On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> More bloat to fail, it may come as a shock, but there are computers
> running Linux and not network connected at all (as in no NIC
> devices). Bloat for no benefit.
This seems to be based around a misconception. Like most systemd
fea
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 11/15/2014 08:27 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
I've always called systemd the world's fist computer fungus - it wants
to grow over everything.
Resistance is futile! Your functionality will be assimilated.
Or in this case approximated.
--
Bill Davidsen
"We have more to fear f
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik said:
Making the rounds of various technical mailing lists yesterday, with
a subject that's typically a variation of "Just for yucks, and
giggles" is a link to a commit to systemd's git, adding DNS caching
to systemd; in one, huge 857 line gl
On 12/02/2014 06:23 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Let's stop this thread. New discussion about specific functionality
> actually intended to discuss, share, and learn rather than inflame is
> fine, but since this *is* a topic which attracts all manner of strong
> feelings, please take *extra* care in
On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 10:22 -0800, Rick Stevens wrote:
> On 12/02/2014 06:47 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
> > * Simplifying startup configuration
>
> Simplifying startup?
No. Simplifying startup configuration.
Woogie
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change
On 12/02/2014 06:47 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 09:40:53AM +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 12/02/14 02:45, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Well, it was originally meant to be default in Fedora 14 and there were
many discussions about it. it is been years since that point. Perh
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 05:34:53PM +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> On 12/02/14 15:47, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> >>Well, to be frank, it was sold to solve the issue of start up time of
> >>computers.
> ...
> >This is incorrect. The actual problems systemd was meant to solve
> >include but are not
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> On 12/02/14 15:47, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
>> Well, to be frank, it was sold to solve the issue of start up time of
>>> computers.
>>>
>> ...
>
>> This is incorrect. The actual problems systemd was meant to solve
>> include but are no
On 12/02/14 15:47, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Well, to be frank, it was sold to solve the issue of start up time of
computers.
...
This is incorrect. The actual problems systemd was meant to solve
include but are not limited to:
No, it was sold to us, in the beginning, with the promise of faster
On 12/02/14 13:23, Matthew Miller wrote:
But what happens when they are ready? Will they be part of Fedora then?
Lars, we have a change control process for precisely this reason. The
systemd developers and packagers in Fedora are (mostly) conscientious
about going through it.
My comment and c
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 09:40:53AM +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> On 12/02/14 02:45, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >Well, it was originally meant to be default in Fedora 14 and there were
> >many discussions about it. it is been years since that point. Perhaps
> >people didn't pay attention to it an
Hi
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
>
> systemd IS a part of Fedora general release.
Yes but not the feature that was being discussed.
> It was, in the beginning. It then started to take over more and more other
> functions.
Not true. It was never sold as only abo
Hi
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> systemctl list-unit-files
>>
>
> Lists 315 services, most that I can't control. And does it no longer
> matter if you are in single user, multiuser, etc mode on how the services
> run?
As I pointed out before, you *can* control t
On 12/02/14 15:25, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Users list
is for discussing features that are shipped in Fedora general release.
systemd IS a part of Fedora general release.
>Well, to be frank, it was sold to solve the issue of start up time of
computer
To be frank, it was never sold as only a so
Hi
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> The discussion is about a component already in use in Fedora, systemd,
and new features of it. How can this not be on-topic here?
You keep asking the same question that was answered before. Users list is
for discussing features th
Hi
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
>
>
> Where should users be discussing things that may negatively impact
> them?
That is too broad. In this case, we are talking about features not
included within Fedora. So the right place is upstream
Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 09:15:45PM +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> Well, if they are not yet ready or not general purpose enough to be
> used by default they should not be adopted. We have enough of not
> yet ready products and does not need any more.
>
> But what happens when they are ready? W
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 07:00:39PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > "community assistance, encouragement, and advice" — not to mention the
> > Friends foundation — that's a different story.
> I would suggest that the thread is off the rails long time back and not
> enforcing the list guidelines and
On 12/02/2014 12:42 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/01/2014 05:17 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Then there was good old 'chkconfig' that produced a nice tablular report
of services that can be controlled. I have yet to find anything close
to this with systemd.
systemctl list-unit-files
Lists 315
On 12/02/14 02:45, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Well, it was originally meant to be default in Fedora 14 and there were
many discussions about it. it is been years since that point. Perhaps
people didn't pay attention to it and didn't realize it but it wasn't
snuck in when people weren't looking. Ther
On 12/02/14 01:00, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I would suggest that the thread is off the rails long time back and not
enforcing the list guidelines and keeping the list on topic leads to us,
No, it is not "Off the rails". That you find the issue unimportant does
not mean that others have the same v
On 12/01/14 22:32, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
By that account why would rawhide or test releases be considered
offtopic? How about development kernel or glibc features?
The test list is about test releases of Fedora. The devel list is for
the development releases of Fedora (rawhide). All as I me
On 1 December 2014 at 16:27, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
>>
>> My question was "What part(s) of the systemd suite has not been adopted".
>> Note the not part.
>
>
> Yes. I understood that fine. I was pointing out which parts have bee
On 12/01/2014 05:17 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Then there was good old 'chkconfig' that produced a nice tablular report
of services that can be controlled. I have yet to find anything close
to this with systemd.
systemctl list-unit-files
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 20:14 -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> Just to point out how explosive the systemd issue is in the Linux
> community, note that Debian has been forked just beause of this:
>
> https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20141127.212941.f55acc3a.en.html
>
Thanks for the link, not all
Hi
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> Just to point out how explosive the systemd issue is in the Linux
> community, note that Debian has been forked just beause of this:
>
> https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20141127.212941.f55acc3a.en.html
>
> Yes, I know, this isn't Fed
Just to point out how explosive the systemd issue is in the Linux
community, note that Debian has been forked just beause of this:
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20141127.212941.f55acc3a.en.html
Yes, I know, this isn't Fedora. But if it's that controversial that an
enire distro will spl
Hi
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
>
> That is intensely needed. I think either new material explaining exactly
> why systemd is needed, and good, is critical. If it already exists,
> collected pointers are just as good (if not better)
There are dozens of references about h
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 08:45:28PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Well, it was originally meant to be default in Fedora 14 and there were
> many discussions about it. it is been years since that point. Perhaps
> people didn't pay attention to it and didn't realize it but it wasn't snuck
> in when
Hi
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
>
> I agree, but I will point out that incorporating systemd is an...extremely
> controversial...decision. And, the entire arena seems to be fraught with
> extreme opinions. Couple that with the fact that many here seem not to
> have known i
HI
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>And the list is hugh compared to what services are really up to user
control. I mean listed items like:
Yes that list is larger because systemd does allow you to control more than
sysvinit does directly. Try it out
> Oh, and that
On 12/01/2014 08:23 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
HI
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Perhaps at some point we will get better tools for using systemd.
Thanks for bringing in something useful to the discussion that I can
address:
I mean compare:
systemctl
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 08:19:47PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Sure. I wasn't referring to your post. Your effort is appreciated.
Ah; thank you. I really am tired of drama, and try not to contribute.
> I don't disagree with all that. I do disagree that the current approach
> taken in the b
HI
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Perhaps at some point we will get better tools for using systemd.
Thanks for bringing in something useful to the discussion that I can
address:
I mean compare:
>
> systemctl restart sshd.service
>
> with
>
> service sshd restart
>
>
Hi
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
>
> > Ranting about ...
>
> Excuse me; I worked very hard to *not* rant.
Sure. I wasn't referring to your post. Your effort is appreciated.
> It intended to be, and I
> believe was, a reasoned and rational attempt to explain why someone
On 12/01/2014 07:23 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 07:00:39PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I would suggest that the thread is off the rails long time back and not
enforcing the list guidelines and keeping the list on topic leads to us,
unable to point our own users to the list fo
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 07:55:51PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Good thing nobody did that then, right?
Well, that's good.
> With all due respect, you can't argue against your own made up quote.
(Hands up), no arguing.
> Ranting about ...
Excuse me; I worked very hard to *not* rant. It inte
Hi
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> Just telling them to "shut up, out of scope" seems a
> bad idea.
Good thing nobody did that then, right? With all due respect, you can't
argue against your own made up quote. As to the question of response from
Red Hat, in case you hav
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 07:00:39PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I would suggest that the thread is off the rails long time back and not
> enforcing the list guidelines and keeping the list on topic leads to us,
> unable to point our own users to the list for help because they have to
> wade throu
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> If the thread goes off the rails and outside of the scope of
> "community assistance, encouragement, and advice" — not to mention the
> Friends foundation — that's a different story.
>
I would suggest that the thread is off the rails long
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 04:32:49PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > I am keen on discussing how new features in systemd (or any other
> > packages used by Fedora for that matter) will affect the users of
> > Fedora. The best place for that is this users list.
> By that account why would rawhide or
Hi
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> I am keen on discussing how new features in systemd (or any other packages
> used by Fedora for that matter) will affect the users of Fedora. The best
> place for that is this users list.
By that account why would rawhide or test
On 12/01/14 22:13, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
In a similar way, development branches of systemd has its own mailing
list for discussing such functionality called systemd-devel list. Use
that list if you are so keen on discussing development branches of systemd.
I am keen on discussing how new feat
Hi
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> As systemd is (a huge) part of Fedora, and what we discuss is a new
> feature in systemd, it will, eventually,
That is by no means a good assumption but even if you take that assumption
as a given, it is not a good justification. T
On 12/01/14 21:47, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I will limit my answer to one point to keep it brief. Despite your
insistence, development features that are part of upstream project but
not in any Fedora release *cannot* affect Fedora users by definition
Hence they are offtopic for this list. If you
Hi
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
>
> The issue being discussed in this thread has nothing to do with test
> releases and has because of that nothing to do on the test list. It has
> nothing to do with the development releases (rawhide) and has because of
> that nothing
On 12/01/14 17:27, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
There are several
different components which haven't been adopted nor even proposed
because they are simply not yet ready or not general purpose enough to
be used by default.
Well, if they are not yet ready or not general purpose enough to be used
by de
Hi
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> My question was "What part(s) of the systemd suite has not been adopted".
> Note the not part.
Yes. I understood that fine. I was pointing out which parts have been
adopted so you can count the rest as not adopted. There are se
On 12/01/14 15:50, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
What part(s) of the systemd suite has not been adopted by Fedora so
far? What says that this "component" will not be adopted by fedora?
Look up feature pages to understand which component
Hi
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> What part(s) of the systemd suite has not been adopted by Fedora so far?
> What says that this "component" will not be adopted by fedora?
Look up feature pages to understand which components have been adopted.
https://fedoraproje
On 12/01/14 02:31, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 11/18/14 04:20, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
user mailing list of a distribution which doesn't even use the
component
at all yet.
Well, how long do you think it
Hi
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> On 11/18/14 04:20, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> user mailing list of a distribution which doesn't even use the component
>> at all yet.
>>
>
> Well, how long do you think it will take until the "component" is being
> used then? System
On 11/18/14 04:20, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
user mailing list of a distribution which doesn't even use the component
at all yet.
Well, how long do you think it will take until the "component" is being
used then? Systemd have had a tendency to very quickly find its way into
Fedora, and probably t
Hi
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Right. Like "systemd developers" have such an established track record of
> listening to feedback from the community,
>
That has no connection to what I said. If you have already made up your
mind, that's fine but if you are wondering
Rahul Sundaram writes:
Hi
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Why did the systemd
project add this to the scope of the project for "a system and service
manager for Linux"?
This was something that could have been easily asked to systemd developers
rather than t
On 11/17/2014 06:54 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Chris Adamswrote:
Why did the systemd
project add this to the scope of the project for "a system and service
manager for Linux"?
This was something that could have been easily asked to systemd
Hi
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Why did the systemd
> project add this to the scope of the project for "a system and service
> manager for Linux"?
This was something that could have been easily asked to systemd developers
rather than the long rant that was posted.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Juan Orti said:
> > systemd-resolved is a daemon for resolving DNS. What's wrong about
> > caching? All DNS servers perform caching.
> >
> > It's like if you have unbound at 127.0.0.1 as local resolver, that's a
> > very com
Once upon a time, Juan Orti said:
> systemd-resolved is a daemon for resolving DNS. What's wrong about
> caching? All DNS servers perform caching.
>
> It's like if you have unbound at 127.0.0.1 as local resolver, that's a
> very common setup.
Well, that's the point. We already have multiple, pe
El sáb, 15-11-2014 a las 08:53 -0500, Sam Varshavchik escribió:
> Making the rounds of various technical mailing lists yesterday, with a
> subject that's typically a variation of "Just for yucks, and giggles" is a
> link to a commit to systemd's git, adding DNS caching to systemd; in one,
> h
Pete Travis writes:
Whatever the intent, I hope that everyone discovers it from reading actual
documentation instead of inflammatory comments on indignant speculation about
the intent behind a one sentence feature description like "
resolved: add DNS cache ". I'm not necessarily putting you
On 11/15/2014 08:27 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
I've always called systemd the world's fist computer fungus - it wants
to grow over everything.
Resistance is futile! Your functionality will be assimilated.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription opt
On Nov 15, 2014 6:54 AM, "Sam Varshavchik" wrote:
>
> Making the rounds of various technical mailing lists yesterday, with a
subject that's typically a variation of "Just for yucks, and giggles" is a
link to a commit to systemd's git, adding DNS caching to systemd; in one,
huge 857 line glop. Here
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 08:53:59AM -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Making the rounds of various technical mailing lists yesterday, with
> a subject that's typically a variation of "Just for yucks, and
> giggles" is a link to a commit to systemd's git, adding DNS caching
> to systemd; in one, huge 8
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:18:11 -0600
Chris Adams wrote:
> Yet more unreasonable scope creep for the systemd project, and this time
> reinventing the wheel for no good reason.
I've always called systemd the world's fist computer fungus - it wants
to grow over everything.
--
users mailing list
users
Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik said:
> Making the rounds of various technical mailing lists yesterday, with
> a subject that's typically a variation of "Just for yucks, and
> giggles" is a link to a commit to systemd's git, adding DNS caching
> to systemd; in one, huge 857 line glop. Here's its
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 08:53:59 -0500
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Making the rounds of various technical mailing lists yesterday, with a
> subject that's typically a variation of "Just for yucks, and giggles" isa
> link to a commit to systemd's git, adding DNS caching to systemd; in one,
> huge 857
Making the rounds of various technical mailing lists yesterday, with a
subject that's typically a variation of "Just for yucks, and giggles" is a
link to a commit to systemd's git, adding DNS caching to systemd; in one,
huge 857 line glop. Here's its entire commit message: "resolved: add DNS
68 matches
Mail list logo
