Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #11889 > unrolled thread
| Started by | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-09-02 23:35 +0000 |
| Last post | 2014-09-06 22:43 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 181 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-02 23:35 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-09-02 20:47 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Andreas Kohlbach <sep14.5.ankman@spamgourmet.com> - 2014-09-03 18:20 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-03 23:40 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2014-09-03 18:44 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? zeeb <zeeb@zeeb.zeeb> - 2014-09-10 23:16 -0500
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2014-09-11 12:50 +0800
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-07 23:06 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-09-07 20:51 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? "Charles T. Smith" <cts.private.yahoo@gmail.com> - 2014-10-28 16:35 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-10-28 16:48 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-10-28 14:18 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-10-28 22:00 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2014-10-28 18:53 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-10-29 09:03 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2014-10-29 17:32 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? "Charles T. Smith" <cts.private.yahoo@gmail.com> - 2014-11-01 09:17 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2014-11-01 08:07 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-11-02 04:58 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-11-02 06:59 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-11-02 09:57 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Clark Smith <noaddress@nowhere.net> - 2014-11-02 14:40 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-11-02 16:28 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2014-11-02 07:27 -0800
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2014-11-01 11:51 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-11-01 21:46 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2014-11-01 18:24 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-11-01 15:30 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2014-11-01 12:45 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Michael Baeuerle <michael.baeuerle@gmx.net> - 2014-11-02 17:08 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2014-11-02 15:59 -0500
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2014-11-02 22:22 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-11-01 20:13 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-11-02 04:58 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-10-28 14:15 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Michael Baeuerle <michael.baeuerle@gmx.net> - 2014-10-28 21:02 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2014-09-02 20:58 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2014-09-03 03:12 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-07 23:10 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 07:00 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-09-08 10:51 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2014-09-08 15:11 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-09-08 17:53 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-08 17:26 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Vilmos Soti <vilmos@soti.ca> - 2014-09-08 09:36 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-08 17:42 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 17:52 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-08 18:29 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 18:52 +0100
Re: Spam (thread drift) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-08 18:58 +0100
Re: Spam (thread drift) Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 19:10 +0100
Re: Spam (thread drift) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-08 19:18 +0100
Re: Spam (thread drift) Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-09-08 22:01 +0200
Re: Spam (thread drift) Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 21:23 +0100
Re: Spam (thread drift) Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-09-09 08:58 +0200
Re: Spam (thread drift) Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-09 09:58 +0100
Re: Spam (thread drift) Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-09-09 11:12 +0200
Re: Spam (thread drift) Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-09 11:14 +0100
Re: Spam (thread drift) Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-09 11:16 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-09-08 21:59 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 17:30 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2014-09-08 16:32 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-09-08 13:31 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 17:28 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-08 17:40 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-09-08 13:41 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 19:05 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-09-08 14:57 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 21:21 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-09-08 17:59 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-09 07:25 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2014-09-08 15:29 -0500
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 22:47 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-08 23:20 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? John McCue <jmccue@jmclin0.bstnma.east.verizon.net> - 2014-09-09 00:37 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-09 07:27 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-09 10:19 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-09-09 09:25 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Balwinder S Dheeman <bdheeman.SANSPAM@outlook.com> - 2014-09-09 17:00 +0530
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-09 23:11 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-09 01:49 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-09 04:03 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2014-09-09 12:37 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-09 13:03 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-09 13:13 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-09-09 14:49 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-09 23:17 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-09 23:45 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-09 23:14 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-09 07:29 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2014-09-09 08:11 -0500
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-09 15:03 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2014-09-03 01:52 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-03 03:23 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-09-02 22:10 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-07 23:12 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-08 00:51 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-09-07 18:50 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-09-08 08:00 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> - 2014-09-07 23:08 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 10:09 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-08 10:57 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-08 03:57 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-08 07:02 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-09-08 10:48 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-08 23:32 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2014-09-08 19:58 -0500
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2014-09-09 04:04 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? "J@J.J" <j@j.j> - 2014-09-10 15:17 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? John McCue <jmccue@jmclin0.bstnma.east.verizon.net> - 2014-09-11 02:02 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-09-10 19:20 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-11 08:27 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Stef <not@this.address.com> - 2014-09-03 04:52 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-03 08:43 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Stef <not@this.address.com> - 2014-09-03 14:40 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Andreas Kohlbach <sep14.5.ankman@spamgourmet.com> - 2014-09-03 18:26 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-09-04 08:01 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-04 08:28 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-09-04 10:14 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-09-04 11:02 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2014-09-04 09:33 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-04 11:16 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-04 11:13 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-04 11:03 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-09-04 14:22 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-04 15:06 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-09-04 12:26 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-04 15:09 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2014-09-05 13:15 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-05 15:16 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-09-04 10:10 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-09-04 14:15 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-04 15:03 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Benjamin Rochefort <ben@benwen.info> - 2014-09-04 20:23 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-09-05 06:41 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2014-09-05 13:23 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2014-09-05 13:47 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-05 15:26 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-05 15:17 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2014-09-05 20:51 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-05 22:57 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2014-09-05 22:03 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-05 23:25 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2014-09-06 01:52 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-06 07:49 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-06 13:11 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2014-09-06 15:09 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-09-06 12:06 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-06 01:44 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-05 18:17 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2014-09-08 13:47 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2014-09-08 09:15 -0500
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-09-04 12:24 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-09-04 07:53 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2014-09-08 14:40 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-04 10:56 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-09-04 12:25 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-04 13:03 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-09-04 21:56 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-09-04 14:30 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Stef <not@this.address.com> - 2014-09-04 15:42 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-04 17:19 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-04 22:35 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Stef <not@this.address.com> - 2014-09-05 06:14 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Balwinder S Dheeman <bdheeman.SANSPAM@outlook.com> - 2014-09-03 23:42 +0530
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-03 19:58 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-09-03 20:36 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-03 21:40 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2014-09-05 09:15 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-05 17:44 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-09-05 13:18 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2014-09-05 20:57 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-06 01:53 +0000
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-09-06 05:55 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-09-06 07:53 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-09-06 10:49 +0200
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2014-09-06 09:45 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-09-06 11:59 -0700
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-06 21:29 +0100
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Baho Uttot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2014-09-07 07:04 -0400
Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-09-06 22:43 +0200
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 17:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3721eb-n68.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12021 |
On 08/09/14 16:53, Aragorn wrote: > pulseaudio is also a creation of Poettering. That explains a lot. Broken crap released before its time - had to chuck it off my machine on more than one occasion to get sound working (with ALSA). > GNOME and GDM > are also being developed at RedHat, and Poettering is also on that team. I find GDM OK. So it's not all bad... > Are we seeing a pattern yet? ;-) > > "I am Poettering of RedHat. Resistance is futile. You will be > assimilated." >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | notbob <notbob@nothome.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c76408FmgtU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12021 |
On 2014-09-08, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: > > Are we seeing a pattern yet? ;-) We've seen it for a long time. I'm no code boy or dev, by a long shot, but I try and keep up with developements. The last time I heard this kinda row, it was over the Linux kernel being tweaked toward server duty, as opposed to desktop duty. As usual, big money won. What I see is longtime slide of "personal computers" into corporate control. The corporations are going to do whatever they can to relieve the user of any autonomy over their own hardware. This has been going on since PC-DOS and it's the reason I changed to Linux. Now, the megacorps are trying to gain control over Linux computers. If they succeed, I'll dump Linux as fast as I did Windows. nb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 13:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lukp5h$or$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12020 |
notbob <notbob@nothome.com> writes: > On 2014-09-08, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > >> I suggest you keep in mind that the posters so far are >> displaying a lot of ignorance and no better alternatives. > > My take on it is, sure there's a lotta ignorance. No doubt due to the > lack of good documentation on systemd. That and the pro-systemd > advocates not explaining anything. I recently asked a pro-sysd person > a very specific and simple question. As usual, I was not given an > understandable answer. This lack of documentation and transparency is > one of the main concerns of the anti-sysd faction. But, the sysd devs > are more concerned about what they are doing than they are about > explaining what/why they are doing it. > > I thought Linux was supposed to be a community supported/driven OS, > with everyone contributing what they can. I don't see the systemd ppl > wanting any part of the overall community, but rather deciding they > know what is best for the entire community. I certainly don't feel a > part of their community. :( You are imputing motive when you have no basis for your conclusions. Unless there is one systemd developer, a community produced the product and another community decided it is the best solution. You don't feel you are part of the community because you haven't contributed. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 17:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l121eb-n68.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12019 |
On 08/09/14 15:51, Dan Espen wrote: > I suggest you keep in mind that the posters so far are > displaying a lot of ignorance and no better alternatives. > I think what we have now is the better alternative. I realise you and some others may disagree as is your right. My opinion regarding systemd is not so much "if it ain't broke don't fix it" as "it works pretty well, so don't replace it with something complicated, heavy, with binary formats and where the lead devs are rude to the users." I would be interested in a side discussion of what's wrong with sysvinit and how it could be improved incrementally...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 17:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lukm59$9fo$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12024 |
On 08/09/14 17:28, Tim Watts wrote: > On 08/09/14 15:51, Dan Espen wrote: > >> I suggest you keep in mind that the posters so far are >> displaying a lot of ignorance and no better alternatives. >> > > I think what we have now is the better alternative. > > I realise you and some others may disagree as is your right. > > My opinion regarding systemd is not so much "if it ain't broke don't fix > it" as "it works pretty well, so don't replace it with something > complicated, heavy, with binary formats and where the lead devs are rude > to the users." > > > I would be interested in a side discussion of what's wrong with sysvinit > and how it could be improved incrementally... ISTR that the theory behind systemd was to have a 'one single ring to rule them all' daemon that would handle all background root level tasks like mounting removable media and fixed media and handling startup. i.e. to get a configure, post kernel driver, systemd would handle all the mounts and network bring ups and so on. And stay there ready to do the same later. If things changed. I don't think its a problem to do things that way if its done right. This sentence from wiki chimes with me/... "I want to study it carefully because I'm a bit troubled by what I hear about the feature set and the goals. From that, I fear it may be one of those projects that is teetering right at the edge of manageable complexity – OK as long as an architect with a strong sense of design discipline is running things, but very prone to mission creep and bloat and likely to turn into a nasty hairball over the longer term." -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 13:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lukpo4$or$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12024 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes: > On 08/09/14 15:51, Dan Espen wrote: > >> I suggest you keep in mind that the posters so far are >> displaying a lot of ignorance and no better alternatives. >> > > I think what we have now is the better alternative. What we have now is systemd. I guess you mean what we had before. What we had before is not an alternative unless you want to give up something that solves new problems. > I realise you and some others may disagree as is your right. What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to demonstrate that they have better ideas. > My opinion regarding systemd is not so much "if it ain't broke don't > fix it" as "it works pretty well, so don't replace it with something > complicated, heavy, with binary formats and where the lead devs are > rude to the users." I'm going with identify the problem and then solve it they best way you know how. Simplicity should certainly be a goal, both in the software and the user interface. I find systemd quite simple in the user interface. I have't looked at the code so I'm unable to judge whether the software is overly complicated. But I don't see anyone here making the case that the code is overly complicated. In fact one person just claimed that the old init system was overly complicated. > I would be interested in a side discussion of what's wrong with > sysvinit and how it could be improved incrementally... Fine. Bear in mind, that's what the systemd developers did. Looks to me like they identified some fundamental issues and came up with something not incremental. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 19:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12035 |
On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: > What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to > demonstrate that they have better ideas. My "better idea" is to leave sysvinit alone :) Making things worse and going away from "unix is lots of small components, each one doing one job well" is not progress! >> My opinion regarding systemd is not so much "if it ain't broke don't >> fix it" as "it works pretty well, so don't replace it with something >> complicated, heavy, with binary formats and where the lead devs are >> rude to the users." > > I'm going with identify the problem and then solve it they best > way you know how. Simplicity should certainly be a goal, both in > the software and the user interface. I find systemd quite simple > in the user interface. I have't looked at the code so I'm unable > to judge whether the software is overly complicated. > > But I don't see anyone here making the case that the code > is overly complicated. I think several people have stated the bloat and the "all things in one place" as a problem. I tend to agree it is not a good thing. > In fact one person just claimed that > the old init system was overly complicated. sysvinit /sbin/init is pretty simple. (With apologies for granda egg sucking - this is just to illustrate my point) It runs some runs in /etc/inittab and one of those rules (on Debian) runs a script /etc/init.d/rc on runlevel changes. You could argue that the scripts are complicated, though the debian ones seem clean. This percolates through ultimately to the /etc/rcN.d/(S|K)NNthing symlinks. /sbin/init of course is not tainted by this - it is pretty well defined. And simpler embedded hardware may have a much stripped down series of scripts from /etc/init.d/rc or whatever. It's massively flexible, and leaves the complicated stuff in easily hackable scripts. >> I would be interested in a side discussion of what's wrong with >> sysvinit and how it could be improved incrementally... > > Fine. Bear in mind, that's what the systemd developers did. > Looks to me like they identified some fundamental issues > and came up with something not incremental. > Well, if anyone's game to throw up something about the sysvinit way that pisses them off, I'll have a go at saying how I might address it. I don't have to agree with you that it's a problem - I'll just try and address some hypothetical issues for fun...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 14:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <luku5v$eri$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12038 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes: > On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: > >> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to >> demonstrate that they have better ideas. > > My "better idea" is to leave sysvinit alone :) > > Making things worse and going away from "unix is lots of small > components, each one doing one job well" is not progress! > >>> My opinion regarding systemd is not so much "if it ain't broke don't >>> fix it" as "it works pretty well, so don't replace it with something >>> complicated, heavy, with binary formats and where the lead devs are >>> rude to the users." >> >> I'm going with identify the problem and then solve it they best >> way you know how. Simplicity should certainly be a goal, both in >> the software and the user interface. I find systemd quite simple >> in the user interface. I have't looked at the code so I'm unable >> to judge whether the software is overly complicated. >> >> But I don't see anyone here making the case that the code >> is overly complicated. > > I think several people have stated the bloat and the "all things in > one place" as a problem. I tend to agree it is not a good thing. > >> In fact one person just claimed that >> the old init system was overly complicated. > > sysvinit /sbin/init is pretty simple. > > (With apologies for granda egg sucking - this is just to illustrate > my point) > > It runs some runs in /etc/inittab and one of those rules (on Debian) > runs a script /etc/init.d/rc on runlevel changes. > > You could argue that the scripts are complicated, though the debian > ones seem clean. This percolates through ultimately to the > > /etc/rcN.d/(S|K)NNthing > > symlinks. > > /sbin/init of course is not tainted by this - it is pretty well defined. > > And simpler embedded hardware may have a much stripped down series of > scripts from /etc/init.d/rc or whatever. > > > It's massively flexible, and leaves the complicated stuff in easily > hackable scripts. > >>> I would be interested in a side discussion of what's wrong with >>> sysvinit and how it could be improved incrementally... >> >> Fine. Bear in mind, that's what the systemd developers did. >> Looks to me like they identified some fundamental issues >> and came up with something not incremental. >> > > Well, if anyone's game to throw up something about the sysvinit way > that pisses them off, I'll have a go at saying how I might address > it. I don't have to agree with you that it's a problem - I'll just try > and address some hypothetical issues for fun... Without being an expert, sysvinit handles devices at system power up, changing init level and system power down. If there is a way to make it handle devices just plugged in, it's not clear. Those scripts, mostly obey "start", "stop". Some also obey "restart", and "load". Without reading the documentation or the shell script there is no way to tell. Many of those scripts must be executed in sequence. During boot up, everything is controlled by the numbers in the symlinks. Later on, when you might want to restart 2 scripts in a sequence, you are out of luck. Running everything sequentially is slow. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 21:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2of1eb-4ag.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12043 |
On 08/09/14 19:57, Dan Espen wrote: > Without being an expert, sysvinit handles devices at system power up, > changing init level and system power down. Yes - and a special case of gettys[1] > If there is a way to make it handle devices just plugged in, it's not > clear. No because that's not its job - that belongs to something else like udev[2]. > Those scripts, mostly obey "start", "stop". Some also obey "restart", > and "load". Without reading the documentation or the shell script there > is no way to tell. Generally most of the scripts if run with no args will list their args. "restart" and "reload" should be standard - restart equating to "stop - pause - start" and "reload" where practical signals the daemon to reread its config and close/reopen log files (often via a kill -HUP). [1] Whcih arguably is a bit of a historic oddity, which whilst still used is not as important as it once was. [2] udev is not unique - it could be replaced by any userspace daemon listening for kernel messages. > Many of those scripts must be executed in sequence. During boot up, > everything is controlled by the numbers in the symlinks. Later on, when > you might want to restart 2 scripts in a sequence, you are out of luck. If you are doing it manually, what's the problem? > Running everything sequentially is slow. > But not so you'd notice on most systems these days...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 17:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lul8rf$81r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12047 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes: > On 08/09/14 19:57, Dan Espen wrote: > >> Without being an expert, sysvinit handles devices at system power up, >> changing init level and system power down. > > Yes - and a special case of gettys[1] > >> If there is a way to make it handle devices just plugged in, it's not >> clear. > > No because that's not its job - that belongs to something else like udev[2]. That's just your arbitrary opinion. Some of those init scripts have to run when a device is plugged in. That's duplication. Do you want to figure out why your device works when turned on during boot and doesn't work when it's plugged in? >> Those scripts, mostly obey "start", "stop". Some also obey "restart", >> and "load". Without reading the documentation or the shell script there >> is no way to tell. > > Generally most of the scripts if run with no args will list their args. > > "restart" and "reload" should be standard - restart equating to "stop > - > pause - start" and "reload" where practical signals the daemon to > reread its config and close/reopen log files (often via a kill -HUP). > > [1] Whcih arguably is a bit of a historic oddity, which whilst still > used is not as important as it once was. > > [2] udev is not unique - it could be replaced by any userspace daemon > listening for kernel messages. Yes, ideally the same daemon that listens during boot up. >> Many of those scripts must be executed in sequence. During boot up, >> everything is controlled by the numbers in the symlinks. Later on, when >> you might want to restart 2 scripts in a sequence, you are out of luck. > > If you are doing it manually, what's the problem? systemd isn't manual. >> Running everything sequentially is slow. > > But not so you'd notice on most systems these days... Fast boot up is actually a nice feature. I don't boot often, but I'm usually sitting there waiting. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 07:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t3j2eb-mqk.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12051 |
On 08/09/14 22:59, Dan Espen wrote: > Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes: > >> On 08/09/14 19:57, Dan Espen wrote: >> >>> Without being an expert, sysvinit handles devices at system power up, >>> changing init level and system power down. >> >> Yes - and a special case of gettys[1] >> >>> If there is a way to make it handle devices just plugged in, it's not >>> clear. >> >> No because that's not its job - that belongs to something else like udev[2]. > > That's just your arbitrary opinion. Yep - but my opinion is consistent with the unix philosophy... > Some of those init scripts have to run when a device is plugged in. > That's duplication. Do you want to figure out why your device works > when turned on during boot and doesn't work when it's plugged in? One correct answer is split out the bit that does the hard work and call it both from udev and from an init script. The other correct answer is start udev and make sure it handles cold plug events too then the device would be started soon after udev. >> [2] udev is not unique - it could be replaced by any userspace daemon >> listening for kernel messages. > > Yes, ideally the same daemon that listens during boot up. But I disagree udev should be added to PID=1 because PID 1 should be kept lean and mean.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 15:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8761gxsvo9.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #12043 |
Dan Espen writes: > Many of those scripts must be executed in sequence. Because those particular services must be started in sequence. No init system can do anything about the fact that some services can't start until others are running. > During boot up, everything is controlled by the numbers in the > symlinks. Debian has had dependency-based booting for years. > Later on, when you might want to restart 2 scripts in a sequence, you > are out of luck. service scriptA restart && service scriptB restart > Running everything sequentially is slow. Debian has had parallel booting for years. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 22:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0pk1eb-1gi.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12049 |
On 08/09/14 21:29, John Hasler wrote: > Dan Espen writes: >> Many of those scripts must be executed in sequence. > > Because those particular services must be started in sequence. No init > system can do anything about the fact that some services can't start > until others are running. > >> During boot up, everything is controlled by the numbers in the >> symlinks. > > Debian has had dependency-based booting for years Thoug to be fair that is applied at update-rc.d time and not recalculated every time the run level changes. > >> Later on, when you might want to restart 2 scripts in a sequence, you >> are out of luck. > > service scriptA restart && service scriptB restart > >> Running everything sequentially is slow. > > Debian has had parallel booting for years. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 23:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lulh3h$osu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12038 |
In article <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: > >> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to >> demonstrate that they have better ideas. > >My "better idea" is to leave sysvinit alone :) > >Making things worse and going away from "unix is lots of small >components, each one doing one job well" is not progress! Agreed. That sounds like a design (and philosophical) mistake to me. I guess the question I still have is ... why do we *need* systemd ? I've seen no useful answer to that, apart from 'someone thought it would be a good idea". I remain very unconvinced. :) (snip)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McCue <jmccue@jmclin0.bstnma.east.verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 00:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luli50$t38$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12055 |
Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: > In article <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: >> >>> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to >>> demonstrate that they have better ideas. >> <snip> > > I guess the question I still have is ... why do we *need* systemd ? And that is my question also, what does it give me I already do not have. > > I've seen no useful answer to that, apart from 'someone thought it would be a > good idea". I remain very unconvinced. :) > > (snip)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 07:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l7j2eb-mqk.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12057 |
On 09/09/14 01:37, John McCue wrote: > Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: >> In article <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>> On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: >>> >>>> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to >>>> demonstrate that they have better ideas. >>> > <snip> >> >> I guess the question I still have is ... why do we *need* systemd ? > > And that is my question also, what does it give me > I already do not have. Curious that noone who is advocating systemd seems to be willing to offer any reason other than a broad opinion that "it's better" (but not why).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 10:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lumk84$l1o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12064 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > On 09/09/14 01:37, John McCue wrote: > > Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: > >> In article <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > >>> On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: > >>> > >>>> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to > >>>> demonstrate that they have better ideas. > >>> > > <snip> > >> > >> I guess the question I still have is ... why do we *need* systemd ? > > > > And that is my question also, what does it give me > > I already do not have. > Curious that noone who is advocating systemd seems to be willing to > offer any reason other than a broad opinion that "it's better" (but not > why). While simultaneously dismissing any anti-systemd statements as mere "opinion" or simply "fogeyness" or mere "complaining".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 09:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lumv55$v70$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12073 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >> On 09/09/14 01:37, John McCue wrote: >> > Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: >> >> In article <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >> >>> On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to >> >>>> demonstrate that they have better ideas. >> >>> >> > <snip> >> >> >> >> I guess the question I still have is ... why do we *need* systemd ? >> > >> > And that is my question also, what does it give me >> > I already do not have. > >> Curious that noone who is advocating systemd seems to be willing to >> offer any reason other than a broad opinion that "it's better" (but not >> why). > > While simultaneously dismissing any anti-systemd statements as mere > "opinion" or simply "fogeyness" or mere "complaining". Or even worse, "philosophy". Anyway, I cited some of the reasons for systemd. Anyone that wants to understand why it's an improvement can find it themselves. As a technical issue, this is dumb. As a cultural issue, these reactions are interesting. Saying something good about anything that happens is going out of style. It's all about, lets get upset and protest. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Balwinder S Dheeman <bdheeman.SANSPAM@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 17:00 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <lumoct$elg$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12057 |
On 09/09/2014 06:07 AM, John McCue wrote: > Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: >> In article <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>> On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: >>> >>>> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to >>>> demonstrate that they have better ideas. >>> > <snip> >> >> I guess the question I still have is ... why do we *need* systemd ? > > And that is my question also, what does it give me > I already do not have. See http://www.linuxbsdos.com/2014/09/03/is-systemd-as-bad-as-boycott-systemd-is-trying-to-make-it/ and http://boycottsystemd.org/ >> I've seen no useful answer to that, apart from 'someone thought it would be a >> good idea". I remain very unconvinced. :) >> >> (snip) -- Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman (http://bdheeman.BlogSpot.in/) "Working together, works! The proof is GNU/Linux and F/LOSS Projects; Do you too voluntarily work on or contribute to making any difference?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 23:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luo4ut$iob$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12077 |
In article <lumoct$elg$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Balwinder S Dheeman <bdheeman.SANSPAM@outlook.com> wrote: >On 09/09/2014 06:07 AM, John McCue wrote: >> Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: >>> In article <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts > <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>>> On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: >>>> >>>>> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to >>>>> demonstrate that they have better ideas. >>>> >> <snip> >>> >>> I guess the question I still have is ... why do we *need* systemd ? >> >> And that is my question also, what does it give me >> I already do not have. > >See >http://www.linuxbsdos.com/2014/09/03/is-systemd-as-bad-as-boycott-systemd-is-tr >ying-to-make-it/ >and http://boycottsystemd.org/ Thanks for that - very interesting. Those flaws seem serious to me, both philosophically and practically. >>> I've seen no useful answer to that, apart from 'someone thought it would be > a >>> good idea". I remain very unconvinced. :) >>> >>> (snip)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web