Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #16517 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-11-16 11:26 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-12-03 14:22 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.unix.programmer
Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-11-16 11:26 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-11-16 20:51 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-17 08:41 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@example.com> - 2024-11-17 11:38 -0300
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-11-17 18:25 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-17 18:41 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-11-17 17:48 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-17 18:39 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2024-11-18 07:54 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-18 14:02 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-11-18 20:43 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2024-11-19 10:07 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-18 03:38 +0100
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-18 08:26 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-18 09:51 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-18 09:57 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) - 2024-12-03 05:29 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-03 08:20 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-03 20:21 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-04 08:34 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-05 02:11 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-05 06:44 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-12-05 13:15 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-05 13:57 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-05 15:06 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2024-12-05 08:01 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-05 08:19 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-05 20:45 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-12-05 21:06 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-06 10:28 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-06 20:00 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 12:37 -0800
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-12-06 22:15 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-07 10:04 +0000
Windows-think and systemd (Was: Something completely unrelated to what we're yapping about now) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-07 15:00 +0000
Re: Windows-think and systemd (Was: Something completely unrelated to what we're yapping about now) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-07 16:05 +0000
Re: Windows-think and systemd (Was: Something completely unrelated to what we're yapping about now) rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) - 2024-12-14 09:09 +0000
AIX (was Re: Windows-think and systemd) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-14 12:24 +0100
Re: Windows-think and systemd (Was: Something completely unrelated to what we're yapping about now) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-12-08 03:51 +0000
Re: Windows-think and systemd (Was: Something completely unrelated to what we're yapping about now) Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-12-09 20:38 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-12-09 16:24 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) - 2024-12-14 09:06 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-12-06 17:01 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-12-09 20:28 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-10 01:27 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-12-10 21:01 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 08:50 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-10 09:23 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-12-10 12:26 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-10 20:55 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-12-10 22:02 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-11 08:33 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-11 22:26 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-12-11 22:40 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2024-12-11 23:34 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2024-12-12 19:15 +1100
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2024-12-12 11:46 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-12 08:27 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-12 09:38 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-12 22:24 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-12-13 20:07 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-13 22:05 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-12-14 15:20 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-14 22:26 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-12-16 23:03 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-17 02:39 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-12-18 21:19 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-12-18 22:16 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-12-18 22:25 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-12 08:39 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-12 22:31 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-13 10:38 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-13 07:42 -0800
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-14 01:35 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-12-14 20:16 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-15 12:43 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-12-15 21:25 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-16 08:16 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-16 19:51 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-17 08:34 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-17 19:44 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-12-17 17:27 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 07:55 -0800
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-16 20:15 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 12:44 -0800
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-12-16 23:07 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-17 02:37 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-17 08:35 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-17 19:45 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-17 19:48 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-17 20:45 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-17 22:00 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-12-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-12-17 17:28 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-14 10:05 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-12-13 11:42 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-12-13 20:15 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) - 2024-12-14 08:52 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-14 10:09 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-14 22:28 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-05 20:46 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) - 2024-12-14 08:48 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-14 10:06 +0000
macOS and UNIX conformance (was: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2024-12-16 14:05 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 08:38 +0000
Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-12-03 14:22 +0000
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjskak$1slm6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16764 |
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 08:34:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:51:36 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro > <ldo@nz.invalid> wibbled: > >>On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 08:16:28 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: >> >>> Far too many people think complicated = clever. >> >>You mean, clever like struggling with complicated workarounds to clunky, >>ancient init systems that don’t actually handle service management very >>well, when more modern ones solve long-standing problems in a much >>simpler and more elegant fashion? > > Sure, but we're talking about systemd. Why, what were you talking about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87ttb2i5iu.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #16757 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 08:16:28 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: >> Far too many people think complicated = clever. > > You mean, clever like struggling with complicated workarounds to clunky, > ancient init systems that don’t actually handle service management very > well, when more modern ones solve long-standing problems in a much simpler > and more elegant fashion? The systemd-252 codebase which is used for Debian 12 is composed of (sloccount) 690,648 lines of code. That's anything but simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-16 07:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20241216075519.00002023@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #16739 |
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 01:35:37 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > There was no reason why you had to. You could easily have created > your own distro without any of his code in it, if you wanted to. Or > become an aficionado of one of the existing distros that did exactly > that. Have done - been running Devuan since 2016. > Open Source is all about choice. If you can’t stand the thought of > people making different choices from you, you know what you can do. The fact that people are free to make stupid choices does not mean that other people aren't allowed to call out stupidity where they see it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-16 20:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjq1o6$19jdn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16756 |
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:55:19 -0800, John Ames wrote: > The fact that people are free to make stupid choices does not mean that > other people aren't allowed to call out stupidity where they see it. Notice that all the complaints seem to go in one direction, not the other? We only see systemd-haters complaining about those using it, you don’t see systemd users complaining about those who don’t?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-16 12:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20241216124455.00003dce@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #16758 |
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 20:15:02 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > Notice that all the complaints seem to go in one direction, not the > other? We only see systemd-haters complaining about those using it, > you don’t see systemd users complaining about those who don’t? That would likely be because systemd users are getting what they want, and aren't being pushed onto sysvinit by distro maintainers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-16 23:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvm1clp.adn.jj@iridium.wf32df> |
| In reply to | #16758 |
On 2024-12-16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:55:19 -0800, John Ames wrote: > >> The fact that people are free to make stupid choices does not mean that >> other people aren't allowed to call out stupidity where they see it. > > Notice that all the complaints seem to go in one direction, not the other? > We only see systemd-haters complaining about those using it, you don???t see > systemd users complaining about those who don???t? No. But I think some of us get a bit pissed at some people making out that previous inits were (almost) unworkable - which is palpably false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 02:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjqo54$1dk7j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16761 |
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:07:37 -0000 (UTC), Jim Jackson wrote: > ... I think some of us get a bit pissed at some people making out > that previous inits were (almost) unworkable - which is palpably false. Do you understand what a “strawman” argument is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 08:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjrd57$1lm98$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16762 |
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 02:37:24 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wibbled: >On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:07:37 -0000 (UTC), Jim Jackson wrote: > >> ... I think some of us get a bit pissed at some people making out >> that previous inits were (almost) unworkable - which is palpably false. > >Do you understand what a “strawman” argument is? Is it irony week again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 19:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjskc1$1slm6$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16765 |
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 08:35:51 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: > On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 02:37:24 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro > <ldo@nz.invalid> wibbled: > >>On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:07:37 -0000 (UTC), Jim Jackson wrote: >> >>> ... I think some of us get a bit pissed at some people making out that >>> previous inits were (almost) unworkable - which is palpably false. >> >>Do you understand what a “strawman” argument is? It’s when you try to tear down a false argument that the other side never made.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wwvmsgunl98.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #16761 |
Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:55:19 -0800, John Ames wrote: >>> The fact that people are free to make stupid choices does not mean >>> that other people aren't allowed to call out stupidity where they >>> see it. >> >> Notice that all the complaints seem to go in one direction, not the >> other? We only see systemd-haters complaining about those using it, >> you don???t see systemd users complaining about those who don???t? > > No. But I think some of us get a bit pissed at some people making out > that previous inits were (almost) unworkable - which is palpably false. ‘Unworkable’ may be an exaggeration, but the practical issues and functionality gaps were real; even if you didn’t personally experience them, other people did. I think there were at least ten different attempts to come up with something better in the free software world alone. Meanwhile the commercial Unixes largely got their act together long before Linux did. Whether systemd was the best possible design, or just the best option available, is another question, and perhaps more opinion-based. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjsnsr$1t88k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16770 |
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 19:48:51 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Whether systemd was the best possible design, or just the best option > available, is another question, and perhaps more opinion-based. There were, and are, other open-source choices available. Nobody is holding a gun to anybody’s head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjss9a$1rg8g$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #16771 |
In article <vjsnsr$1t88k$2@dont-email.me>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 19:48:51 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > >> Whether systemd was the best possible design, or just the best option >> available, is another question, and perhaps more opinion-based. > >There were, and are, other open-source choices available. Nobody is >holding a gun to anybodys head. As you well know, in a way, they are. In many circles, you can't get any support unless you are running the "approved" stuff, which means running systemd. Also, there are apps that depend on systemd, so if you want to run GreatNewApp_2.0, you need to adopt systemd. -- The only thing Trump's made great again is Saturday Night Live.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 20:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87ldwehvyk.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #16770 |
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes: >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:55:19 -0800, John Ames wrote: >>>> The fact that people are free to make stupid choices does not mean >>>> that other people aren't allowed to call out stupidity where they >>>> see it. >>> >>> Notice that all the complaints seem to go in one direction, not the >>> other? We only see systemd-haters complaining about those using it, >>> you don???t see systemd users complaining about those who don???t? >> >> No. But I think some of us get a bit pissed at some people making out >> that previous inits were (almost) unworkable - which is palpably false. > > ‘Unworkable’ may be an exaggeration, but the practical issues and > functionality gaps were real; even if you didn’t personally experience > them, other people did. I think there were at least ten different > attempts to come up with something better in the free software world > alone. Meanwhile the commercial Unixes largely got their act together > long before Linux did. Practical issue and functionality gaps and generally, a load of useless mess, were real in the rc systems mainstream Linux distributions had conventionally layered atop of sysvinit. These could have been addressed in a variety of ways but basically, nobody _working for RedHat_ ever tried until systemd. Then, RedHat drove the pretty much universal switch to it, just as it had already driven the switch to sysvinit and to glibc 2 (known as libc6 in Linuxland) before. > Whether systemd was the best possible design, or just the best option > available, or possibly neither of both. It was the RedHat option available and that's what caused its universal adoption (combined with an extremely aggressive and extremely unpleasant propaganda campaign by systemd fanbois --- but without RedHat, these wouldn't have accomplished anything). BTW, on of the first things I learnt about systemd after I had to support it was that it still uses pid files.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87pllqi5h2.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #16758 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:55:19 -0800, John Ames wrote: >> The fact that people are free to make stupid choices does not mean that >> other people aren't allowed to call out stupidity where they see it. > > Notice that all the complaints seem to go in one direction, not the other? > We only see systemd-haters complaining about those using it, you don’t see > systemd users complaining about those who don’t? Hmm ... what do you think you are doing here? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-14 10:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjjl8l$3urrp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16735 |
On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 07:42:07 -0800 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> gabbled: >On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 10:38:51 -0000 (UTC) >Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: > >> That other abortion poetrring wrote pulseaudio was shoved into every >> distro until people realised that all it did was remove the >> complexity of Alsa and add its own complexity in exchange. And being >> built on alsa it simply added another layer and hence delay into the >> sound system where you REALLY don't want delays. > >This bears repeating. Why *anybody* decided to trust the judgement of >the person who gave us the jankiest of all the incredibly janky *nix >audio subsystems is beyond comprehension. Agreed. On a side note, its a shame the original authors of X didn't decide to do sound too or at least provide an API that others could build extensions to use because by the time X - or at least X11 - was adopted unix had moved on from cabinet sized servers to desktop workstations where sound mattered. It seems odd to me that graphics and sound are still totally seperate on unix but perhaps my formative years on 8 bit home micros where graphics and sound came bundled skew my opinion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-13 11:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87y10jn71h.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #16726 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:39:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:26:56 -0000 (UTC) >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:33:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: >>> >>>> It doesn't need to , it can just spawn off a script or some other >>>> program which does that which is entirely inline with the unix >>>> philosophy. >>> >>> Which is where the trouble starts. >> >> The trouble is with any support scripts, not with init. I've written a >> number of init scripts with a lot of surrounding logic. > > I’m sure you have. Which means you are familiar with the wholesale copying > and pasting of boilerplate from one script to the next. “What does this > bit do?” “Don’t bother thinking too hard, just stick it in, just in > case.” Nobody but you can be familiar with what you are doing when being forced to write code. >> God knows how I'd do that with systemd ... > > Figure out what the directives do (they’re all documented), and which > settings will achieve the result you want. Most of the time, your service > file will be very simple and very short, since all the common cases are > already covered. > > “Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible.” > -- Alan Kay According to an automated count (mostly perl -ne 'print $_, "\n" for /\w+=/g') the current version of systemd supports about 320 directives and people still combine that with start scripts, be this because their use case still isn't supported or because they didn't want to be bothered with learning about all the details of this huge, rusted barbed wire obstacle just for solving a simple problem. The quote would thus more appropriate be: Make simple things hideously complicated and complicated things at all impossible. -- Lennart Poettering about "How to create problems for other people for one's own benefit." > He was talking about GUI design, but the same applies to systemd. And to a > lot of other popular *nix software, while we’re at it. > >>> Poettering understands that services don’t just to be started, they al >>> so need to be managed and shut down cleanly. >> >> Poettering created the wrong solution to the wrong problem. > > Lots of sysadmins, and distro maintainers, and developers of service apps, > disagree. Due to human nature, lots of people will always disagree with anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-13 20:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvlp5ek.29n.jj@iridium.wf32df> |
| In reply to | #16726 |
>> The trouble is with any support scripts, not with init. I've written a >> number of init scripts with a lot of surrounding logic. > > I???m sure you have. Which means you are familiar with the wholesale copying > and pasting of boilerplate from one script to the next. ???What does this > bit do???? ???Don???t bother thinking too hard, just stick it in, just in case.??? Ah describing bad programming practice. The same thing happens when people just cut and paste anything without knowing what they are doing. > >> God knows how I'd do that with systemd ... > > Figure out what the directives do (they???re all documented), and which > settings will achieve the result you want. Nah, as you say above just cut and paste and not think about any diffiicult bits you need to read up on :-) > Most of the time, your service > file will be very simple and very short, since all the common cases are > already covered. > >>> Poettering understands that services don???t just to be started, they al >>> so need to be managed and shut down cleanly. Actually a service should know how to shutdown itself cleanly and should document how that is achieved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-14 08:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2Hb7P.826$ZEZf.318@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #16645 |
In article <vit3dg$1quau$1@dont-email.me>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 08:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 02:11:04 -0000 (UTC) >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wibbled: >>> >>>On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 08:34:30 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: >>> >>>> Linux is far closer to the unix philosphy (ignoring systemd) ... >>> >>>Which “unix philosophy†would that be? >> >> The one where init does a single task instead of spreading itself >> throughout the system ... > > What “single task†did init do? > > * Mount filesystems > * Spawn syslog, cron > * Spawn terminal login processes (getty) > * Respawn terminated getty processes > * Monitor other special stuff in inittab > * Spawn random other services, without monitoring their state > * Act as a general catch-all for orphaned processes when they terminate > > This was all before systemd came on the scene. It spawned other processes, and where the idea of run levels existed, selected what to spawn based on those. It did not do tricky communication with processes, elaborately manipulate their initial environment, and except for adopting orphans and respawning processes, didn't do much at all to bother them during their lifespan unless the run level was changed. MacOS launchd is arguably even worse insofar as it also has things like Mach namespaces to deal with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-14 10:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjjlgc$3ut3u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16741 |
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:52:14 GMT rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) gabbled: >In article <vit3dg$1quau$1@dont-email.me>, >> This was all before systemd came on the scene. > >It spawned other processes, and where the idea of run levels existed, >selected what to spawn based on those. > >It did not do tricky communication with processes, elaborately >manipulate their initial environment, and except for adopting orphans Which to anyone except poettering and his fanboys its quite obvious it doesn't need to as a wrapper script can do that quite nicely. >MacOS launchd is arguably even worse insofar as it also has things like >Mach namespaces to deal with. And XML config. Ugh. Why people persist with the hideousness that is XML when the much clearer json is pretty much standard now beats the hell out of me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-14 22:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjl0qk$68i1$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16741 |
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:52:14 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > MacOS launchd is arguably even worse insofar as it also has things like > Mach namespaces to deal with. Linux has namespaces. Everything, just about, is isolatable in its own namespace: mounted filesystems, network interfaces, processes, user IDs, even the system time and hostname. Put them all together, and you get containers. And yes, launchd was an inspiration for systemd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.unix.programmer
csiph-web