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. -- "If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in." - Edsger Dijkstra -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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? -- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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? -- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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.. -- "Judging by their response, the meanest thing you can do to people on the Internet is to give them really good software for free". - Anil Dash -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- Last year I went fishing with Salvador Dali. He was using a dotted line. He caught every other fish. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 21:25:37 -0300 Cristian Rodríguez 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.... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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.

-- helicopter (n): 30,000 parts in tight orbit around a hydraulic fluid leak, waiting for metal fatigue to set in. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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 -- http://www.dodin.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- When languishing for solutions, don't ask "Have I got the correct answer?" The correct question is "Have I got the correct question?" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- When a subject becomes totally obsolete we make it a required course. -- Peter Drucker -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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 :-) -- Plurality is never to be posited without need. --Occam -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Can we shut this down before Godwin gets involved -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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 -- http://www.dodin.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:16 PM, 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. -- openSUSE 13.1 x86_64, KDE 4.12 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- "To be conscious of one's ignorance is the beginning of wisdom". -- Sri Ram -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-----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) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlNP5scACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XK8QCdFUWu/C+f8VlKp35ySYpm2mE9 Uh4AoJdE97k0eThtl4U4I/Sl0+yhV5hS =xdjn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- : ` _..-=-=-=-.._.--. Dsant, from Lyon, France `-._ ___,..-'" -~~` __') forum@votreservice.com jgs `'"---'"`>>"'~~"~"~~>>'` =====================```========```======== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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." -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 04/17/2014 09:52 AM, Greg Freemyer wrote:

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46 PM, 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

On Thursday 17 of April 2014 17:25:43 Dsant wrote: 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree or certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which the world suffers. -- Bertrand Russell -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- Life's a bitch. Then you die. Then you get re-incarnated and it starts all over again only worse. And it doesn't matter if you don't believe in reincarnation, Life's still a bitch. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

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 -- http://www.dodin.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-----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)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlNQXTEACgkQja8UbcUWM1yhhgD+MmwxpaWo5FqTKNyEzcehHVhn 01fvvuMOWYAPAo7SYwkA/ijkqOvwaMbu/BVObXIx3z79A5zs/T9x76FgPwYdVr5+ =oYE3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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 -- David T-G See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/email/ See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/tofu.txt

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. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (10.2°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:23:07 -0700 Linda Walsh 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.

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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:

jdebert wrote:

...

...

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.

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.

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 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.

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 -- R.E.(Ted) Byers, Ph.D.,Ed.D. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- 'A virus is what people who can't spell pneumonia get.' -- Eric Morecambe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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.

...

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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". -- Where we cannot invent, we may at least improve. -- Charles Caleb Colton -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

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. -- What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure. -- Samuel Johnson -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:11:37 -0400 Dirk Gently 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? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:54:26 -0400 Dirk Gently wrote:

listreader wrote:

...

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:11:37 -0400 Dirk Gently 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. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Dylan wrote:

On 22/04/14 03:54, Dirk Gently wrote:

...

listreader wrote:

...

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:11:37 -0400 Dirk Gently 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. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org