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 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 10:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2c80eb-d3r.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12009 |
On 08/09/14 07:08, Thad Floryan wrote: > Heh, it took longer to write the man page than it took to design the > program, implement it, and test it. Writing UNIX-style man pages is > a real pain which is why we see such poor or non-existent man pages > for most linux distros nowadays. Having written a few man pages, I think that is not down to the markup used - but because fewer and fewer people have been exposed to quality documentation - eg: Our university's VAX/VMS sytemm in 1986 had two full 6 foot by 4 ft bookcases solid with DEC manuals. Nothing was undocumented - with a uniform format, uniform level of detail and loads of examples. The online help system was not bad either. Now you get a "quickstart" guide that says how to start the thing if you're lucky. Even prosumer routers have shoddy documentation and you end up on forums and FAQ and wiki sites trying to figure stuff out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 10:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lujuio$l8k$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12011 |
On 08/09/14 10:09, Tim Watts wrote: > On 08/09/14 07:08, Thad Floryan wrote: > >> Heh, it took longer to write the man page than it took to design the >> program, implement it, and test it. Writing UNIX-style man pages is >> a real pain which is why we see such poor or non-existent man pages >> for most linux distros nowadays. > > Having written a few man pages, I think that is not down to the markup > used - but because fewer and fewer people have been exposed to quality > documentation - > > eg: > > Our university's VAX/VMS sytemm in 1986 had two full 6 foot by 4 ft > bookcases solid with DEC manuals. > > Nothing was undocumented - with a uniform format, uniform level of > detail and loads of examples. > > The online help system was not bad either. > > Now you get a "quickstart" guide that says how to start the thing if > you're lucky. Cost dear boy, cost. That is all 99% of people need and its more than 98% of people want. They want 'insert plug X in socket Y amnd switch on' > > Even prosumer routers have shoddy documentation and you end up on forums > and FAQ and wiki sites trying to figure stuff out. > Indeed. Because it cost serious money to write good docs. Far far more than code development. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 03:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lujcv9$nl8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12001 |
In article <luiui2$hng$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: >> In article <lu61ju$u7c$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >> >Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: >> >> Hi >> > >> >> I vaguely followed a discussion or 2 on one of more of the linux groups >> >> recently about systemd and its uses and pitfalls. I wasn't greatly > concerned >> >> at the time, but having chatted to someone that knows a bit more than me >> > about >> >> it, I am now. :) >> > >> >> Is there a list of distros anywhere that shows which use and which do not > use >> > >> >> systemd ? >> > >> >Not that I know of. >> > >> >> I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if >> >> anyone knows where there is such a thing ? >> > >> >1) Slackware >> > >> > >> >Also of note, while Slackware uses sysv init as the /sbin/init program, >> >it utilizes BSD style /etc/rc.d/ files (which means /etc/rc.d/ is >> >actually filled with a set of scripts that are executed instead of an >> >opaque forrest of symlinks). So, you want to change how something's >> >configured, you can simply edit the appropriate script in /etc/rc.d >> >rather than figure out what magic symlink to insert where to get thing >> >X to actually occur. > >> That sounds attractive. Never did see the point of having symlinks. :) > >As far as I can tell, the only point to the symlink forrest was that it >made it easier to impliment a gui to hide the details of how to >configure one's system from the sysadmin. > <chuckle>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 07:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6dtvdb-ptn.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12000 |
On 08/09/14 00:12, Bruce Sinclair wrote: > In article <lu61ju$u7c$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >> Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: >>> Hi >> >>> I vaguely followed a discussion or 2 on one of more of the linux groups >>> recently about systemd and its uses and pitfalls. I wasn't greatly concerned >>> at the time, but having chatted to someone that knows a bit more than me >> about >>> it, I am now. :) >> >>> Is there a list of distros anywhere that shows which use and which do not use >> >>> systemd ? >> >> Not that I know of. >> >>> I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if >>> anyone knows where there is such a thing ? >> >> 1) Slackware >> >> >> Also of note, while Slackware uses sysv init as the /sbin/init program, >> it utilizes BSD style /etc/rc.d/ files (which means /etc/rc.d/ is >> actually filled with a set of scripts that are executed instead of an >> opaque forrest of symlinks). So, you want to change how something's >> configured, you can simply edit the appropriate script in /etc/rc.d >> rather than figure out what magic symlink to insert where to get thing >> X to actually occur. > > That sounds attractive. Never did see the point of having symlinks. :) > > Thanks > SuSE did something not dissimilar around 7.2 Symlinks have the advantage they are very easy to "knock on and off" with trivial scripts. But I guess as long as you have inssrv/service/update-rc.d or equivalent it doesn;t matter too much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 10:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lukfjf$ht3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12000 |
noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) writes: > That sounds attractive. Never did see the point of having symlinks. :) So, what you are presenting us with is an argument from ignorance. Well, I'm convinced. (There is a reason for those symlinks. Why you don't know what it is, and still feel qualified to rant about systemd is unfathomable.) -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lulhr3$osu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12018 |
In article <lukfjf$ht3$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: >noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) writes: > >> That sounds attractive. Never did see the point of having symlinks. :) > >So, what you are presenting us with is an argument from ignorance. > >Well, I'm convinced. > >(There is a reason for those symlinks. Why you don't know what >it is, and still feel qualified to rant about systemd is >unfathomable.) Thanks for your opinion. I disagree with it. I can see the use of symlinks .. but my opinion is that symlinks are overly complex (or perhaps encourage complexity where none is needed). No, I am not all that knowledable in the linux area, but I am trying to learn. I have much computing experience on many machines over many years, but am not "a computer professional", just an interested (and relatively competent) user. :) I left the MS world largely because of their bad choices and bad default settings that were being forced on users at the time. I do *not* want linux to go that way and it sounds to me like much of the development is headed in the wrong direction. I care about that. I do not agree with you, but neither am I attacking the person. A statement that "systemd is better" will not convince me - I know more than that. :) Neither have I read anything here that convinces me it is either needed or useful, nor does it sound "better". Just because I disagree with you does not make me wrong. :) :) Convince me with data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 19:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87oaupr4n8.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #12056 |
Bruce Sinclair writes: > Thanks for your opinion. I disagree with it. I can see the use of > symlinks .. but my opinion is that symlinks are overly complex (or > perhaps encourage complexity where none is needed). The way Sysvinit works it needs a list of which scripts to run and in what order upon entering each runlevel. The symlinks in each runlevel directory are that list. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 04:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lum1of$s6k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12059 |
In article <87oaupr4n8.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: >Bruce Sinclair writes: >> Thanks for your opinion. I disagree with it. I can see the use of >> symlinks .. but my opinion is that symlinks are overly complex (or >> perhaps encourage complexity where none is needed). > >The way Sysvinit works it needs a list of which scripts to run and in >what order upon entering each runlevel. The symlinks in each runlevel >directory are that list. Thanks John That makes more sense than my previous understanding. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J@J.J" <j@j.j> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-10 15:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <luqigk$49g$1@jefelex.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #12062 |
I always thought that the sysv method was straightforward, plain and simple - the links conveniently pointed to a script that you could easily edit with a text editor, and enabling/disabling is as easy as mv - I learned it that way, but now with this silly systemd, I can see this is almost a single point of failure, where if it becomes compromised in some way, the whole system will fail - not a good thing. J (no flames please regarding outlook express mailreader - this is my work dog XP and due to its various proprietary custom expensive software, upgrading to _any_ flavor will not work :(, and upgrading these dogs to W7 is way way more expensive than this whole little 9 station network is worth!!) "Bruce Sinclair" <noydb@no.way> wrote in message news:lum1of$s6k$2@dont-email.me... > In article <87oaupr4n8.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler > <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: >>Bruce Sinclair writes: >>> Thanks for your opinion. I disagree with it. I can see the use of >>> symlinks .. but my opinion is that symlinks are overly complex (or >>> perhaps encourage complexity where none is needed). >> >>The way Sysvinit works it needs a list of which scripts to run and in >>what order upon entering each runlevel. The symlinks in each runlevel >>directory are that list. > > Thanks John > > That makes more sense than my previous understanding. :) > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McCue <jmccue@jmclin0.bstnma.east.verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-11 02:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luqvsa$dh6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12091 |
J@J.J <j@j.j> wrote: > I always thought that the sysv method was straightforward, plain and > simple - the links conveniently pointed to a script that you could easily > edit with a text editor, and enabling/disabling is as easy as mv - systemd vs sysvinit is looking like the a very old BSD vs SYSV init flamewar I barly remember from the 80s??. I think I remember people stating how complex sysvinit would be :) > I learned > it that way, but now with this silly systemd, I can see this is almost a > single point of failure, where if it becomes compromised in some way, the > whole system will fail - not a good thing. > > J Looks that way to me also which has me a bit worried, granted I have not seen or even come close to using systemd so can only go by what I have read. I do have concerns but will see what happens. Right now my main distro is not moving to it, but my work distro is another story. > <snip> John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-10 19:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bgd7ebxaj6.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
| In reply to | #12092 |
On 2014-09-11, John McCue <jmccue@jmclin0.bstnma.east.verizon.net> wrote: > > systemd vs sysvinit is looking like the a very old BSD > vs SYSV init flamewar I barly remember from the 80s??. > I think I remember people stating how complex sysvinit > would be :) Yep! > I do have concerns but will see what happens. That seems way too sensible for most people. --keith -- kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-11 08:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <luritk$8nr$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12092 |
On 11/09/14 03:02, John McCue wrote: > J@J.J <j@j.j> wrote: >> I always thought that the sysv method was straightforward, plain and >> simple - the links conveniently pointed to a script that you could easily >> edit with a text editor, and enabling/disabling is as easy as mv - > > systemd vs sysvinit is looking like the a very old BSD > vs SYSV init flamewar I barly remember from the 80s??. > I think I remember people stating how complex sysvinit > would be :) > >> I learned >> it that way, but now with this silly systemd, I can see this is almost a >> single point of failure, where if it becomes compromised in some way, the >> whole system will fail - not a good thing. >> >> J > > Looks that way to me also which has me a bit worried, > granted I have not seen or even come close to using systemd > so can only go by what I have read. I do have concerns > but will see what happens. Right now my main distro is > not moving to it, but my work distro is another story. > > Your whole operating system is a single point of failure. >> > <snip> > > John > -- 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 | Stef <not@this.address.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 04:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lu66qo$3dg$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #11889 |
Bruce Sinclair wrote: > Hi > > I vaguely followed a discussion or 2 on one of more of the linux groups > recently about systemd and its uses and pitfalls. I wasn't greatly concerned > at the time, but having chatted to someone that knows a bit more than me about > it, I am now. :) > > Is there a list of distros anywhere that shows which use and which do not use > systemd ? Only one I've seen or can find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Adoption > I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if > anyone knows where there is such a thing ? The above link is as complete-ish as it gets. Gentoo does not use it by default, but it is available in the repository for those who want to. Many other distros that use repos have systemd available for install as well. Stef
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 08:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qetidb-aij.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #11889 |
On 03/09/14 00:35, Bruce Sinclair wrote: > Hi > > I vaguely followed a discussion or 2 on one of more of the linux groups > recently about systemd and its uses and pitfalls. I wasn't greatly concerned > at the time, but having chatted to someone that knows a bit more than me about > it, I am now. :) > > Is there a list of distros anywhere that shows which use and which do not use > systemd ? > I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if > anyone knows where there is such a thing ? Debian, although it exists as an option.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stef <not@this.address.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lu798e$ofh$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #11900 |
Tim Watts wrote: > On 03/09/14 00:35, Bruce Sinclair wrote: >> Hi >> >> I vaguely followed a discussion or 2 on one of more of the linux groups >> recently about systemd and its uses and pitfalls. I wasn't greatly concerned >> at the time, but having chatted to someone that knows a bit more than me about >> it, I am now. :) >> >> Is there a list of distros anywhere that shows which use and which do not use >> systemd ? >> I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if >> anyone knows where there is such a thing ? > > Debian, although it exists as an option. Currently, yes. However, for next release, Debian 8 Jessie, due out next May or so, but in Beta now, systemd will be the default. Lots of gnashing of teeth on the Debian mail lists about that, Stef
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <sep14.5.ankman@spamgourmet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 18:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <878um0pchd.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #11908 |
Stef wrote on 03. September 2014: > > Tim Watts wrote: > >> On 03/09/14 00:35, Bruce Sinclair wrote: > >>> Is there a list of distros anywhere that shows which use and which do not use >>> systemd ? >>> I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if >>> anyone knows where there is such a thing ? >> >> Debian, although it exists as an option. > > Currently, yes. However, for next release, Debian 8 Jessie, due out > next May or so, but in Beta now, systemd will be the default. Lots of > gnashing of teeth on the Debian mail lists about that, You should always be able to issue your wish what system to use at boot time. init=/bin/systemd or init=/sbin/init.sysvinit at the boot prompt (in grub for example). Until Debian chooses to remove sysvinit completely. -- Andreas I wish my grass was emo. Then it would cut itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 08:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lu8v8d$5tm$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #11908 |
Stef <not@this.address.com> wrote: >Currently, yes. However, for next release, Debian 8 Jessie, due out >next May or so, but in Beta now, systemd will be the default. Lots of >gnashing of teeth on the Debian mail lists about that, Debian's Technical Committee has ruled that systemd will be the default, but other init systems should remain possible, leaving the choice to the user. However, at the rate that support for "older" tools that do not originate from the systemd universe is vanishing from the various software products, it looks unlikely that one will be able, for example, to run a modern desktop environment on Jessie without systemd. I'd say, that's not what the Debian Technical Committee has intended. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 08:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <gugldb-7gl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #11920 |
On 04/09/14 07:01, Marc Haber wrote: > Stef <not@this.address.com> wrote: >> Currently, yes. However, for next release, Debian 8 Jessie, due out >> next May or so, but in Beta now, systemd will be the default. Lots of >> gnashing of teeth on the Debian mail lists about that, > > Debian's Technical Committee has ruled that systemd will be the > default, but other init systems should remain possible, leaving the > choice to the user. Came across this looking up systemd on Wikipedia: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/2/420 which was spawned from: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935 and the misuse of the "debug" kernel boot parameter. I must say it's like watching Hans Reiser at work. If that's the attitude of the systemd lead devs, I don't know why *anyone* would want to touch it, least of all debian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 10:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lu970h$n8p$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #11921 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >If that's the attitude of the systemd lead devs, I don't know why >*anyone* would want to touch it, least of all debian. People touch it because there is no serious alternative. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 11:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lu99qj$sam$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11922 |
On Thursday 04 September 2014 10:14, Marc Haber conveyed the following
to comp.os.linux.misc...
> Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>
>> If that's the attitude of the systemd lead devs, I don't know why
>> *anyone* would want to touch it, least of all debian.
>
> People touch it because there is no serious alternative.
Gentoo's OpenRC is a serious alternative. Even Ubuntu's Upstart was a
serious alternative. Slackware's BSD-style init is also a serious
alternative.
The reason why many distributions adopt systemd is because...
a. They consider RedHat their upstream, and allow RedHat (and its
propaganda platform freedesktop.org) to dictate what they must
do. To the best of my knowledge, all .rpm-based distributions
have unfortunately stepped into this trap.
b. systemd has been made into a hard dependency of GNOME/GDM as of
GNOME 3.8, which, like systemd, is developed over at RedHat [1].
At the moment and barring more recent information, I believe that
this doesn't require systemd to be running as PID 1 yet, but
GNOME/GDM does now require systemd to be _installed_ either way.
systemd has brought a number of innovations and good ideas to GNU/Linux,
but the whole concept has been poorly implemented from the start, and
along with those good ideas and innovations also came a great number of
bad ideas, such as "the /usr move" [2], a 1 MiB monolith as PID 1,
system logs in a binary format, and very sloppy coding, to say the very
least.
systemd violates the UNIX philosophy of having small, distinct and
interoperative tools that do one thing but do it excellently. There's a
good reason as to why UNIX has survived for over 40 years: it works and
it's easily maintainable. The arrogance displayed by Sievers and
Poettering [3] is a different matter altogether, but nevertheless
doesn't help in remedying the situation.
In addition to all of this, the traditional System V init was never
broken. Embedded devices or things that need to be booted up multiple
times a day can benefit from the marginal increase in boot time offered
by systemd, but systems that remain up 24/7 don't care about boot times,
and especially not if those boot times are only marginally faster with
systemd than they are with the traditional System V init.
[1] It is obviously a strategic move by RedHat, who are trying to usurp
the market of enterprise-oriented GNU/Linux distributors, at the
cost of flexibility and choice towards the users and staying with
the proven UNIX tradition. The same attitude can be seen among the
GNOME and even the GTK developers.
[2] While the current argument for "the /usr move" - i.e. that with all
binaries under /usr, it would be easier to have /usr mounted read-
only - makes sense, that was not the reason behind it in the first
place. The reason was that Poettering and Sievers had screwed up
and put boot-essential stuff under /usr - where it doesn't belong -
so as to placate a few corner cases.
[3] "We are RedHat. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
Lennart Poettering has more than once stated on his blog that he
joyfully looks forward to the day where no other init systems than
systemd will exist anymore, and has also equally arrogantly mocked
other distributions - among whom Gentoo - on his blog.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web