On 21/08/16 14:05, FRIGN wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 12:18:45 +0200
Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
Hey Christoph,
»My users are stupid[¹], let's make them more stupid[²] and helpless
[³].« -- new slogan of systemd
[¹] By assuming the users which really do some mount are not able to
d
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 12:18:45 +0200
Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
Hey Christoph,
> »My users are stupid[¹], let's make them more stupid[²] and helpless
> [³].« -- new slogan of systemd
>
> [¹] By assuming the users which really do some mount are not able to
> do a fsck or handle it in
Greetings.
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 12:18:45 +0200 Antenore Gatta wrote:
> The main feature is:
>
> > instead of executing the mount operation directly and immediately,
> systemd-mount schedules it through the service manager job queue, so
> that it may pull in further dependencies (such as parent mo
Greetings to everybody,
I'm a long time reader.
It looks like we've just got another cherry [0] above our chocolate cake.
Lennart has just released (committed about a day ago [1] ) an "amazing"
new command, systemd-mount.
The main feature is:
> instead of executing the mount operation directly
Hello there,
> On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:57, Alex Pilon wrote:
>
>> while a shell script can be understood by anybody.
>
> Bullshit. How often have I had to check people's lockfile code, or
> manual isolation?
So, you did understand, eh?
Personally, I hate definitive DSLs, because their use is v
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:48:07PM -0800, Britton Kerin wrote:
> > If you're going to make an argument against systemd, please make a
> > stronger one. Repeated noise doesn't help The Cause™, as it seems to be
> > around these parts.
>
> why all in pid 1? Seems like they didn't want you to be able
>> Even if most of the vocabulary is simple, the number of keywords is
>> simply too high;
>
> So is the number of things in your $PATH…
Correct, but how is this related to the topic? Sounds like you're
saying: linux people are stupid fucks, so they DESERVE systemd. Stupid
rhetoric though.
> anyh
--- Original message ---
> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2016 22:57:27 -0400
> From: Alex Pilon
>
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 01:12:12PM +0200, Hadrien LACOUR wrote:
> > But when you had to modify or write unit files, it wasn't fun.
>
> Dead easy. And you can even add to the definition rather than rewriting.
> If you're going to make an argument against systemd, please make a
> stronger one. Repeated noise doesn't help The Cause™, as it seems to be
> around these parts.
why all in pid 1? Seems like they didn't want you to be able to choose,
that sucks. They even gave up the robustness that could hav
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 01:12:12PM +0200, Hadrien LACOUR wrote:
> But when you had to modify or write unit files, it wasn't fun.
Dead easy. And you can even add to the definition rather than rewriting.
> Even if most of the vocabulary is simple, the number of keywords is
> simply too high;
So is
> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2016 11:58:35 -0800
> From: Britton Kerin
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Kurt Van Dijck
> wrote:
> >> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 13:34:31 +0200
> >> From: Hadrien LACOUR
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 08:26:42AM -0300, Marc Collin wrote:
> >> > I got introduced to s6-rc
> sorry, udev depends on systemd? what did i miss?
"might become". It's already in the tree, what can stop them from
making it a dependency?
sorry, udev depends on systemd? what did i miss?
Britton Kerin wrote:
> How do you handle udev problems?
Who needs to handle them anyway? Seriously, how many people
in this list use udev? Finally, the whole purpose of it is slightly unclear
to me. It seems that it was made to create new layers, such as, say,
kernel -> udev -> dbus -> GNOME ->
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Kurt Van Dijck
wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 13:34:31 +0200
>> From: Hadrien LACOUR
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 08:26:42AM -0300, Marc Collin wrote:
>> > I got introduced to s6-rc [0] lately.
>> > Do you guys have any experience with it?
>> >
>> > [0] http://s
> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 13:34:31 +0200
> From: Hadrien LACOUR
>
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 08:26:42AM -0300, Marc Collin wrote:
> > I got introduced to s6-rc [0] lately.
> > Do you guys have any experience with it?
> >
> > [0] http://skarnet.org/software/s6-rc/
> >
>
> When I compared daemontool
On 5 August 2016 at 13:34, Hadrien LACOUR
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 08:26:42AM -0300, Marc Collin wrote:
>> I got introduced to s6-rc [0] lately.
>> Do you guys have any experience with it?
>>
>> [0] http://skarnet.org/software/s6-rc/
Looks nice.
Nevertheless for my refined stali scope si
Hi,
2016-08-05 11:30 GMT+02:00, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net>:
> Greetings comrades.
>
> The systemd insanity is all over Linux. With its latests addition of
> making /etc read‐only or the DNS scandal it’s too annoying for one per‐
> son to get through the git changelog. Parazyd started
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 08:26:42AM -0300, Marc Collin wrote:
> I got introduced to s6-rc [0] lately.
> Do you guys have any experience with it?
>
> [0] http://skarnet.org/software/s6-rc/
>
When I compared daemontools, runit and this one, I thought it was the best.
Nice comparison: http://skarnet.
I got introduced to s6-rc [0] lately.
Do you guys have any experience with it?
[0] http://skarnet.org/software/s6-rc/
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Hadrien LACOUR
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:58:25AM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>>
>> Of course, runit is only a service manager. But runit+sinit+
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:58:25AM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>
> Of course, runit is only a service manager. But runit+sinit+misc is a
> whole other story.
>
> Cheers
>
> FRIGN
>
> --
> FRIGN
>
What? I'm pretty sure runit can do init.
As for the systemd controversy, I used for a long time on Arc
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 11:52:52 +0200
Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
Hey Kamil,
> I don't think we need more systemd hate - people are already in one
> camp or another. We do need a single, solid, real world, battle-proven
> solution, to propose as a viable alternative for distros to implement.
it's not
correct, we don't need hate, we need taste. but your blabbering of
battle-proven and of systemd solving some of your personal problems is
not related to technically advancing the state of the linux desktop.
On 8/5/16, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> I don't think we need more systemd hate - people are
I don't think we need more systemd hate - people are already in one camp
or another. We do need a single, solid, real world, battle-proven
solution, to propose as a viable alternative for distros to implement.
Systemd does solve two things: 1. it's now universally available across
all major distro
Greetings comrades.
The systemd insanity is all over Linux. With its latests addition of
making /etc read‐only or the DNS scandal it’s too annoying for one per‐
son to get through the git changelog. Parazyd started to add a link on
its own to our wiki entry for systemd suck[0]. You can do t
25 matches
Mail list logo
