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

#57462

On 07/07/2019 22.07, 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.

Per program. systemd is not a single program, it is many. Thus it does
not break that philosophy :-P

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#57473

On 07/07/2019 22.38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 07/07/2019 22.07, 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.
> 
> Per program. systemd is not a single program, it is many. Thus it does
> not break that philosophy :-P

You can't replace one part of systemd with another program, this breaks 
the next Unix philosophy.

-- 

  //Aho

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

#57475

On 2019-07-08, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
> On 07/07/2019 22.38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 07/07/2019 22.07, 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.
>> 
>> Per program. systemd is not a single program, it is many. Thus it does
>> not break that philosophy :-P
>
> You can't replace one part of systemd with another program, this breaks 
> the next Unix philosophy.

a) That philosphy is long gone anyway. See gimp, libreoffice,
 the kernel, or even find. 
b) You can replace the various files in systemd with others. Certainly
the core of systemd is one object, but then so was the core or sysvinit. 
I am not a great fan of systemd -- too much obscurity-- but this appeal
to a long gone "Unix philosophy" (which was at best a goal rather than a
philosophy and certainly never a rule) seems to me to be largely irrelevant. 

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

#57493

On 08/07/2019 07.54, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2019-07-08, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
>> On 07/07/2019 22.38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2019 22.07, 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.
>>>
>>> Per program. systemd is not a single program, it is many. Thus it does
>>> not break that philosophy :-P
>>
>> You can't replace one part of systemd with another program, this breaks
>> the next Unix philosophy.
> 
> a) That philosphy is long gone anyway. See gimp, libreoffice,

It's quite lucky for us that neither of them are needed for booting up a 
Linux kernel.


>   the kernel, or even find.

Sure there are parts that shouldn't have been incorporated into the 
kernel, but that is the best we have until Gnu/Hurd has matured so that 
we can use it.

Find do just one thing, find data in the directory tree, sore it has the 
exec option, but it calls external commands to do the things instead of 
doing it by itself.


> b) You can replace the various files in systemd with others.

The other files are libraries which the systemd does depend on, if you 
replace the library with something else, it still have to be an library 
that provides everything that systemd uses, not the same thing as 
replacing sendmail with postfix.


> Certainly
> the core of systemd is one object, but then so was the core or sysvinit.

sysvinit allowed you to change things in a simple way, you could even 
replace the whole sysvinit without breaking, now systemd requires a 
special kernel to even start.


> this appeal
> to a long gone "Unix philosophy" seems to me to be largely irrelevant.

If you would follow the Unix philosophy, you will have a lot easier to 
maintain software, as the complexity would be less which tends to lead 
to less security vulnerabilities and systemd is a good candidate to show 
why you shouldn't make things more complex.


-- 

  //Aho

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

#57502

On 08/07/2019 07.08, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 07/07/2019 22.38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 07/07/2019 22.07, 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.
>>
>> Per program. systemd is not a single program, it is many. Thus it does
>> not break that philosophy :-P
> 
> You can't replace one part of systemd with another program, this breaks
> the next Unix philosophy.

Actually, I can and I did.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#57503

On 08/07/2019 21:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 08/07/2019 07.08, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> On 07/07/2019 22.38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2019 22.07, 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.
>>>
>>> Per program. systemd is not a single program, it is many. Thus it does
>>> not break that philosophy :-P
>>
>> You can't replace one part of systemd with another program, this breaks
>> the next Unix philosophy.
> 
> Actually, I can and I did.
> 
Ah but that is very *immoral* of you

In todays post modern progressive socialist virtue signalling 
politically correct world, the truth is what people believe it is, and 
what you do and its result doesnt count: Only why you did it.

Our (UK) own late Glorious Leader who went to war in Iraq on a 
deliberately falsified dossier, after the person who tried to say that 
died mysteriously,  and caused the probably needless death of thousands, 
claimed that 'he thought it was the right thing to do'

And therefore was blameless.

Celebrities fly from one beach side residence to one conference after 
another ignoring alleged sea level rise and carbon dioxide emissions 
from their rich self indulgent lifestyles, and justify it by imposing 
windmills on the flyover states, taxes on those who cant afford it, to 
show they 'care about the environment and climate change'

Man, its all about appearances. There is no substance any more.


-- 
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper 
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating 
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its 
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of 
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must 
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

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

#57509

On 08/07/2019 22.15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/07/2019 21:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 08/07/2019 07.08, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2019 22.38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 07/07/2019 22.07, 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.
>>>>
>>>> Per program. systemd is not a single program, it is many. Thus it does
>>>> not break that philosophy :-P
>>>
>>> You can't replace one part of systemd with another program, this breaks
>>> the next Unix philosophy.
>>
>> Actually, I can and I did.
>>
> Ah but that is very *immoral* of you

I don't see why.

> 
> In todays post modern progressive socialist virtue signalling
> politically correct world, the truth is what people believe it is, and
> what you do and its result doesnt count: Only why you did it.

What the heck has politics have to do with what I do with my computer
programs?

That's daft.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#57510

On 09/07/2019 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> What the heck has politics have to do with what I do with my computer
> programs?

a huge amount.

think kiddy porn, hate speech online, who is selling what to you and why..



-- 
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as 
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

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

#57511

On 09/07/2019 09.41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/07/2019 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> What the heck has politics have to do with what I do with my computer
>> programs?
> 
> a huge amount.
> 
> think kiddy porn, hate speech online, who is selling what to you and why..

None of that will stop me from using systemd profitably.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#57512

On 09/07/2019 11:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 09/07/2019 09.41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 09/07/2019 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> What the heck has politics have to do with what I do with my computer
>>> programs?
>>
>> a huge amount.
>>
>> think kiddy porn, hate speech online, who is selling what to you and why..
> 
> None of that will stop me from using systemd profitably.
> 
> 
What has that got to do with 'what I do with my computer programs?'


-- 
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah 
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

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

#57513

On 09/07/2019 13.06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/07/2019 11:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 09/07/2019 09.41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2019 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> What the heck has politics have to do with what I do with my computer
>>>> programs?
>>>
>>> a huge amount.
>>>
>>> think kiddy porn, hate speech online, who is selling what to you and
>>> why..
>>
>> None of that will stop me from using systemd profitably.
>>
>>
> What has that got to do with 'what I do with my computer programs?'
> 
> 
I was thinking of systemd at that post.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#57514

On 09/07/2019 12:11, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 09/07/2019 13.06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 09/07/2019 11:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2019 09.41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/2019 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> What the heck has politics have to do with what I do with my computer
>>>>> programs?
>>>>
>>>> a huge amount.
>>>>
>>>> think kiddy porn, hate speech online, who is selling what to you and
>>>> why..
>>>
>>> None of that will stop me from using systemd profitably.
>>>
>>>
>> What has that got to do with 'what I do with my computer programs?'
>>
>>
> I was thinking of systemd at that post.
> 
And I am not telepathic

-- 
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the 
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

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

#57515

On 09/07/2019 12:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/07/2019 12:11, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 09/07/2019 13.06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2019 11:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/2019 09.41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 09/07/2019 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> What the heck has politics have to do with what I do with my computer
>>>>>> programs?
>>>>>
>>>>> a huge amount.
>>>>>
>>>>> think kiddy porn, hate speech online, who is selling what to you and
>>>>> why..
>>>>
>>>> None of that will stop me from using systemd profitably.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What has that got to do with 'what I do with my computer programs?'
>>>
>>>
>> I was thinking of systemd at that post.
>>
> And I am not telepathic
> 
But really I was poking fun at the posters who advocate systemd not for 
pragmatic, but for idealistic reasons. Just like politics prefers to 
virtue signal its ethical and honorable intentions rather than actually 
really address serious issues in a pragmatic manner and achive positive 
results.

We call people like this 'snowflakes'

Thus choosing systemd, for these people is not an engineering or a 
pragmatic choice, but a *political* one, because it's 'modern' and 
'progressive' which is how they like to present themselves, having no 
other substance to recommend them.



-- 
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the 
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

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

#57581

On 09/07/2019 13.19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/07/2019 12:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 09/07/2019 12:11, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2019 13.06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/2019 11:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 09/07/2019 09.41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/07/2019 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>> What the heck has politics have to do with what I do with my
>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>> programs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a huge amount.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> think kiddy porn, hate speech online, who is selling what to you and
>>>>>> why..
>>>>>
>>>>> None of that will stop me from using systemd profitably.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What has that got to do with 'what I do with my computer programs?'
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I was thinking of systemd at that post.
>>>
>> And I am not telepathic

We were talking systemd since early on the thread... again :-(


> But really I was poking fun at the posters who advocate systemd not for
> pragmatic, but for idealistic reasons. Just like politics prefers to
> virtue signal its ethical and honorable intentions rather than actually
> really address serious issues in a pragmatic manner and achive positive
> results.

Ok... :-)

> 
> We call people like this 'snowflakes'
> 
> Thus choosing systemd, for these people is not an engineering or a
> pragmatic choice, but a *political* one, because it's 'modern' and
> 'progressive' which is how they like to present themselves, having no
> other substance to recommend them.

Being against systemd can also be a political stance as well, not
pragmatic. It simply works for me, the distribution I use selected it,
I'm not going to do the effort of not using it. I don't see any real
reason for me not using it.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#57463

"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,

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

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

#57467

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.

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

#57469

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.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

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

#57489

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.

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

#57500

AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> writes:

> 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.

It is a combination of monolith and micro kernel. Trying to get the
best of both worlds.


By the way I am not sure it is still a hybrid, it is possible that
they went back to monolith. I am not an expert on Mac.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

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

#57506

On 7/8/2019 12:58 PM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> writes:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> It is a combination of monolith and micro kernel. Trying to get the
> best of both worlds.
> 
> 
> By the way I am not sure it is still a hybrid, it is possible that
> they went back to monolith. I am not an expert on Mac.
> 

heh, I'm still learning as much as I can.
Problem I find is that Apple keeps changing things in the os.  Find an 
updated PDF file to read is almost impossible.

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

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

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

csiph-web