Re: why do we use systemd?

lee writes: David Benfell writes: I think mainly that you don't need logrotate. journald takes care of it automatically. Well, with logrotate, you can have to logs mailed to you. Can journald do that, too? Couldn't tell you. I don't understand the man page well enough. (See preceding

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:05:03 -0400 Matthew Miller wrote: > Everyone! Please read > > > > I am not kidding. > > This morning, there are a dozen new messages all recycling around > points that have already been made hundred

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 10.07.2014 16:10, Balint Szigeti wrote: It looks like, a small group of the community makes decisions and the other people don't have choice. No alternatives :( The alternative is that someone talks the same thing about you, in a parallel universe. :) poma -- users mailing list user

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 14:09 +0300, Veli-Pekka Kestilä wrote: > On 10.7.2014 13:30, Balint Szigeti wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 13:35 +0200, lee wrote: > > > > > David Benfell writes: > > > > > > > I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are: > > > > > > > > 1) Is systemd conceptu

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:34 AM, lee wrote: > Rahul Sundaram writes: >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:42 PM, lee wrote: >> >>> I made a bug report suggesting to fix their misunderstanding of what >>> "disabled" means. It would have been very easy to fix, but they >>> declined. >>> >>> Why should I mak

Re: why do we use systemd?

Everyone! Please read I am not kidding. This morning, there are a dozen new messages all recycling around points that have already been made hundreds of posts ago in this thread. Regardless of the merit of these points, thi

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Tom H wrote: >> >> You might not need to use all of the systemd tools but its tools >> aren't independent. > > That is similar to how optional features are handled in many collections. > If you use some feature

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 10.7.2014 13:30, Balint Szigeti wrote: On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 13:35 +0200, lee wrote: David Benfell mailto:benf...@parts-unknown.org>> writes: > I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are: > > 1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the > start? Some people say yes

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 13:35 +0200, lee wrote: > David Benfell writes: > > > I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are: > > > > 1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the > > start? Some people say yes, and some of them argue well. > > So far, I've seen only argument

RE: why do we use systemd?

-Original Message- From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Tom Horsley Sent: woensdag 9 juli 2014 18:24 To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: why do we use systemd? On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:57:26 -0400 Rahul Sundaram

Re: why do we use systemd?

Rahul Sundaram writes: > Hi > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:42 PM, lee wrote: > >> I made a bug report suggesting to fix their misunderstanding of what >> "disabled" means. It would have been very easy to fix, but they >> declined. >> >> Why should I make any further bug reports about systemd wh

Re: why do we use systemd?

Rahul Sundaram writes: > Hi > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:23 PM, lee wrote: > >> Then they should do it again. >> > > That is a Debian maintainers decision. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it again. >> That doesn't mean that users shouldn't get to vote. > > It just means voting isn't

Re: why do we use systemd?

Rahul Sundaram writes: > Hi > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, lee wrote: > >> >> >> That is irrelevant. > > > How? Because disabled means disabled and not something like ondemand. >> I don't know what you don't understand --- >> "disabled" means disabled, i. e. cannot be started. > > > No.

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07/10/14 16:03, Ian Malone wrote: > On 9 July 2014 14:15, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Hi >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee wrote: >>> The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in >>> that things can still be started even when they are disabled. >> >> Err. no.

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 9 July 2014 14:15, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee wrote: >> >> The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in >> that things can still be started even when they are disabled. > > > Err. no. Before systemd, the equivalent of mask

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Jul 9, 2014, at 8:20 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > would suggest that the misunderstanding is on your part instead as noted in > another reply. However even if it weren't true, we all get bug reports > closed from time to time with a resolution different from what we want. The > right app

Re: why do we use systemd?

Hi On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:42 PM, lee wrote: > I made a bug report suggesting to fix their misunderstanding of what > "disabled" means. It would have been very easy to fix, but they > declined. > > Why should I make any further bug reports about systemd when they don't > want to even fix impo

Re: why do we use systemd?

Hi On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:23 PM, lee wrote: > Then they should do it again. > That is a Debian maintainers decision. > That doesn't mean that users shouldn't get to vote. It just means voting isn't how distribution choose system components. > Switching to something > because there is no

Re: why do we use systemd?

Hi On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, lee wrote: > > > That is irrelevant. How? The fact that dynamically started services can only directly be controlled by systemd in a systematic manner is directly relevant. It explains the real difference between disabled and mask. > I don't know what yo

Re: Why do we use systemd

"R. G. Newbury" writes: > So 'masked' is actually NEVER NOT EVEN WHEN YOU WANT IT. and DISABLED > means SOMETIMES, They confuse "masked" with "disabled" and "disabled" with "ondemand" and deny to fix that. > This thread contains numerous instances of why systemd is not well > architected, altho

Re: why do we use systemd?

Rahul Sundaram writes: > Hi > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee wrote: > >> The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in >> that things can still be started even when they are disabled. >> > > Err. no. Before systemd, the equivalent of mask simply didn't exist

Re: why do we use systemd?

Rahul Sundaram writes: > If there are concrete criticisms, they should ideally be in the form > of bug reports to reach the developers directly. I made a bug report suggesting to fix their misunderstanding of what "disabled" means. It would have been very easy to fix, but they declined. Why sh

Re: why do we use systemd?

Rahul Sundaram writes: > Hi > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:03 AM, lee wrote: > >> Apparently the project secretary has a hand in it, and sponsors are >> needed. So maybe it's not as easy as it seems. >> > > It is fairly easy to bring any proposal to vote. Debian has done it > numerous times.

Re: Why do we use systemd

Adrian Sevcenco writes: > These are completely unrelated terms. in services start language > "enabled" means "start at boot" and disabled "do not start at boot" .. > and that's all .. If you want to see it this way, then systemd misunderstands things so that "disabled" means to start something e

Code of Conduct warning on "why do we use systemd" thread

Please review https://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct (also linked in the signature of every message on this list). I think there may be some constructive messages in that thread, but there's also a lot of trolling and quite a bit of back and forth rehashing the same thing. This does not contrib

Re: why do we use systemd?

Hi On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Tom H wrote: > You might not need to use all of the systemd tools but its tools > aren't independent. That is similar to how optional features are handled in many collections. If you use some features, they might pull in other requirements but the features t

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: >> >> Systemd is now engulfing practically all of linux. A bug in one >> piece can make dozens of other things fail, and it is so large >> and complex that there *will* be bugs in pieces of

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 01:15:53PM -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:43:57 -0400 > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > This isn't the case. systemd isn't monolithic. it is a collection of > > tools with a shared codebase where most of the tools are optional. > > Its a collection of tool

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:43:57 -0400 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > This isn't the case. systemd isn't monolithic. it is a collection of > tools with a shared codebase where most of the tools are optional. Its a collection of tools, all of which talk to an ever increasing monolithic systemd daemon which

Re: why do we use systemd?

Hi On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:57:26 -0400 > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > if anyone is pushing for alternatives, > > they should understand that systemd isn't just a init system > > Which is, of course, the primary thing that is wrong with it :-).

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:57:26 -0400 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > if anyone is pushing for alternatives, > they should understand that systemd isn't just a init system Which is, of course, the primary thing that is wrong with it :-). Unix/linux grew successfully for years by dividing things into small i

Re: why do we use systemd?

Hi On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Tom Rivers wrote: > On 7/9/2014 09:57, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Sure but if you want to go against the consensus, you will have to do >> something more concrete. >> > > That is precisely why I challenged your assertion that the value of > systemd was because

Re: Why do we use systemd

On 07/09/2014 05:51 PM, R. G. Newbury wrote: > On 09/07/14 05:35 AM, users-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: > On 7 Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:36:37 -0700 From: Joe Zeff > On 07/08/2014 11:40 PM, lee wrote: >>> >When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled. It is >>> >camouflaged

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 7/9/2014 09:57, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Sure but if you want to go against the consensus, you will have to do something more concrete. That is precisely why I challenged your assertion that the value of systemd was because everyone was adopting it. The reason you gave for dismissing all of

Re: Why do we use systemd

On 09/07/14 05:35 AM, users-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: On 7 Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:36:37 -0700 From: Joe Zeff On 07/08/2014 11:40 PM, lee wrote: >When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled. It is >camouflaged or concealed. Camouflage, concealment, hiding, disguise

Re: why do we use systemd?

Hi On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Tom Rivers wrote: > With respect, just because there is consensus among governing entities > doesn't necessarily mean that the decision is good for everyone. Consensus > != Fact. History is replete with examples. > Sure but if you want to go against the cons

Re: why do we use systemd?

Allegedly, on or about 08 July 2014, David Benfell sent: > This is another terminology issue, which I think should be viewed > separately from the merits/demerits of systemd itself. And I'm > inclined to agree that the terms are poorly chosen. If it'd been my choice, disabled would have meant e

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 7/9/2014 07:12, Rahul Sundaram wrote: All major distributions at this point have switched to systemd or in the process of doing so which should tell you the value of it. With respect, just because there is consensus among governing entities doesn't necessarily mean that the decision is good

Re: why do we use systemd?

Hi On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee wrote: > The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in > that things can still be started even when they are disabled. > Err. no. Before systemd, the equivalent of mask simply didn't exist and there was no systematic way to dis

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 09:49 +1000, Norman Gaywood wrote: > On 7 July 2014 08:34, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-07-06 at 13:01 -0700, David Benfell wrote: > >> *What*, for example, is "the usual meaning" of "file system objects?" > >> A > >> file? Why not just say "file?" And if the d

Re: why do we use systemd?

Joe Zeff writes: > On 07/08/2014 11:40 PM, lee wrote: >> When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled. It is >> camouflaged or concealed. Camouflage, concealment, hiding, disguise and >> masking can all be used for*preventing* from being disabled. > > No. When a service is disabl

Re: why do we use systemd?

David Benfell writes: > I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are: > > 1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the > start? Some people say yes, and some of them argue well. So far, I've seen only arguments that would support that systemd is a really bad idea because

Re: why do we use systemd?

Hi On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:03 AM, lee wrote: > Apparently the project secretary has a hand in it, and sponsors are > needed. So maybe it's not as easy as it seems. > It is fairly easy to bring any proposal to vote. Debian has done it numerous times. > > Too bad that the users never get to

Re: why do we use systemd?

lee writes: David Benfell writes: Why should it be seen separately? Poorly chosen terms is a feature of systemd like any other it may have, and this feature leads straightaway to unexpected and undesired results when used. That the authors even deny fixing it is ... well, I'm not sure how to

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 07/08/2014 11:40 PM, lee wrote: >> >> When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled. It is >> camouflaged or concealed. Camouflage, concealment, hiding, disguise and >> masking can all be used for*preventing* from being disabled. > >

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07/08/2014 11:40 PM, lee wrote: When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled. It is camouflaged or concealed. Camouflage, concealment, hiding, disguise and masking can all be used for*preventing* from being disabled. No. When a service is disabled it can still be started aft

Re: why do we use systemd?

Rahul Sundaram writes: > This is not random Debian maintainers. This is the Debian technical > committee empowered with making such decisions. A GR (General resolution) > is the only way to override the tech committee and that requires some > Debian maintainer to propose one and so far noone ha

Re: why do we use systemd?

David Benfell writes: > lee writes: >> >> I don't mind this idea. Yet when I disable something, I expect it to be >> disabled. > > This is another terminology issue, which I think should be viewed > separately from the merits/demerits of systemd itself. And I'm > inclined to agree that the terms

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 9 Jul 2014 00:33, "Rahul Sundaram" wrote: > This is not random Debian maintainers. This is the Debian technical committee empowered with making such decisions. A GR (General resolution) is the only way to override the tech committee and that requires some Debian maintainer to propose one and

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 08.07.2014 01:16, poma wrote: On 08.07.2014 01:15, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:08:48AM +0200, poma wrote: On 08.07.2014 00:53, David Benfell wrote: poma writes: What is the "sediment" in the thread context? I suspect the word that was meant here is 'sentiment'. Yeah it

Re: why do we use systemd?

Hi On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Norman Gaywood wrote: > What about a file without a name? :-) > > If you delete all filenames of a file while it is opened by a process, > it still uses filesystem space but has no name. > There are other cases as well http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.11#hea

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 7 July 2014 08:34, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Sun, 2014-07-06 at 13:01 -0700, David Benfell wrote: >> *What*, for example, is "the usual meaning" of "file system objects?" >> A >> file? Why not just say "file?" And if the documentation really means >> files >> or pipes or devices, then why

Re: why do we use systemd?

Hi On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:07 PM, David Benfell wrote: > lee writes: > >> >> And only seven votes? Are they serious? >> > > I didn't realize they'd only gotten seven votes (presumably of the > maintainers who advocate systemd). I do understand that quorum rules need > to be loose enough to all

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Garry T. Williams wrote: > On 7-5-14 14:30:39 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > +1. One of my pet gripes about systemd is that it introduces a lot of > > new terminology without a clear explanation. > > Have you looked at the manual pages? I know of no other project t

Re: why do we use systemd?

David Benfell writes: > lee writes: >> >> And only seven votes? Are they serious? > > I didn't realize they'd only gotten seven votes (presumably of the > maintainers who advocate systemd). I do understand that quorum rules > need to be loose enough to allow anything at all to get done. > > But

Re: why do we use systemd?

lee writes: I don't mind this idea. Yet when I disable something, I expect it to be disabled. This is another terminology issue, which I think should be viewed separately from the merits/demerits of systemd itself. And I'm inclined to agree that the terms are poorly chosen. I guess the

Re: why do we use systemd?

lee writes: And only seven votes? Are they serious? I didn't realize they'd only gotten seven votes (presumably of the maintainers who advocate systemd). I do understand that quorum rules need to be loose enough to allow anything at all to get done. But this seems *too* loose. -- David

Re: why do we use systemd?

Joe Zeff writes: > In systemd, a service that's disabled won't be directly started at > boot, but another service can still start it either at boot or later. That means that the service is *not* disabled. > To keep a service from being started by systemd under any > circumstances, you need to m

Re: why do we use systemd?

David Benfell writes: > https://wiki.debian.org/systemd > > "systemd was included in Debian wheezy as a technology preview" > > However, it appears that even though they have taken their vote, and > chosen systemd, they have not yet developed service files for all > their packages (neither has Fe

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 08.07.2014 08:28, Russell Miller wrote: I think Greg had the right idea. *plonk*. Mister plonk-man, this has nothing to do with Greg! Uber hilarious! poma -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/

Re: why do we use systemd?

Poma said: >OK that's it! >I sincerely recommend the moderators to close this shameful thread where certain creatures are capable of spitting on >the systemd and its developers without any remorse! I think Greg had the right idea. *plonk*. To be frank, as I mentioned on another thread on anothe

Re: why do we use systemd?

OK that's it! I sincerely recommend the moderators to close this shameful thread where certain creatures are capable of spitting on the systemd and its developers without any remorse! poma -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 08.07.2014 02:43, Joe Zeff wrote: On 07/07/2014 05:12 PM, poma wrote: Thank you very much but your interpretation is unnecessary. And please don't project your frustrations on me, and do not call on others to do the same. That is abusive. If I really believed that it would be in this list's

Re: why do we use systemd?

lee writes: Tom Horsley writes: On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:27:53 +0200 lee wrote: Debian and centos use sysvinit; I don't know what others use. Not for long. Debian says that wheezy comes with it[1], yet it didn't (other than perhaps as an option) as I can see from what I have installed.

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07/07/2014 05:12 PM, poma wrote: Thank you very much but your interpretation is unnecessary. And please don't project your frustrations on me, and do not call on others to do the same. That is abusive. If I really believed that it would be in this list's best interests to have you moderated

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07/07/2014 04:47 PM, lee wrote: Glenn Holmer writes: >On 07/07/2014 04:34 AM, lee wrote: >>The authors of systemd don't even understand what "disabled" means. > >A pretty bold statement. Disabled means the same thing it does in >sysvinit: the service won't start at boot time. But it migh

Re: why do we use systemd?

Glenn Holmer writes: > On 07/07/2014 04:34 AM, lee wrote: >> The authors of systemd don't even understand what "disabled" means. > > A pretty bold statement. Disabled means the same thing it does in > sysvinit: the service won't start at boot time. But it might start any time later because it's

Re: why do we use systemd?

Tom Horsley writes: > On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:27:53 +0200 > lee wrote: > >> Debian and centos use sysvinit; I don't know what others use. > > Not for long. Debian says that wheezy comes with it[1], yet it didn't (other than perhaps as an option) as I can see from what I have installed. It would

Re: why do we use systemd?

Patrick O'Callaghan writes: > BTW, I am a technical user (i.e. I'm more technically inclined than most > people and less so than some), but I object to that being used as a > crutch by people who don't take the trouble to write clearly. Writing > clear documentation is just as hard as writing goo

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 08.07.2014 01:39, Joe Zeff wrote: You do understand, don't you, that he's just publicly killfiled you and that he won't be seeing your response? The only reason, BTW, that I haven't done the same, yet, is because you sometimes say something that's both relevant and useful. So far, your sign

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07/07/2014 04:16 PM, poma wrote: On 08.07.2014 01:15, Greg KH wrote: *plonk* And people tend to say systmed developers are rude. :) Thanks Greg! You do understand, don't you, that he's just publicly killfiled you and that he won't be seeing your response? The only reason, BTW, that

Re: why do we use systemd?

And people tend to say systmed developers are rude. :) s/systmed/systemd/ poma -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 08.07.2014 01:15, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:08:48AM +0200, poma wrote: On 08.07.2014 00:53, David Benfell wrote: poma writes: What is the "sediment" in the thread context? I suspect the word that was meant here is 'sentiment'. Yeah it comes to mind, but then what would

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 08.07.2014 01:11, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:50:08AM +0200, poma wrote: On 08.07.2014 00:00, Heinz Diehl wrote: On 07.07.2014, Edward M wrote: It may become problematic once KDBUS merges into the mainline kernel. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-Ma

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 08.07.2014 00:53, David Benfell wrote: poma writes: What is the "sediment" in the thread context? I suspect the word that was meant here is 'sentiment'. Yeah it comes to mind, but then what would be the "sentiment" in the thread context? poma -- users mailing list users@lists.fedora

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 08.07.2014 00:57, David Benfell wrote: poma writes: For you Roquefort will always be just a fungus. It's beyond your comprehension. Fascinating. Indeed. Tom tends to call a "fungus" everything he does not like. :) BTW you sound like Spock. :) poma -- users mailing list users@lists.

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 08.07.2014 00:46, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 23:27 +0200, poma wrote: For you Roquefort will always be just a fungus. It's beyond your comprehension. We're done here. poc We!? :) poma -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change

Re: why do we use systemd?

poma writes: For you Roquefort will always be just a fungus. It's beyond your comprehension. Fascinating. -- David Benfell See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you do not understand the attachment. pgp7H0uW05rdV.pgp Description: PGP signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedorapr

Re: why do we use systemd?

poma writes: What is the "sediment" in the thread context? I suspect the word that was meant here is 'sentiment'. -- David Benfell See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you do not understand the attachment. pgpGYgRS4st9h.pgp Description: PGP signature -- users mailing list users@lists.

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 08.07.2014 00:00, Heinz Diehl wrote: On 07.07.2014, Edward M wrote: It may become problematic once KDBUS merges into the mainline kernel. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html This thread showcases once more the all-dominating and rude attitudes of som

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 23:27 +0200, poma wrote: > For you Roquefort will always be just a fungus. > It's beyond your comprehension. We're done here. poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/list

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07/07/14 15:00, Heinz Diehl wrote: On 07.07.2014, Edward M wrote: It may become problematic once KDBUS merges into the mainline kernel. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html This thread showcases once more the all-dominating and rude attitudes of some

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07.07.2014, Edward M wrote: > It may become problematic once KDBUS merges into the mainline > kernel. > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html This thread showcases once more the all-dominating and rude attitudes of some of the systemd devs. At least, the k

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07.07.2014 20:38, Tom Horsley wrote: On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 19:17:49 +0100 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: I see it all now. The people who complain that they don't understand the terminology are lazy or ignorant or have an agenda. There's no way any of the responsibility for that lies with the docs

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07/07/14 13:39, Heinz Diehl wrote: But keep in mind that there are alternatives. Thus, systemd isn't unavoidable. I'm permitting myself to mention that I've been using openrc on my Arch machine quite some time, and it works great.. It may become problematic once KDBUS merges into th

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 06.07.2014, Balint Szigeti wrote: > The only reason that I wanted to reach, make the system(s) better if we > don't get rid of it. But keep in mind that there are alternatives. Thus, systemd isn't unavoidable. I'm permitting myself to mention that I've been using openrc on my Arch machine qu

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 19:17:49 +0100 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > I see it all now. The people who complain that they don't understand the > terminology are lazy or ignorant or have an agenda. There's no way any > of the responsibility for that lies with the docs themselves. Why didn't > I realize t

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 15:11 +0200, poma wrote: > >> You do not understand your own terminology!? :) > > > > Yeah sure, that's what I meant. Not. > > > > poc > > > > You see, you expect systemd to be understandable, however you alone > weren't understandable here. :) Seriously? The only person who

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07/07/2014 01:10 PM, David Benfell wrote: > Adrian Sevcenco writes: >> >> moreover you can separately configure a service without modifying the >> .service file (which usually is linked in /etc/systemd) : > > Possibly my information is out of date. I thought you were to put such > service files

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07.07.2014 13:19, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 04:39 +0200, poma wrote: On 06.07.2014 16:45, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Sun, 2014-07-06 at 15:32 +0200, poma wrote: I repeat that I am not attacking systemd here, I'm criticizing the way it's described. It may seem per

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 07/07/2014 04:34 AM, lee wrote: > The authors of systemd don't even understand what "disabled" means. A pretty bold statement. Disabled means the same thing it does in sysvinit: the service won't start at boot time. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd#How_do_I_start.2Fstop_or_enable.2Fdisab

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:27:53 +0200 lee wrote: > Debian and centos use sysvinit; I don't know what others use. Not for long. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Con

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:16:52 +0100 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > Writing > clear documentation is just as hard as writing good code. I disagree, it is actually much harder :-). -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedora

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 04:39 +0200, poma wrote: > On 06.07.2014 16:45, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-07-06 at 15:32 +0200, poma wrote: > >>> I repeat that I am not attacking systemd here, I'm criticizing the > >> way > >>> it's described. It may seem perfectly clear to those who alread

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 04:57 +0200, poma wrote: > On 06.07.2014 22:12, David Benfell wrote: > > poma writes: > >> > >> You can propose your terminology. > >> > > You're asking him to do Poettering's technical writing when he isn't even > > sure he understands Poettering correctly. > > > > Not only i

Re: why do we use systemd?

On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 11:07 +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:38:16AM +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote: > > Garry T. Williams wrote: > > > > > There are a slew of references on the 'Net > > > > Then give one ... > > Or if you could share your slides from the talk you gave, that wo

Re: why do we use systemd?

Kevin Fenzi writes: > On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:25:42 -0500 (CDT) > Michael Hennebry wrote: > >> On Sun, 6 Jul 2014, lee wrote: >> >> > Joe Zeff writes: >> > >> >> On 07/06/2014 12:43 AM, lee wrote: >> >>> Not even the configuration files are where they belong. >> >> >> >> Actually, they're exactl

Re: why do we use systemd?

"Garry T. Williams" writes: > On 7-6-14 10:39:11 lee wrote: >> "Garry T. Williams" writes: >> > The analogy is placing a script in /etc/init.d and then linking >> > its name in the /etc/rc5.d directory. >> > >> > I find this much simpler than the sysvinit schemes. >> >> You have taken well over

Re: why do we use systemd?

Michael Hennebry writes: > On Sun, 6 Jul 2014, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> >> What systemd config files are under /var? > > I don't know. I thought lee did. It has some files in /var, too, whatever those are. It's all over the place :( -- Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug) -- users mailing list use

Re: why do we use systemd?

Ahmad Samir writes: > On 06/07/14 18:44, lee wrote: >> Kevin Fenzi writes: > [...] >>> >>> yum remove alsa-plugins-pulseaudio >>> >>> used to do it. It would still be installed, but not loaded/used. >> >> Hm, yes, I could actually remove it without removing anything else, >> thank you! Finally!

  1   2   3   >