Linda Walsh said the following on 05/09/2013 01:43 AM:
Anton Aylward wrote:
The either submit something that makes up for all the deficiencies in sysvinit of your own, show it works, or go to something that doesn't use it.
SysVinit was perfect for my needs -- it had no deficiencies that caused me any difficulties. So the argument is starting from a flawed premise. The whole problem here is taking something that worked for alot of people and throwing it out because some people couldn't figure out how to make it work. Brilliant!
You're being ridiculous again. It may have been perfect for your needs (though judging by some of what you say abut, for example, your problems with X, I do wonder) but you are not the entire universe of Linux never mind openSuse users. Systemd wasn't the only proposed or demonstrated solution to the growth problems of Linux, the issued that people running big systems or supporting virtual images or needing better resource management than the old, old and inadequately designed and managed 'quota' system could give. It wasn't simply that people couldn't figure out how to make sysvinit work; its that it was incapable of doing and managing many things that needed to be done. That you seem unaware of this tells me a lot. But to the point: systemd can run just fine on small single user systems like mine too.
If a better system is thine, impart it freely; If not, make use of mine.
---- Like you say everything is context! In my context, sysVinit was far better than the pain that systemd is causing (which I ALSO say isn't inherent to systemd, but to how the it is being crammed down user's throats.
Wriggle time, eh? The 'being jammed down our throats' - the best I can figure is that you're complaining about the that bits that are incomplete, that, like everything else about Linux, its a 'work in progress. However, unlike many other subsystems the updated and progress is being done to a much faster cycle than say, LibreOffice or KDE4. Ah, it sounds like someone is doing the 'Agile' approach! q.v.
Linda you have many objections and I for one feel that you are inventing problems for yourself, creating a conservative stance just to be a conservative and rationalizing that stance rather than treating it rationally. Your obsession with a obsolete RFC is one example.
It was the first one that popped up on google. I read the other ones you mentioned last time I suggested munging the reply-to field -- and found that was out of vogue...
And what does 'out of vogue mean? If you'd read it then you'd have seen that it obsoleted RFC822. I'd say "obsolete' trumps 'out of vogue' any day. So why quote something that is obsolete?
I've tried to politely show your inconsistencies, like your objections to a file /+/usr which barely adds up to 10G when you're going on about having 1TB /tmp. Like your going on about dangling symlinks that are only symlinks for broken programs that need backward computability.
Um...*Most* of the core utils have been in /bin since forever.
Actually that's not true if you go back far enough. If you go back far enough there was no /home and no /usr. UNIX and Linux have been subject to change and change and change. A lot of what you and I mean YOU LINDA - seem to consider in the "since forever" actually came into vogue after Bell's UNIX System Group (USG) tried to do a unification of the fork-split-fork & fork-merge-fork that was SYSTEM III and SYSTEM V shortly before it all was 'sold' to SCO. If you want examples of bad design and abysmal code just go back to that era! Part of my job then was at a distributor evaluating the impact of the change from the V7 code base to the SYSTEM III code base. Almost every one of the 'core utils' had been changed and the resulting code was terrible compared to the neat K&R of V7.
Moving them for no reason is bad design.
Ah, clearly you haven't read up on this to discover the reasons, the quite good and justifiable reasons. Just like you didn't read up on other RFCs that obsoleted 822.
Saying you want to have all of them accessible in /usr/bin means you could leave the originals in /bin for several releases, and put symlinks in /usr/bin to the originals.
At the present. But you don't seem to have read on the long terms plans.
After plenty of time -- and maybe not all at once, you let people get used to them in /usr/bin -- not cut off life support before their programs are ported (let alone their habits).
That's just what's going on. They are in /usr/bin but the symlinks are for the broken programs. Nothing is 'cut off'. Oh, unless you break other things like not reading the docco properly and try to have a /usr that isn't loaded at boot.
You claim to be a 'computer scientist' but I would have thought that such a role wound involve investigating 'the future ' and 'future directions' - whereas all we see is arch conservatism and rampant defence of recidivism.
Nope...computers revolved around being useful tools for people -- not instruments to terrorize and oppress them.
that's off topic. Of course government databases, are there to terrorise and oppress and manipulate, but those databases ("list of names") were around long before computers. Computers like Stonehenge let the government oppress the farmers by telling them when they *HAD* to plant their crops. We've seen similar all the way though history.
Their role has changed over the years. It used to be companies did usability studies and hired users to come in use the product to see how they could improve usability and make the interfaces easier and more natural to use.
Now? Those who write programs tell users they have to adapt to the computer -- immediately. no choice. Change is great done right... but hit the earth with a meteor the size of the moon and change would be hurting alot of people.
Eh? Talk about "off topic". Could you point out some, no, I'll settle for just one, meteor the size of the moon in an earth-grazing solar orbit.
Its becoming clearer that you aren't actually a openSuse user, that you are really a Windows user. You are keeping Linux at arms length. I'm coming to believe that you're not ding enough with Linux to make the assertions
Context, dear boy, context... it is everything (or so you say) Why would you think that because I don't do the same things you do I don't do enough with it? How many services do you run on your linux boxes that *serve* other computers?
It says that its running 27. That's another 800MHz/1G system. But how about you clarify what your WORKSTATION is.
This has been about changes antithetical to good server hygiene but useful for a locked-down walled-garden app-player appliance.
I disagree with that; I think others do too.
linux has been about *open*ness as was OpenSuse... closing it up so it only works one way, isn't open.
That's an assertion that runs in the face of evidence. One of Suse's great boast is the build service. That's about as open as you can get!
Out of the over 30 some odd services, over 20 of those services are services other computers rely on to function.
Yes, that's how I've been running Linux for years and many flavours of UNIX before that. many of us here are in the same situation.
My linux computer is the backbone of my home network -- providing proxy/network routing, disk space, backup/domain server, mail server imap server, named/bind name resolution, time keeping, data sharing amongst several more.
Yes; and I've done that with, at various times, all the RPM-based Linux distributions :-) As wall as HP/UX DG/UX. many versions of AIX as that evolved; SUNOS, Solaris; SCO UNIX, Convergent UNIX, many of the now defunct UNIX-on-16-bit-micros that sprung up in the late 70s and early 80s after the first round of it of being pried away from Bell and them being forced to licence the code. Many of us are running what you describe and more (various web servers, various database servers) as well as RAID arrays, PBX and telecoms management; brokerage and arbitrage systems...
When I wasn't running 12.X or factory my system's uptime was measured in months... I don't use it for a desktop because -- it isn't as user friendly to people with RSI --
Ah NOW you mention RSI. So you use MS-Windows because that *IS* friendly to people with RSI. What is that, 'workrave'? It runs on Linux as well.
that and it's not as compatible with the applications I have used... though I constantly try to get linux-remote desktop working so I could use it more often... but so far, xrdp doesn't want to show me any desktops...though at least it answers the 'line' now when my remote desktop client knocks... I'd love to get remote sound working as well..but most of all, I'd like to get the GLX stuff working remotely...
What's 'xdrp'? VNC works just fine here; server (and or client) on all my Linux boxes Plenty of VNC viewers for Windows. By what you say you have plenty of LAN bandwidth and local processing on your Windows graphics.
As far as having my system partitions be LVM, that would be *convenient*, but many times, (like tonight), some issue comes up where non of the lvm disks mount.
I've been using LVM since it came out for Linux having used a similar system with AIX for years. I've never had problems with it unless and until the disk hardware give up, and even then I can often localise the problem enough to recover. if you screw your kernel, for example your initrm/boot doesn't have the module config into it, they obviously you'll have problems; that goes for any driver.
With non-lvm system disks I have a way to repair the damage quickly...
And I have the knowledge to repair lvm systems.....
(or used to when things were more reliable...now it takes a bit longer sometimes)... It doesn't sounds like you are a computer scientist. If you were, you'd know that having a computer that is reliable in spite of what you've done to it is a huge bonus.
No, I'm not a doctor, I'm an engineer. I recall Kipling: http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/hymn_of_breaking_strain.html and http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/sons_of_martha.html I *EXPECT* thing to break and fail and wear out.
Fragility sucks.
Yes, so? Any engineer knows how to design indefinitely reliable system s out of unreliable compensates ... given enough time, money and manpower :-) -- Computers are good at following instructions, but not at reading your mind. -- Knuth, _The TeXbook_ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org