On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 05:57:46PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> > Is debian switching
>
> That remains to be seen.
If Debian intends to continue support for Hurd and
KfreeBSD they can't move to systemd -- which relies
on Linux kernel features to work.
That debian has a disincentive is not the
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 09:36:05AM +0200, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The pain is the need to merge new changes while updating. Some tools
> (like pacdiff) can help with the job but it's very frustrating to have
> one configuration file and merge lot of changes in it. Especially when
> it comes to co
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:20:10AM +0300, Menachem Moystoviz wrote:
> In addition, it may be considered to move from systemv to NetBSD's
> init, which stays in-line with the simple interface of rc.conf
> but adds parallelization and modularity.
That'd win so hard.
> Lastly, it may be beneficial
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD
I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my
notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports.
Other than that, it's been a smooth tr
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:05:02PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> Tell me what's hard about systemd?
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard
irrespectively of what you're switching to.
That's my inference anyway.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:12:30AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS.
> It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and
> using pacman for the package manager.
Oooh! Link?
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 02:37:54PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> I suspect that BSD for artist that draw can be used, but for audio not.
> Am I mistaken?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
There's a lot of audio software in FreeBSD. Whether any of it suits your
purposes, I can not say.
htt
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:08:36AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?
As a critic of systemd, perhaps I can help.
Init scripts tend to wreck the determinism beacuse they can inherit
your env. pid files are a problem waiting to happen. There really
is no
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:32:42PM +0200, Thomas B?chler wrote:
> And you don't want systemd because you are sure it won't do what
> sysvinit can, even though you didn't try it.
>
I think the complaint here is that the switch itself is a problem.
I think he made it rather clear that he's not cri
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:28:17PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> > I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is
> > hard irrespectively of what you're switchin
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:20:29PM +0530, gt wrote:
> Offtopic: Your system clock seems to be way off.
So it is! Thanks for the heads up.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:05:14PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes
> about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than
> about anything else.
>
> Why is it like that?
Probably because he has all the arrogance of D
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:30:50AM -0400, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> Also, I will state once again that I think people are
> highly exaggerating the "difficulty" of transitioning an arch install to
> systemd, its quite simple.
It sounds like you're trying to turn peoples' subjective preferences
int
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 06:00:25PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before. I
> suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein?
Yes.
> If so, he seemingly isn't as half as arrogant as LP.
Spend a week lurking a crypto mailing list and you may
change y
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Paul Dann wrote:
> Sometimes the most loving thing to do is let someone go through a short,
> sharp pain in order to avoid a long, drawn out one. Systemd is not evil. You
> may not like the idea of changing, but it probably will be the best thing for
> y
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:53:10PM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> I'd add that djb has started several projects that have been, I think,
> very, very good, but then dropped them. It is harder to justify using
> his stuff when development is largely limited to one man's attention span.
I really don'
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 07:51:25AM +0800, Leon Feng wrote:
> As a rolling release, Arch is usually the leader of adopt new technology.
> But now, Arch is falling behind Debian now. So sad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:18:10PM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> Have you looked at qmail lately?
Yup. Installed it just a couple weeks ago. Use it every day.
Pointed a coverity analysis at it the other week.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:21:25AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> Here's one part
>
> A good design would make the init process which is always running and
> everyone must run.
>
> 1./ Be a small simple binary
>
> 2./ Have no dependencies
>
> 3./ Be easy to follow, fix and lockdown, best fit be
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:44:07PM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> There is almost always a tension between those who know what they are
> doing and those who don't.
There is also conflict between people who simply have different values.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:02:57PM +0200, fredbezies wrote:
> Last threads on systemd was useless.
I disagree. In the last thread, I had to really dig for outside information to
understand both sides of the argument. My research and tinkering has lead me
to the following valuable conclusions:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:15:36PM +0200, Thomas B?chler wrote:
> > That's not more pragmatic,
>
> It is. Person X is annoying everyone, so person X can't post any longer.
You seem to be conflating pragmatism with bigotry.
Those of us who are used to the internet don't get annoyed
by other peopl
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:08:50AM +0200, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
I do not argue that software is good because it is old. I argue that software
which is correct does not need to be changed.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:50:20AM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 16 August 2012 11:47, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
> wrote:
> > Those of us who are used to the internet don't get annoyed
> > by other peoples' silliness.
>
> This is
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:00:55PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> Right, but he has even said (along with others) that "nobody is gonna
> change their mind, who cares about them, they're just trolls..." to
> that effect.
>
> Why bother fighting something so stupid, if even you admit it is stupid?
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:09:47PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> Since when is archlinux a democracy?
Yeah, even tho' I hate systemd, even if "no" were winning that poll (which it's
not), I would say that the poll results should not be adhered to. Good
engineering and democracy don't often
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 09:29:26PM +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> Just received a second bogus 'unsubscribe confirmation request'.
>
> This begins to look like stalking. The request was sent from
> anonymouse.org, so whoever is doing this is a miserable coward
> apart from whatever else.
>
>
I
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:52:05AM -0400, Justin Strickland wrote:
> heh seems most of this blaze has to do with users who are unfamiliar with
> systemd and by convention afraid of it
I've seen a couple of people for whom this is probably true.
But I have seen a couple of posts that seem more ed
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 04:08:32AM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> initiatives like this are not removing choice
... Kinda.
This initiative doesn't remove choice. It is a natural consequence
of the greater linux ecosystem choosing to abandon some choices.
Am convinced that moving to systemd
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 07:06:36AM +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> BTW, I don't want to discourage anyone from reading Lennart's blog.
> It's very revealing at some points. Just know what you are reading.
>
No, it's important to understand the full arguments before you
criticize them. The first
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:02:45AM +0200, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> But you linked to the "Appeal to novelty" fallacy, suggesting that other
> people argue that systemd is better just because it is new. Fallacies
> usually come in pairs, thus my link: changing for change's sake makes no
> sense; nor d
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 03:11:16PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > Not because
> > it is good software but because the other adequate software that this
> > community depends on is going to require it.
>
> Let me know so I'm aware what the software you have in mind is if it
> hasn't been ment
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:09:06AM -0700, Ben Booth wrote:
> remove the /usr/bin/python symlink and replace with this shell script:
>
> #!/usr/bin/env bash
> exec /usr/bin/"${PYTHON:-python3}" "$@"
Bravo! I approve.
This solution is 0.99 times as good as the option to just not
have Python 3
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 08:11:58PM +1000, John Briggs wrote:
> IMHO the cost of Linux embracing complexity is a loss of freedom. We must
> all decide personally if we are willing to pay this price or we remain true
> to the principles of GNU/Linux and abandon this type of software.
> At this time w
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:03:55PM +0100, Geoff wrote:
> As I have said in a previous post, I arrived in linux a little later than you,
> but for much the same reasons. On "KISS" / "The Arch Way" / "Unix philosophy"
> etc, it seems to me that here as in my own field (law), maxims make good
> servan
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 01:52:59PM +0200, R??my Oudompheng wrote:
> I don't understand why you are saying that.
I can't speak for him but I can tell you why I say it.
Parsing a config file is _always_ unnecessary complexity. It
is where some of the biggest bugs lurk. It hurts the
functional par
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 01:23:12PM +0200, Roel Deckers wrote:
> Remember it's not about whether or not you're allowed to use
> initscripts/systemd, it's about what will become the default.
No, maintaining both boot methods, even if upstream weren't
abandoning init scripts (which they are going to)
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 05:28:16PM +0200, Damjan wrote:
> >A package for an MTA (for example) will have to know how to start
> >itself up. You're left with the following options:
> > 1. Rework the MTA to startup with your own method
> > 2. Have the package maintainer somehow allow both such as..
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 07:14:29PM +0200, Damjan wrote:
> I don't understand why you think parsing is a hard thing. INI files have
> been around for millennia (in internet years) and both parsers and
> writers for them are well established in many languages.
The question is not whether it is har
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:48:01PM -0700, Patrick Murphy wrote:
> Could you give me a brief explanation as to why init scripts are better?
They really aren't. The best argument one can make in their favor
is that they're already debugged and stable. systemd, as a new
thing, will inevitably go t
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:03:44PM -0300, Denis A. Alto?? Falqueto wrote:
> You know that all this jibber-jabber could be easily avoided if you
> just asked for help or opened bug reports, don't you? You know, just
> like when polite peopple try to solve their own problems and, when
> nothing else
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:13:33AM +0200, Kwpolska wrote:
> Huh? I've never seen any complaints about udev before you.
udev is kinda crufty. And it really doesn't belong inside
the same monolithic program that manages startup and file-
system mounting.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:34:28AM -0400, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> > Can we then agree then that you don't *know* if systemd is stable
> > enough to be used (in general, not only by you)?
> > Felipe Contreras
> >
> Umm, the fact thats its been the default init system in several popular
> distros a
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:23:33PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > So it's only needs twice the time with only on third of the ticks? Well
> > that is awesome... Yeah to systemd!
>
> systemd is much more complicated, and requires many more tricks.
>
Please remember: I hate systemd.
I have se
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:31:19PM -0400, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> You are being pedantic. A 2 second difference is negligible, and certainly
> not the huge issue you are making it out to be.
It's not negligible in computing terms. It can matter but plan A
is usually for your boot time to be imma
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:12:05PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> I've been wondering what the best term for 'corporate' or 'enterprise'
> software like exchange is where they change your nappies for you but
> also offer you razor wire to hang yourself with by giving you IE to
> browse the web on t
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:45:34PM +0200, Jakob Herrmann wrote:
> So which components (obviously used by the majority of Arch users) do
> currently have or will soon have hardcoded! dependencies to systemd?
udev.
Upstream, Gnome has considered it.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:24:31PM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> ... are we done? you guys are really boring me to death here --
> interest level is pitifully low. yawn.
Pretty long message for someone who's uninterested.
> if you want to see a boot up process that uses daemontools, or runit
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 07:15:26PM +0530, gt wrote:
> Maybe you can test the AUR package and see if works as good as your own
> setup, and maybe you can contribute to that package if you ever find the
> time to do so.
What I'd offer to the AUR is run scripts for common services like
apache, sshd,
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 12:19:00AM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > For all its faults, being incapabel of giving you a boot
> > time advantage is _not_ one of them.
>
> Yes, that's *in theory*, but in practice that's not what I see, and I
> already investigated the culprit:
It's more like "if
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 03:34:00PM +0200, R??my Oudompheng wrote:
> The cumulated amount of time spent on these endless discussions has
> now almost certainly get past the amount of time necessary to fix
> initscripts.
init scripts are irredeemable. The argument is more one of whether
systemd is
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:36:22PM +0200, Joakim Hernberg wrote:
> A distro fork would be the absolute worst outcome imaginable (imo) of
> the initscripts vs systemd schism...
Assuming you mean a fork of Arch, I agree.
But consider ArchHURD downstream. They'll have no choice but to do
something
52 matches
Mail list logo
