Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux > #57453 > unrolled thread

Debian 10 "buster" released

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux

Contents

  Debian 10 "buster" released "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-07-07 07:02 -0500
    Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-07-07 07:27 -0700
      Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "Freenet" <pieer@free.fr> - 2019-07-07 09:36 -0500
      Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-07-07 07:50 -0700
    Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-07 12:43 -0600
      Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-07 19:53 +0100
        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-07 16:45 -0600
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-08 11:50 +0100
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2019-07-08 12:53 +0000
              Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-07-08 16:17 -0400
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2019-07-08 09:48 -0400
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-08 11:19 -0600
              Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-08 19:17 +0100
                Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-08 16:06 -0600
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2019-07-08 17:47 +0000
      Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-07-07 22:07 +0200
        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-07 21:21 +0100
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-07 16:50 -0600
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-08 11:54 +0100
              Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-08 11:21 -0600
        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-07 22:38 +0200
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-07-08 07:08 +0200
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2019-07-08 05:54 +0000
              Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-07-08 19:32 +0200
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-08 22:02 +0200
              Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-08 21:15 +0100
                Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-09 04:38 +0200
                  Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-09 08:41 +0100
                    Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-09 12:22 +0200
                      Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-09 12:06 +0100
                        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-09 13:11 +0200
                          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-09 12:13 +0100
                            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-09 12:19 +0100
                              Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-09 19:32 +0200
        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2019-07-07 23:53 +0200
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-07 16:51 -0600
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2019-07-08 01:56 +0200
              Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-08 11:22 -0600
                Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2019-07-08 20:58 +0200
                  Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-08 16:08 -0600
                Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2019-07-08 14:08 -0500
        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-07 16:48 -0600
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-08 11:52 +0100
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-08 11:27 -0600
              Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-08 19:19 +0100
                Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-08 16:11 -0600
        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-07-07 20:31 -0500
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-08 04:23 +0200
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-07-07 22:40 -0400
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-08 11:30 -0600
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-08 11:29 -0600
        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-08 14:12 +0100
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "Freenet" <pieer@free.fr> - 2019-07-08 09:05 -0500
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-07-08 15:02 +0000
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-08 16:13 +0100
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-08 11:33 -0600
      Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-07-08 11:05 -0700
        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-08 16:17 -0600
      Re: Debian 10 "buster" released William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2019-07-17 23:27 +0100
    Re: Debian 10 "buster" released William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2019-07-17 23:25 +0100
      Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-18 01:21 +0100
        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released John McCue <jmccue@jmclin1.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> - 2019-07-18 01:18 +0000
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-07-18 13:32 -0400
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2019-07-18 19:36 +0000
        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2019-07-18 10:52 +0100
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-18 15:59 +0100
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-07-18 13:36 -0400
              Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-18 19:00 +0100
                Re: Debian 10 "buster" released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-18 20:49 +0200
                Re: Debian 10 "buster" released Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-07-18 15:01 -0400
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2019-07-18 23:10 +0100
              Re: Debian 10 "buster" released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-19 09:08 +0100
          Re: Debian 10 "buster" released owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-07-18 15:59 +0000
            Re: Debian 10 "buster" released William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2019-07-18 23:09 +0100
        Re: Debian 10 "buster" released AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-07-18 15:47 -0600

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#57501

On Mon, 08 Jul 2019 11:22:42 -0600, AnonLinuxUser wrote:

> On 7/7/2019 5:56 PM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> writes:
>> 
>>> On 7/7/2019 3:53 PM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>>>> "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those breaks the
>>>>> Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really well.
>>>>
>>>> I keep hearing this thing. Why is not everyone mad at Linus also: we
>>>> should have a micro-kernel.
>>>>
>>>> O wait, no: every attempt resulted in failure,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't macOS a micro-kernel.  If so, I can hardly say it is a failure.
>>> Only from a sales approach tho.
>> 
>> No, that is a hybrid kernel.
>> 
> 
> I would like to know the differences.  Always learning something new, 
> and it is fun to know.

The Duck is your friend but here is a summary...

Monolithic kernel: Runs every system service in kernel space in
a layered fashion.

Microkernel: Runs basic process communication and I/O control in
kernel space.  All other system services reside in user space.

Hybrid: They have the ability to pick and choose what they want
to run in user space and what they want to run in kernel space.

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57465

On 7/7/2019 2:07 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
> 
>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
> 
> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those breaks the 
> Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really well.
> 
> A big issue with systemd as it incorporates so many things, it's the 
> init system which most frequently has major security issues.
> 
> 
>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
> 
> Other init systems have had management features as restart of service 
> when it's died, but this causes a problem, there is a reason why it 
> dies, the reason why it dies should be investigated and fixed, not just 
> automatically restart it, as it will die soon again.
> 

Which is why Linux moved over to systemd.

Apple, a long time ago moved over to this method as well, but it is 
called launchd.

init will start processes, but it usually will just walk away.

I guess that's one of many reasons that you don't see UNIX being sold 
anymove, other than the now macOS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57477

On 07/07/2019 23:48, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
> On 7/7/2019 2:07 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>
>>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
>>
>> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those breaks the 
>> Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really well.
>>
>> A big issue with systemd as it incorporates so many things, it's the 
>> init system which most frequently has major security issues.
>>
>>
>>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
>>
>> Other init systems have had management features as restart of service 
>> when it's died, but this causes a problem, there is a reason why it 
>> dies, the reason why it dies should be investigated and fixed, not 
>> just automatically restart it, as it will die soon again.
>>
> 
> Which is why Linux moved over to systemd.
> 
> Apple, a long time ago moved over to this method as well, but it is 
> called launchd.
> 
> init will start processes, but it usually will just walk away.
> 
> I guess that's one of many reasons that you don't see UNIX being sold 
> anymove, other than the now macOS.
> 
> 
Once again your ignorance is on display.

UNIX is not being sold, because it costs money to license. Linux and BSD 
do not.

That is why e.g. IBM threw money into Linux. Rather than Ultrix.




-- 
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is 
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57490

On 7/8/2019 4:52 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 07/07/2019 23:48, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>> On 7/7/2019 2:07 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>>
>>>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
>>>
>>> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those breaks 
>>> the Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really well.
>>>
>>> A big issue with systemd as it incorporates so many things, it's the 
>>> init system which most frequently has major security issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
>>>
>>> Other init systems have had management features as restart of service 
>>> when it's died, but this causes a problem, there is a reason why it 
>>> dies, the reason why it dies should be investigated and fixed, not 
>>> just automatically restart it, as it will die soon again.
>>>
>>
>> Which is why Linux moved over to systemd.
>>
>> Apple, a long time ago moved over to this method as well, but it is 
>> called launchd.
>>
>> init will start processes, but it usually will just walk away.
>>
>> I guess that's one of many reasons that you don't see UNIX being sold 
>> anymove, other than the now macOS.
>>
>>
> Once again your ignorance is on display.
> 
> UNIX is not being sold, because it costs money to license. Linux and BSD 
> do not.
> 

Neither does macOS.

The real reason was historical way of doing business.  Those days are 
long gone.  It was the good-ol-boy club that sucked off of the profits 
of licensing UNIX and the very expensive hardware the it ran on.  Those 
days are long gone.  That's why the UNIX vendors except Solaris and 
Apple are out of business.  Solaris is now free, with a few strings 
attached.

> That is why e.g. IBM threw money into Linux. Rather than Ultrix.
> 

Talk about ignorance?  Ultrix is a DEC product from ages past.
IBM is AIX.  And they can't squeeze anyone for money from it anymore.



Pot calling the kettle black.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57499

On 08/07/2019 18:27, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
> On 7/8/2019 4:52 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 07/07/2019 23:48, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2019 2:07 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
>>>>
>>>> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those breaks 
>>>> the Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really well.
>>>>
>>>> A big issue with systemd as it incorporates so many things, it's the 
>>>> init system which most frequently has major security issues.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
>>>>
>>>> Other init systems have had management features as restart of 
>>>> service when it's died, but this causes a problem, there is a reason 
>>>> why it dies, the reason why it dies should be investigated and 
>>>> fixed, not just automatically restart it, as it will die soon again.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is why Linux moved over to systemd.
>>>
>>> Apple, a long time ago moved over to this method as well, but it is 
>>> called launchd.
>>>
>>> init will start processes, but it usually will just walk away.
>>>
>>> I guess that's one of many reasons that you don't see UNIX being sold 
>>> anymove, other than the now macOS.
>>>
>>>
>> Once again your ignorance is on display.
>>
>> UNIX is not being sold, because it costs money to license. Linux and 
>> BSD do not.
>>
> 
> Neither does macOS.

Mac os does cost money to license from apple. It is based on free BSD,


Your ignorance astounds

> 
> The real reason was historical way of doing business.  Those days are 
> long gone.  It was the good-ol-boy club that sucked off of the profits 
> of licensing UNIX and the very expensive hardware the it ran on.  Those 
> days are long gone.  That's why the UNIX vendors except Solaris and 
> Apple are out of business.  Solaris is now free, with a few strings 
> attached.

Sheesh

Whoosh

*plonk*



-- 
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and 
all women"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57507

On 7/8/2019 12:19 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/07/2019 18:27, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>> On 7/8/2019 4:52 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2019 23:48, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/2019 2:07 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those breaks 
>>>>> the Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really 
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> A big issue with systemd as it incorporates so many things, it's 
>>>>> the init system which most frequently has major security issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other init systems have had management features as restart of 
>>>>> service when it's died, but this causes a problem, there is a 
>>>>> reason why it dies, the reason why it dies should be investigated 
>>>>> and fixed, not just automatically restart it, as it will die soon 
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is why Linux moved over to systemd.
>>>>
>>>> Apple, a long time ago moved over to this method as well, but it is 
>>>> called launchd.
>>>>
>>>> init will start processes, but it usually will just walk away.
>>>>
>>>> I guess that's one of many reasons that you don't see UNIX being 
>>>> sold anymove, other than the now macOS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Once again your ignorance is on display.
>>>
>>> UNIX is not being sold, because it costs money to license. Linux and 
>>> BSD do not.
>>>
>>
>> Neither does macOS.
> 
> Mac os does cost money to license from apple. It is based on free BSD,
> 
> 
> Your ignorance astounds
> 

Then why don't I have to pay a license fee for macOS then?
It was always an annual fee for the old vendors.

>>
>> The real reason was historical way of doing business.  Those days are 
>> long gone.  It was the good-ol-boy club that sucked off of the profits 
>> of licensing UNIX and the very expensive hardware the it ran on.  
>> Those days are long gone.  That's why the UNIX vendors except Solaris 
>> and Apple are out of business.  Solaris is now free, with a few 
>> strings attached.
> 
> Sheesh
> 
> Whoosh
> 
> *plonk*
> 

Too many facts for you?
Doesn't surprise me that you finally ran.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57470

> 
> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
> 
> 
>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
> 
> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those breaks 
the Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really 
well.
> 
> A big issue with systemd as it incorporates so many things, it's 
the init system which most frequently has major security issues.
> 
> 
> 
>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
> 
> Other init systems have had management features as restart of 
service when it's died, but this causes a problem, there is a reason 
why it dies, the reason why it dies should be investigated and 
fixed, not just automatically restart it, as it will die soon again.

  I am mainly a Windows user.  There is no auto restart in Windows.  
I have a simple program I wrote that keeps track of critical 
programs and notifies me if they should terminate.  I would never 
consider allowing Windows to take care of just restarting processes 
again for me.  I do not see auto restart as a viable argument for 
having systemd.  I believe that systemd was developed so that Red 
Hat could take control of the Linux platform.  You can argue that 
there are other platforms, but when Red Hat makes new developments, 
they will most likely be tied to systemd, thereby pushing out other 
platforms.  I believe that systemd is a continuous disaster in the 
making.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57471

On 08/07/2019 03.31, Anonymous wrote:
>>
>> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
>>
>> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those breaks 
> the Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really 
> well.
>>
>> A big issue with systemd as it incorporates so many things, it's 
> the init system which most frequently has major security issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
>>
>> Other init systems have had management features as restart of 
> service when it's died, but this causes a problem, there is a reason 
> why it dies, the reason why it dies should be investigated and 
> fixed, not just automatically restart it, as it will die soon again.
> 
>   I am mainly a Windows user.  There is no auto restart in Windows.  
> I have a simple program I wrote that keeps track of critical 
> programs and notifies me if they should terminate.  I would never 
> consider allowing Windows to take care of just restarting processes 
> again for me.  I do not see auto restart as a viable argument for 
> having systemd.

But many of us do.

>  I believe that systemd was developed so that Red 
> Hat could take control of the Linux platform.  You can argue that 
> there are other platforms, but when Red Hat makes new developments, 
> they will most likely be tied to systemd, thereby pushing out other 
> platforms.  I believe that systemd is a continuous disaster in the 
> making.

LOL

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57472

Anonymous wrote:
>> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>
<snip>
> 
>   I am mainly a Windows user.  There is no auto restart in Windows.  

https://i.postimg.cc/59CRkzrw/windows-services.gif

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57492

On 7/7/2019 8:40 PM, Paul wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>>
> <snip>
>>
>>   I am mainly a Windows user.  There is no auto restart in Windows. 
> 
> https://i.postimg.cc/59CRkzrw/windows-services.gif
> 
>     Paul

Yep.  That's close to what I have experienced as well.
Systems management used to be done by an administrator, but these days 
it has become more automated and obvious.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57491

On 7/7/2019 7:31 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>
>> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
>>
>> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those breaks
> the Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really
> well.
>>
>> A big issue with systemd as it incorporates so many things, it's
> the init system which most frequently has major security issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
>>
>> Other init systems have had management features as restart of
> service when it's died, but this causes a problem, there is a reason
> why it dies, the reason why it dies should be investigated and
> fixed, not just automatically restart it, as it will die soon again.
> 
>    I am mainly a Windows user.  There is no auto restart in Windows.
> I have a simple program I wrote that keeps track of critical
> programs and notifies me if they should terminate.  I would never
> consider allowing Windows to take care of just restarting processes
> again for me.  I do not see auto restart as a viable argument for
> having systemd.  I believe that systemd was developed so that Red
> Hat could take control of the Linux platform.  You can argue that
> there are other platforms, but when Red Hat makes new developments,
> they will most likely be tied to systemd, thereby pushing out other
> platforms.  I believe that systemd is a continuous disaster in the
> making.
> 

Some services in windows, if you stop them from task manager, will 
restart automatically.  Other services are optional.
Anyone that has a better idea, then let the author know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57480

"J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> writes:
> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
>
> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those breaks the
> Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really well.
>
> A big issue with systemd as it incorporates so many things, it's the
> init system which most frequently has major security issues.
>
>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
>
> Other init systems have had management features as restart of service
> when it's died,

So did traditional init; see the ‘respawn’ option. As far as I know this
never generated any complaints.

The thing that didn’t support automatic restart was the scripting
commonly used on top of it it (/etc/rc*.d and so on).

> but this causes a problem, there is a reason why it dies, the reason
> why it dies should be investigated and fixed, not just automatically
> restart it, as it will die soon again.

In the case of getty, the service terminated when someone logged
out. Manual restart wouldn’t be very suitable in that case.

In other cases, personally I’d rather not have availability contingent
on finding and deploying a fix to whatever the underlying issue
was.

Still, apart from the /etc/rc*.d design, most init systems let operators
make their own decision.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57482

> 
> "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> writes:
> 
>> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
>>
>> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those 
breaks the
>> Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really 
well.
>>
>> A big issue with systemd as it incorporates so many things, it's 
the
>> init system which most frequently has major security issues.
>>
>>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
>>
>> Other init systems have had management features as restart of 
service
>> when it's died,
> 
> So did traditional init; see the ā??respawnā?? option. As far as I 
know this
> never generated any complaints.
> 
> The thing that didnā??t support automatic restart was the scripting
> commonly used on top of it it (/etc/rc*.d and so on).
> 
> 
>> but this causes a problem, there is a reason why it dies, the 
reason
>> why it dies should be investigated and fixed, not just 
automatically
>> restart it, as it will die soon again.
> 
> In the case of getty, the service terminated when someone logged
> out. Manual restart wouldnā??t be very suitable in that case.
> 
> In other cases, personally Iā??d rather not have availability 
contingent
> on finding and deploying a fix to whatever the underlying issue
> was.
> 
> Still, apart from the /etc/rc*.d design, most init systems let 
operators
> make their own decision.

  This is what is continuously going on in the Windows 10 hell.  I 
am afraid that systemd is going to end up here also, if not already 
there.

Microsoft Issues Warning For 50M Windows 10 Users

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/07/06/microsoft-
windows-10-upgrade-vpn-warning-upgrade-windows/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57484

On Mon, 08 Jul 2019 14:12:07 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

>>
>> Other init systems have had management features as restart of service
>> when it's died,
> 
> So did traditional init; see the ‘respawn’ option. As far as I know this
> never generated any complaints.
> 

Services?  Restart?  Management?  What the heck is going on?

On a single-user, desktop workstation (a very common scenario), neither
systemd nor sysvinit nor anything else is necessary.  The user can easily
manage his own "services."

The problem is that no Linux distro has yet been built to accommodate
an "init-less" envoronment.

My personal Linux system uses NO init system and it functions more
efficiently than any standard distro.  I could easily start an "init-less"
Linux distro by publishing my basic methodology but I've got better
things to do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57485

"F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> writes:
> My personal Linux system uses NO init system and it functions more
> efficiently than any standard distro.  I could easily start an
> "init-less" Linux distro by publishing my basic methodology but I've
> got better things to do.

Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet!

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57494

On 7/8/2019 7:12 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> writes:
>> On 07/07/2019 20.43, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
>>
>> It's not an init system anymore, it does far more and those breaks the
>> Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and then do it really well.
>>
>> A big issue with systemd as it incorporates so many things, it's the
>> init system which most frequently has major security issues.
>>
>>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
>>
>> Other init systems have had management features as restart of service
>> when it's died,
> 
> So did traditional init; see the ‘respawn’ option. As far as I know this
> never generated any complaints.
> 
> The thing that didn’t support automatic restart was the scripting
> commonly used on top of it it (/etc/rc*.d and so on).
> 
>> but this causes a problem, there is a reason why it dies, the reason
>> why it dies should be investigated and fixed, not just automatically
>> restart it, as it will die soon again.
> 
> In the case of getty, the service terminated when someone logged
> out. Manual restart wouldn’t be very suitable in that case.
> 
> In other cases, personally I’d rather not have availability contingent
> on finding and deploying a fix to whatever the underlying issue
> was.
> 
> Still, apart from the /etc/rc*.d design, most init systems let operators
> make their own decision.
> 

But you are talking about the good-ol-days when you had an systems 
manager doing this.  There is no reason not to automate this.
Apple had launchd for the masses so that they don't need a systems 
manager.  You won't find /etc/rc*.d in their version of UNIX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57497

On 7/7/19 11:43 AM, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
> On 7/7/2019 6:02 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>> With systemd.  I HATE SYSYEMD!!!
>>
>> https://www.debian.org/News/2019/20190706
>>
> 
> 
> You'd be dumb not to use systemd.
> 
> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
> You have to know the history of UNIX first to realize that back then the
> connection to other computers were done by phone modem... lose the 
> connection and you have to restart the connection.  On the internet it 
> is a different story all together.
> 
	Analog modems have not been totally abandoned and if you
are smart enough you don't even have to use systemd with Debian.
	
	bliss - who uses PCLinuxOS 64 with no systemd at all.

-- 
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57508

On 7/8/2019 12:05 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 7/7/19 11:43 AM, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>> On 7/7/2019 6:02 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> With systemd.  I HATE SYSYEMD!!!
>>>
>>> https://www.debian.org/News/2019/20190706
>>>
>>
>>
>> You'd be dumb not to use systemd.
>>
>> Systemd was designed to take care of the deficiencies in init.
>> Init just started processes but never managed those processes.
>> You have to know the history of UNIX first to realize that back then the
>> connection to other computers were done by phone modem... lose the 
>> connection and you have to restart the connection.  On the internet it 
>> is a different story all together.
>>
>      Analog modems have not been totally abandoned and if you
> are smart enough you don't even have to use systemd with Debian.
> 
>      bliss - who uses PCLinuxOS 64 with no systemd at all.
> 

Eventually, something will go wrong... Murphy's Law.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57692

On Sun, 07 Jul 2019 12:43:50 -0600, AnonLinuxUser wrote:

Another troll:
User-Agent:    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57691

On Sun, 07 Jul 2019 07:02:42 -0500, Anonymous wrote:

> With systemd.  I HATE SYSYEMD!!!
> 
*YAWN* Troll bait

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux

csiph-web