should not be allowed to run in Linux.
Can you see anyone getting away with that without looking ridiculous?
Yes, absolutely. There are Microsoft infested/invested shops where this mentality exists and is heavily enforced every day.
I know. I have met some of them.
Do they look ridiculous? Perhaps to you and me, but not to their bosses and their bosses' boss.
Absolutely.
You have no idea how much idiocy abounds in some big organizations.
Consider also that many professionals prefer to use software backed by a company, and follow their recommendations to the letter. If something fails and the company they installed this software is damaged, they point to the company that created the software. Provided they followed their instructions to the letter, they are safe. Their bosses/employees can sue that company if they want... and will probably fail. They are not silly, there is a provision that says something about the software not being valid for any purpose whatsoever, or words to that effect.
If they install something like Linux, it is their asses that get burnt.
Of course, probably there are variations of both ways of thinking depending on countries and legal systems.
Le 17/04/2014 20:10, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
If they install something like Linux, it is their asses that get burnt.
I've seen many linux servers backing windows ones, installed by the admin without asking :-)
sure, mostly where money is hard to find and old computers are recycled with linux :-)
but that's and old story, nothing changed for years there. We have to hope red hat or SUSE still have good business success :-)
jdd
John Andersen wrote:
On 4/17/2014 10:38 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
They can say that the free software camp is not professional enough and that mission critical tasks should not be allowed to run in Linux.
Can you see anyone getting away with that without looking ridiculous?
Yes, absolutely. There are Microsoft infested/invested shops where this mentality exists and is heavily enforced every day.
Do they look ridiculous? Perhaps to you and me, but not to their bosses and their bosses' boss.
You have no idea how much idiocy abounds in some big organizations.
I do, I've been there in a previous life. Obviously MS can "fight" open source on their own turf, but if they need to argue that "free software camp is not professional enough", they've already lost. IMHO.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 2014-04-17 21:42, Per Jessen wrote:
I do, I've been there in a previous life. Obviously MS can "fight" open source on their own turf, but if they need to argue that "free software camp is not professional enough", they've already lost. IMHO.
It depends who they talk to...
- -- Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith))
Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 2014-04-17 21:42, Per Jessen wrote:
I do, I've been there in a previous life. Obviously MS can "fight" open source on their own turf, but if they need to argue that "free software camp is not professional enough", they've already lost. IMHO.
It depends who they talk to...
This thread has already gone way OT, let's continue on opensuse-offtopic, if anyone is interested.
Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2014-04-17 16:26, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/17/2014 10:20 AM, jdd wrote:
Le 17/04/2014 14:52, Anton Aylward a écrit :
So we have a dichotomy here. We need a stable platform since Linux is used in so many commercial settings and those are "Business Critical".
may be those involved in "critical" should invest some money testing? If they use free code without any testing, so bad for them...
I've read some articles saying that should be the case with things like SSL; if they are so 'business critical' and key to the operations of the Commercial 'Web then it should be properly funded.
That's a good point.
In fact, I'm surprised we are not attacked in strength from the proprietary software camp. They can say that the free software camp is not professional enough and that mission critical tasks should not be allowed to run in Linux.
Or, maybe they keep mildly silent because they are afraid of another similar fiasco being found on the proprietary camp...
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. -- especially when it comes to Microsoft.
Anton Aylward wrote:
We have FOSS and we have just had Heartbleed. As some articles have pointed out, this critical function was done without a proper development budget and without aggressive testing. Where were the "Million Eyes"?
---- On new development in systemd. Ergo, it's systemd's fault.
On 04/17/2014 08:18 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
We have FOSS and we have just had Heartbleed. As some articles have pointed out, this critical function was done without a proper development budget and without aggressive testing. Where were the "Million Eyes"?
On new development in systemd. Ergo, it's systemd's fault.
Of course. And systemd causes Global Warming and finances the Taliban, causes autism and teenage pregnancy and clubs baby harp seals to death.
Pretty soon some mid-western states will have to pass legislation allowing it to be used openly in classrooms, cinemas and beer halls.
On 04/16/2014 11:25 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/16/2014 04:45 AM, Dirk Gently wrote:
In contrast, SystemD tries to do EVERYTHING, and does NONE of it well -- which is straight out of the Microsoft/Windows way of doing things.
There could be a perfectly good explanation why the design follows MS's serviced and why even the config files look like microsoft setup file (besides under the table payments).
There could also be a perfectly reasonable explanation why Microsoft (and others) have followed UNIX/Linux in so many ways, including, eventually as shell rather than a gui. After all, Linux is open source.
The differentiator in my mind is that Windows has the Directory, well aren't there two of them?, while Linux sticks to text files for configuration. Or is MS not following Linux in that and giving up on the directory as a Bad Idea?
We _can_ make the root FS of Linux RO, but the way the directory works you can't do that with desktop Windows, you have to do other gyrations to use Windows as an appliance with a RO FS. Its just another way that Linux can be strapped down to be resilient in the face of a malicious environment.
Ultimately Microsoft copied UNIX is that UNIX pioneered writing the OS in a HLL - 'C'. Back when I was working on BSD4.1 and 4.2 I recall the race between Bill Joy and David Cuttler. All Cuttler's efforts to speed up VMS by carefully tuning the assembler were matched by Joy in minutes coding in C. It must have been frustrating for Cuttler as he eventually stated he would never write another OS in assembler. Hence WNT (which is to VMS the way HAL of 2001 is to IBM, so demonstrating the 'if you can't create then copy' principle) was written in C.
The point isn't that systemd follows some other design. In fact its very specific to Linux. From what I see it would take quite some re-working to incorporate it into some of the Big Iron version of UNIX, but one never knows. The point is that the sysvinit technique had reached the limits of its capability. I'm a great advocate of shell and CLI and laughed out loud when I heard of Window's "Power Shell" -- it proved the GUI approach was totally unsuited to the kind of 'automation' that system administration, especially of large numbers of possibly virtual machines demands. But while the shell is a great Swiss army knife, it is just that. For specific tasks it can be far from the best solution.
Its not that you can't build a dispatcher with the shell; I have. But after a point the shell model gets inefficient. Prime among then was that the sysvinit model was sequential and was most certainly not a dispatcher in the sense of monitoring the tasks asynchronously.
UNIX/Linux is not set in stone. If it was we'd still be running something out of the 1970s or 1980s, V6, V7 or possibly an early BSD if you insisted on having networking for email and netnews, though that networking might be UUCP rather then TCP.
El 17/04/14 08:25, Anton Aylward escribió:
The point isn't that systemd follows some other design. In fact its very specific to Linux. From what I see it would take quite some re-working to incorporate it into some of the Big Iron version of UNIX, but one never knows.
Yes, while porting to other OS is possible, the likelihood of that port:
a) happening b) being accepted upstream
is very small. more likely is that Apple's launchd will end in the some BSD variants. Upstart was another possibility, but Canonical gave up and endorsed systemd, as I expected though much earlier than I ever imagined. ($mart, because the more time they wait, the more expensive it becomes..)
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/16/2014 04:45 AM, Dirk Gently wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/15/2014 07:42 PM, Dirk Gently wrote:
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 08/10/13 23:49, Dirk Gently escribió:
SystemD relinquishes the cupsd port because now cupsd is listening.
nope, it is doing exactly what it should, as designed and intented. otherwise it could not monitor, stop, perform any kind of operation if the socket fails.. or provide any kind of support for ordering other components after the socket goes down/up etc..
If that's the case, then SystemD is violating FUNDAMENTAL Unix design principles.
Please explain that assertion.
Please tale into account how things like inetd and xinetd work. Or, for that matter, how apache works.
inet and xinet listen to a port, and when traffic comes in, start up the corresponding service, and hand-off the traffic to that service.
SystemD tries to *BE* every freaking service....
That is so clearly not so I can't understand why you are so asserting it.
Like XinetD, systemd has single control files that say what service is to be dispatched and and associated with that port, monitors the service for when it exits. The 'out of the box' set of services for XinetD are straight forward in that they don't have pre- or post-conditional actions, but I've seen some specialized, custom uses of XinetD which, for example, ensure services are always available, restarting them when they die or time-out.
Everything that systemd does requires a descriptor, a control file, a
Extremely poorly documented. I've used Unix since 1983 and administrated it since 1993... and I don't know a single person who can make heads or tails of how to
SysV init was simple --- it forks off scripts. So simple, in fact, that if init were to fail, you could actually replicate what init does BY HAND with a simple
For F in /etc/init.d/rc5.d/K* do $F stop done
For F in /etc/init.d/rc3.d/S* do $F start done
or whatever.
and, of course, run a few commands found in /etc/inittab
What SystemD actually DOES and how it does it... I haven't the foggiest fucking clue, and that's not for a lack of reading of the documentation.
If you can't even understand how your system boots up, then you don't really have control of your system in the slightest.
'unit' file [systemd.unit(5)], though they are more sophisticated than those of XinetD. You don't see many of the unit files because, as the documentation says, they are generated automatically by axillary programs which, for example, read /etc/fstab and produce a unit file for each entry. Such generators are documented and there's no reason you can't write your own, custom ones, as well as your own basic unit files. I've done the latter.
To assert that system tries to be the service is demonstrably false: the example of cusp makes that quite clear. Systemd starts cups, it isn't cups.
To assert that this "isn't the UNIX way" is also demonstrably false. Table driven controls have a long history in UNIX What makes UNIX/Linux different from other operating systems is that those table are text files and can be changed with a text editor.
SysV is simple enough that it could be implemented in a short shellscript, and most of all, it's OBVIOUS what it does, and HOW it does it.
Not so for SystemD.
And worst of all, it has ill-defined, and constantly moving boundaries.
Least of all, when people try to ask the SystemD team simple questions, such as "what is SystemD supposed to do and how is it supposed to do it," rather than just answering the damned question, there's all sorts of handwaving and other gyrations, RTFM, and "you're too stupid to understand"
When people act like that -- it indicates to me that they're either trying to hide something... or... they're trying to hide something.
As for the scanning and transformation, that too has precedence in UNIX from before the days of Linux. The original 'termcap' files were text based but later were scanned and transformed to a binary format - 'terminfo'. We see similar scanning and transformation for language files and for timezone. The only thing that makes systemd different here is that it invokes the auxiliary programs itself on demand rather than relies on the sysadmin to do so from the command line.
Unix philosophy -- each program does one thing, and does that one thing VERY WELL.
Yes, and systemd meets that in the same way that other pre- and post Linux utilities do.
If you want to complain about things that violate Pike's Dictum then I suggest you look elsewhere. Certainly modern GUI based tools such as email handlers and web browsers violate that precept.
I might even go so far as to say that compared to the original Bourne Shell the Korn Shell and the shell we have today grossly violate that rule, but I don't see you complaining about them!
In contrast, SystemD tries to do EVERYTHING, and does NONE of it well -- which is straight out of the Microsoft/Windows way of doing things.
You assert that although its patently false. Systemd is a dispatcher. Just as XinetD also has internal functions (for example logging, rate limiting, killing and restarting services) so too does systemd.
You quote the example of cups. The old man page for CUPS (available via googling) says quite explicitly
<quote> cups-lpd does not act as a standalone network daemon but instead operates using the Internet "super-server" inetd(8) or xinetd(8) </quote>
It goes on to give the xinetd "unit" descriptor needed.
Although the details differ when we look at how systemd handles cups, the basics are the same: systemd is a dispatcher; there is a control file that specifies the 'what', the program and the parameters.
Systemd dispatches and monitors cups. It doesn't try to do what cups does. Your assertions are unfounded and demonstrably false.
If systemd had any failing it was that, as has been the UNIX/Linux tradition, it was released before it was complete and fully functional. The Open Source movement, as we see with the Heartbleed/SSL problem, is not as funded as the commercial operations and cannot complete development and testing in house to ensure that when a product is released it is as polished as we see from the likes of HP and IBM. (Yes you are right to criticise Microsoft, they do seem to do their beta testing on the public.)
Yes, compared to XinetD, systemd is very sophisticated. My point here is to show that systemd is not the violation of any basic UNIX principles but an evolution of them. If you want to be reductionist, then all of networking, all of job control, all of virtual memory, all of the journalled file systems are a violation of the KISS principles of UNIX V6/V7 as embodied on the 9-track takes that came with the "Love, Dennis" note.
On 04/20/2014 04:00 AM, Dirk Gently wrote:
Extremely poorly documented. I've used Unix since 1983 and administrated it since 1993... and I don't know a single person who can make heads or tails of how to
Actually systemd is much better documented than sysvinit, much better documented than many other key UNIX/Linux facilities such as xinetd, cups and more. If you don't think so then you probably haven't bothered reading said documentation.
What makes systemd documentation different is that rather than just saying what it does (the man pages) the authors have produced all the "design documentation", descriptions of what they planned, how they went about it it, their failures as well as successes. The whole philosophy behind systemd is laid open.
Along the way they go into such things as the original motivations; the shortcomings in sysvinit that were impeding the growth and success of Linux; all the things that sysvinit doesn't do that a an initialization and process management system needs to do; all the performance metrics -- something we don't see for sysvinit; how-to documents on creating unit descriptors and creating generators and drivers.
Its all out there and its all easily accessible and its thorough and puts many other FOSS projects to shame. The FOSS world has plenty of 'code moneys' of varying skills but few people who bother documenting their work as well as Lennart Poettering and the systemd developers.
Another branch of this thread makes and issue of signature blocks and has one person pointing out that personal attacks are not permitted. If I were you, the-person-hiding-behind-the-alias-of-Dirk, I'd refrain from attacking Lennart.
SysV init was simple --- it forks off scripts.
Indeed, and some of those scripts are obscure and roccoco and they have very little documentation. While, I'm sure that the packagers of a distribution try to keep the script from getting too diverse, being scripts, they can do pretty much what they want. There is nothing to kill off rogue scripts or constrain what they can do. They all run as root, remember, and there are many opinions for 'errors and omissions', especially when custom hand-crafting ones. All is not as hunky-dory in sysvinit-land.
If you can't even understand how your system boots up, then you don't really have control of your system in the slightest.
I'm sure millions of people using Pcs and phone and tablets will be delighted to hear that. Oh, and lets add in people who fly planes, drive cars, take photographs. As Alan Cooper pointed out in his book "The inmates are running the asylum", its not a camera, its a computer with a lens; its not car, its a computer with wheels. None of these people understand how the computer that runs their ... Whatever ... Works. The reality is that computerization has often given users more control, more detailed control over their tools and appliances that the old, 'mechanical' method. That's certainly true of my camera! Its amazingly so true of my phone!
And worst of all, it has ill-defined, and constantly moving boundaries.
Ah yes, just like almost every other supported software product that has active and involved developers dealing with user feedback.
What all this comes down to is this:
This is FOSS. We pay a price for that. The well financed, proprietary developers and do their development and testing in-house and with selected external alpha- and -beta-testers. This means that when they release to the public they have a high degree of confidence in the product.
With FOSS the developers can only take it so far then they 'release' to the community. Some of us, possibly many of us, have to do the alpha and beta testing. We're not paid for that. This is FOSS.
Not so long ago we went though this with KDE-4. The initial release was terrible but the bug reports and feedback allowed the developers to make progress. Some of their ideas were depreciated, others transformed. We now have a great product, but we paid for that along the way. Also, along the way, we had the people who weren't willing to pay, who didn't want to hang in there, who didn't want to submit the bug reports for the developers to work with, and they stuck with KDE-3. They too pay a price, the effort of setting up their systems to use KDE-3 rather than the defaults of KDE-4, shifting repositories and packages and doing without many features.
Just as with KDE-4, just as with the Microsoft supporters who decried Linux, we are saying and will say to them "Quite possibly you had a valid argument once, but we've addressed that, moved on. You're living in the past, arguing about things that no longer exist".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2014-04-20 14:19, Anton Aylward wrote:
Actually systemd is much better documented than sysvinit, much better documented than many other key UNIX/Linux facilities such as xinetd, cups and more. If you don't think so then you probably haven't bothered reading said documentation.
What makes systemd documentation different is that rather than just saying what it does (the man pages) the authors have produced all the "design documentation", descriptions of what they planned, how they went about it it, their failures as well as successes. The whole philosophy behind systemd is laid open.
Along the way they go into such things as the original motivations; the shortcomings in sysvinit that were impeding the growth and success of Linux; all the things that sysvinit doesn't do that a an initialization and process management system needs to do; all the performance metrics -- something we don't see for sysvinit; how-to documents on creating unit descriptors and creating generators and drivers.
Thanks. I like what you say.
- -- Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/20/2014 04:00 AM, Dirk Gently wrote:
Extremely poorly documented. I've used Unix since 1983 and administrated it since 1993... and I don't know a single person who can make heads or tails of how to
Actually systemd is much better documented than sysvinit, much better documented than many other key UNIX/Linux facilities such as xinetd, cups and more. If you don't think so then you probably haven't bothered reading said documentation.
Sure, there is a LOT of systemd documentation. But quantity does not equal quality.
The systemd documentation is as clear as mud.
On 04/20/2014 12:55 PM, Dirk Gently pecked at the keyboard and wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/20/2014 04:00 AM, Dirk Gently wrote:
Extremely poorly documented. I've used Unix since 1983 and administrated it since 1993... and I don't know a single person who can make heads or tails of how to
Actually systemd is much better documented than sysvinit, much better documented than many other key UNIX/Linux facilities such as xinetd, cups and more. If you don't think so then you probably haven't bothered reading said documentation.
Sure, there is a LOT of systemd documentation. But quantity does not equal quality.
The systemd documentation is as clear as mud.
Come now Aron. Oops was I supposed to keep your secret identity secret?
On 04/20/2014 12:55 PM, Dirk Gently wrote:
The systemd documentation is as clear as mud.
Well, that is, as many have pointed out before, what you get when you let programmers and technical people write the documentation.
Still, its better that much of UNIX/Linux documentation which is as clear as granite or haematite.
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 04/20/2014 12:55 PM, Dirk Gently wrote:
The systemd documentation is as clear as mud.
Well, that is, as many have pointed out before, what you get when you let programmers and technical people write the documentation.
Still, its better that much of UNIX/Linux documentation which is as clear as granite or haematite.
I've been reading documentation written by programmers and technical people since 1980.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:11:37 -0400 Dirk Gently dirk.gently00@gmail.com wrote:
I've been reading documentation written by programmers and technical people since 1980.
Reading the same piece of documentation for 34 years? Still can't figure it out, eh?
listreader wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:11:37 -0400 Dirk Gently dirk.gently00@gmail.com wrote:
I've been reading documentation written by programmers and technical people since 1980.
Reading the same piece of documentation for 34 years? Still can't figure it out, eh?
Where did I say, or even imply, the SAME document?
Perhaps you should stick to reading lists, as discussion is evidently beyond your comprehension.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:54:26 -0400 Dirk Gently dirk.gently00@gmail.com wrote:
listreader wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:11:37 -0400 Dirk Gently dirk.gently00@gmail.com wrote:
Where did I say, or even imply, the SAME document?
Perhaps you should stick to reading lists, as discussion is evidently beyond your comprehension.
Though it is/was clearly far beyond your own limited comprehension, I was attempting to inject some humor into a discussion in which you were otherwise making a complete and total ass of yourself. But no problem, attempt aborted, I won't intervene again, feel free to continue making a complete and total ass of yourself.
And if you have a personal problem with me Mister "Dirk Gently", feel free to contact me directly off-list and we can discuss it in person and face to face.
On 22/04/14 03:54, Dirk Gently wrote:
listreader wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:11:37 -0400 Dirk Gently dirk.gently00@gmail.com wrote:
I've been reading documentation written by programmers and technical people since 1980.
Reading the same piece of documentation for 34 years? Still can't figure it out, eh?
Where did I say, or even imply, the SAME document?
Perhaps you should stick to reading lists, as discussion is evidently beyond your comprehension.
And humour is obviously beyond yours - which is strange for someone claiming to be a fictional detective...
Dylan wrote:
On 22/04/14 03:54, Dirk Gently wrote:
listreader wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:11:37 -0400 Dirk Gently dirk.gently00@gmail.com wrote:
I've been reading documentation written by programmers and technical people since 1980.
Reading the same piece of documentation for 34 years? Still can't figure it out, eh?
Where did I say, or even imply, the SAME document?
Perhaps you should stick to reading lists, as discussion is evidently beyond your comprehension.
And humour is obviously beyond yours - which is strange for someone claiming to be a fictional detective...
Strange that you can spot a sarcastic reply in response to a sarcastic snipe.
-
Anton Aylward -
auxsvr＠gmail.com -
Basil Chupin -
Billie Walsh -
C -
Carlos E. R. -
Carlos E. R. -
Cristian Rodríguez -
David T-G -
Dirk Gently -
Dsant -
Dylan -
Felix Miata -
Greg Freemyer -
Hans Witvliet -
ianseeks -
James Knott -
jdd -
jdebert -
John Andersen -
Ken Schneider - openSUSE -
Lew Wolfgang -
Linda Walsh -
listreader -
michael norman -
Patrick Shanahan -
Per Jessen -
Peter -
Ruediger Meier -
Ted Byers