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 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-02 23:35 +0000 |
| Subject | What distros *don't* use systemd ? |
| Message-ID | <lu5np1$u6d$2@dont-email.me> |
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 ? Thanks heaps. :)
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-02 20:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lu5oel$8uj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11889 |
noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) writes: > 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. :) Works fine here. I'm learning the ins and outs, and so far, I don't see any big issues. The "philosophy" argument leaves me cold. Each solution should be as complex as the problem. Since I don't have a simpler solution I don't criticize. > 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 ? Sure looks to me like Google has the answer(s) to your question. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <sep14.5.ankman@spamgourmet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 18:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87bnqwpcr8.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #11890 |
Dan Espen wrote on 02. September 2014: > > noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) writes: > >> 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. :) > > Works fine here. I'm learning the ins and outs, and so far, > I don't see any big issues. It seems to be not have been completely installed here (Debian Testing), leaving me with missing configuration files and not working objectives. There is for example /etc/vconsole.conf still didn't materialized. Ever so often after an update more things start working. Another thing (may be due to the problem above) is that settings were improperly imported to systemd. So after systemd took control the first time many services I have installed but not activated on boot time were up and running. > The "philosophy" argument leaves me cold. Each solution should be as > complex as the problem. Since I don't have a simpler solution I don't > criticize. What ever happened to "one task - one tool"? Worked nicely for Linux. Now this systemd monster absorbs everything into one big chunk. I wonder if there is a global flaw found at some point that poses a security risk if then everything which is controlled by systemd (so about *everything* :-) is at risk. -- Andreas I wish my grass was emo. Then it would cut itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 23:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bvhkdb-22g.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #11916 |
On 03/09/14 23:20, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > What ever happened to "one task - one tool"? Worked nicely for Linux. Now > this systemd monster absorbs everything into one big chunk. I wonder if > there is a global flaw found at some point that poses a security risk if > then everything which is controlled by systemd (so about *everything* :-) > is at risk. > Those who don't understand unix are doomed to reinvent it, poorly. There is nothing much lacking with the init.d way - at least not now everyone mostly follows LSB standards. It's very quick. Granted in the old days, 15 years back, there was some benefit to parallelising startup. But these days things boot pretty quickly as they are. If you need to keep a service alive, there's monit. It's like when Sun released their behemouth java monster - what was that called?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 18:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xlmus2w4a3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #11916 |
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:20:27 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach <sep14.5.ankman@spamgourmet.com> wrote: > What ever happened to "one task - one tool"? Worked nicely for Linux. Now > this systemd monster absorbs everything into one big chunk. I wonder if While I'll agree there have been problems with the implementation, most of which have since been fixed, or have work arounds, I do agree with the concepts. While systemd does provide many services, each is mostly independent, with the controlling part being a fairly small part, that has been pretty extensively reviewed. The biggest problem I've seen is third party sysvinit scripts, from companies like adobe, that don't have proper chkconfig headers, which cause dependency loops in the order of things to start at boot. If those were changed to use systemd service files, that problem would disappear. Regards, Dave Hodgins -- Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email. (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | zeeb <zeeb@zeeb.zeeb> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-10 23:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2014091023162666020-zeeb@zeebzeeb> |
| In reply to | #11916 |
On 2014-09-03 22:20:27 +0000, Andreas Kohlbach said: > > What ever happened to "one task - one tool"? Pardon my ignorance, but, isn't that what systemd is? One tool performing one task, being process initialization?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-11 12:50 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <lur9nt$oq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12094 |
zeeb wrote: > On 2014-09-03 22:20:27 +0000, Andreas Kohlbach said: >> >> What ever happened to "one task - one tool"? > > Pardon my ignorance, but, isn't that what systemd is? One tool > performing one task, being process initialization? That would even stay true even if they integrated all applications into systemd. One tool one task. The task is the application and everything that leads to its start. -- Reinhardt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-07 23:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luirum$v1h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11890 |
In article <lu5oel$8uj$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: >noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) writes: > >> Hi >> >> I vaguely followed a discussion or 2 on one of more of the linux groups >> recently about systemd and its uses and pitfalls. I wasn't greatly concerned >> at the time, but having chatted to someone that knows a bit more than me > about >> it, I am now. :) > >Works fine here. I'm learning the ins and outs, and so far, >I don't see any big issues. The "philosophy" argument leaves me cold. Philosophy is important to me. Sorry. That's why I'm here and not in the wondows groups. :) >Each solution should be as complex as the problem. >Since I don't have a simpler solution I don't criticize. I understand, but don't agree in this case. It sounds like some bad choiices have been made by some and they are getting into essential areas. That is against the linux philosophy to me and I don't intend to support that. >> Is there a list of distros anywhere that shows which use and which do not use > >> systemd ? >> I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if >> anyone knows where there is such a thing ? > >Sure looks to me like Google has the answer(s) to your question. Possibly ... but I thought I'd ask here because there might also be some commentary on which of those distros is best for particular things. Thanks
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-07 20:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <luiuie$gab$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11998 |
noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) writes: > In article <lu5oel$8uj$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: >>noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) writes: >> >>> 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. :) >> >>Works fine here. I'm learning the ins and outs, and so far, >>I don't see any big issues. The "philosophy" argument leaves me cold. > > Philosophy is important to me. Sorry. That's why I'm here and not in the > wondows groups. :) There are advocacy groups, last I heard. >>Each solution should be as complex as the problem. >>Since I don't have a simpler solution I don't criticize. > > I understand, but don't agree in this case. It sounds like some bad choiices > have been made by some and they are getting into essential areas. That is > against the linux philosophy to me and I don't intend to support that. "Sounds like"? Don't you know yourself? >>> 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 ? >> >>Sure looks to me like Google has the answer(s) to your question. > > Possibly ... but I thought I'd ask here because there might also be some > commentary on which of those distros is best for particular things. I don't see anyone asking, just a lot of meaningless jabber about philosophy. Contribute better code or get out of the way. So far, I sort of like systemd. Managing services seems much simpler. I have all the access I need, list, enable, start, stop, disable. Works like a charm. All you people looking for a distro that hasn't caught up yet. Futile. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles T. Smith" <cts.private.yahoo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-28 16:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m2ogk5$b4v$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12002 |
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 20:51:26 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) writes: > >> In article <lu5oel$8uj$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> >> wrote: >>>noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) writes: >>> >>>> 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. :) >>> >>>Works fine here. I'm learning the ins and outs, and so far, I don't >>>see any big issues. The "philosophy" argument leaves me cold. >> >> Philosophy is important to me. Sorry. That's why I'm here and not in >> the wondows groups. :) > > There are advocacy groups, last I heard. > >>>Each solution should be as complex as the problem. Since I don't have a >>>simpler solution I don't criticize. >> >> I understand, but don't agree in this case. It sounds like some bad >> choiices have been made by some and they are getting into essential >> areas. That is against the linux philosophy to me and I don't intend to >> support that. > > "Sounds like"? > > Don't you know yourself? > >>>> 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 ? >>> >>>Sure looks to me like Google has the answer(s) to your question. >> >> Possibly ... but I thought I'd ask here because there might also be >> some commentary on which of those distros is best for particular >> things. > > I don't see anyone asking, just a lot of meaningless jabber about > philosophy. > > Contribute better code or get out of the way. > > So far, I sort of like systemd. Managing services seems much simpler. I > have all the access I need, list, enable, start, stop, disable. Works > like a charm. Nice, Dan. So, you're happy. Actually, you might not want to contribute to the useless chatter then, and stay out of it. The OP asked a simple question. How were your philosophies any way on-thread?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-28 16:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <evt4ib-rll.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12541 |
On 28/10/14 16:35, Charles T. Smith wrote: > Nice, Dan. So, you're happy. Actually, you might not want to contribute > to the useless chatter then, and stay out of it. The OP asked a simple > question. How were your philosophies any way on-thread? "Philosophy" is a core and important part of any open source project, particularly one were ordinary folk can actually make desing choices at a modular level without being a coder. And a debate on systemd is far from useless IMHO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-28 14:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m2omlg$p28$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12542 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes: > On 28/10/14 16:35, Charles T. Smith wrote: > >> Nice, Dan. So, you're happy. Actually, you might not want to contribute >> to the useless chatter then, and stay out of it. The OP asked a simple >> question. How were your philosophies any way on-thread? > > "Philosophy" is a core and important part of any open source project, > particularly one were ordinary folk can actually make desing choices > at a modular level without being a coder. > > And a debate on systemd is far from useless IMHO. Charles just seems to thing it's off topic and therefore should not be discussed. (Sort of a bizarre concept given that we're on Usenet.) All this rabid anti-systemd stuff seems to me like a huge waste of time. UNLESS someone has something better. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-28 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <28g5ib-iv.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12545 |
On 28/10/14 18:18, Dan Espen wrote: > Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes: > >> On 28/10/14 16:35, Charles T. Smith wrote: >> >>> Nice, Dan. So, you're happy. Actually, you might not want to contribute >>> to the useless chatter then, and stay out of it. The OP asked a simple >>> question. How were your philosophies any way on-thread? >> >> "Philosophy" is a core and important part of any open source project, >> particularly one were ordinary folk can actually make desing choices >> at a modular level without being a coder. >> >> And a debate on systemd is far from useless IMHO. > > Charles just seems to thing it's off topic and therefore should > not be discussed. (Sort of a bizarre concept given that we're on > Usenet.) > > All this rabid anti-systemd stuff seems to me like a huge waste > of time. UNLESS someone has something better. > Well, I disagree with your POV but I defend your right to say it... I'll get me coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-28 18:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <89j5ib-4k9.ln1@raspberry-pi.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #12545 |
Dan Espen wrote: > Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes: > >> On 28/10/14 16:35, Charles T. Smith wrote: >> >>> Nice, Dan. So, you're happy. Actually, you might not want to >>> contribute >>> to the useless chatter then, and stay out of it. The OP asked a simple >>> question. How were your philosophies any way on-thread? >> >> "Philosophy" is a core and important part of any open source project, >> particularly one were ordinary folk can actually make desing choices >> at a modular level without being a coder. >> >> And a debate on systemd is far from useless IMHO. > > Charles just seems to thing it's off topic and therefore should > not be discussed. (Sort of a bizarre concept given that we're on > Usenet.) > > All this rabid anti-systemd stuff seems to me like a huge waste > of time. UNLESS someone has something better. > Actually it ( systemd ) caused me to move to FreeBSD after using linux since 1995. Systemd is an abortion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-29 09:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m2q6vv$7c5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12550 |
On Tuesday 28 October 2014 23:53, Baho Utot conveyed the following to
comp.os.linux.misc...
> Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 28/10/14 16:35, Charles T. Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nice, Dan. So, you're happy. Actually, you might not want to
>>>> contribute to the useless chatter then, and stay out of it. The OP
>>>> asked a simple question. How were your philosophies any way on-
>>>> thread?
>>>
>>> "Philosophy" is a core and important part of any open source
>>> project, particularly one were ordinary folk can actually make
>>> desing choices at a modular level without being a coder.
>>>
>>> And a debate on systemd is far from useless IMHO.
>>
>> Charles just seems to thing it's off topic and therefore should
>> not be discussed. (Sort of a bizarre concept given that we're on
>> Usenet.)
>>
>> All this rabid anti-systemd stuff seems to me like a huge waste
>> of time. UNLESS someone has something better.
>
> Actually it ( systemd ) caused me to move to FreeBSD after using linux
> since 1995. Systemd is an abortion.
Debian Wheezy currently still supports sysvinit - and Debian is set to
vote again on the systemd issue for Jessie and Sid - as well as Gentoo's
openRC and Ubuntu's Upstart, both of which are wrappers around sysvinit.
Slackware still uses a BSD-style init.
FreeBSD is a nice operating system but it runs far behind on GNU/Linux
in terms of hardware support, so there was no need to switch to FreeBSD
per se, given that the above-mentioned distros still support sysvinit.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-29 17:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ru28ib-sec.ln1@raspberry-pi.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #12552 |
Aragorn wrote: > On Tuesday 28 October 2014 23:53, Baho Utot conveyed the following to > comp.os.linux.misc... >> Actually it ( systemd ) caused me to move to FreeBSD after using linux >> since 1995. Systemd is an abortion. > > Debian Wheezy currently still supports sysvinit - and Debian is set to > vote again on the systemd issue for Jessie and Sid - as well as Gentoo's > openRC and Ubuntu's Upstart, both of which are wrappers around sysvinit. > Slackware still uses a BSD-style init. > > FreeBSD is a nice operating system but it runs far behind on GNU/Linux > in terms of hardware support, so there was no need to switch to FreeBSD > per se, given that the above-mentioned distros still support sysvinit. > FreeBSD if far better for me than any of the current linuxes. There was every need to switch to FreeBSD. FreeBSD is extremely easy for me to admin where linux is a F'n nightmare. I have had almost zero problems setting up my FreeBSD servers and desktops where with linux it's jesus christ who the hell changed that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles T. Smith" <cts.private.yahoo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-01 09:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m328fm$q9q$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12555 |
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:32:47 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: > Aragorn wrote: FreeBSD is extremely easy for me to > admin where linux is a F'n nightmare. I wondered why you said that until I read this: I have had almost zero problems > setting up my FreeBSD servers and desktops where with linux it's jesus > christ who the hell changed that! and I agree 100%. On the one hand, I think that legacy features should be on by default and developers should 1) make switching to new features easy 2) champion them. But then, it's clear - we're getting features for free, we should be willing to beta test them. So, I realize that if I want consistency, I've got to sacrifice modernness and go with something like FreeBSD, obviously made by people who understand the timelessness of Unix. Linux is for people who want to compete with Microsoft... By why, really? I spent the last decades hating Microsoft, but when I look at the energy that goes into following, tracking, competing with Microsoft, I start to think there's something not right about it. It's true that Microsoft prevented a development of computers that would have challenged and grown users, but that's all history now. There's no longer a need to squash Microsoft. But there's still tremendous energy and - apparently, money - in countering everything they do. Is it just hatefulness?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-01 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m32t08$37i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12569 |
On 11/01/2014 02:17 AM, Charles T. Smith wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:32:47 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: > >> Aragorn wrote: > FreeBSD is extremely easy for me to >> admin where linux is a F'n nightmare. > > > I wondered why you said that until I read this: > > I have had almost zero problems >> setting up my FreeBSD servers and desktops where with linux it's jesus >> christ who the hell changed that! > > > and I agree 100%. On the one hand, I think that legacy features should > be on by default and developers should 1) make switching to new features > easy 2) champion them. But then, it's clear - we're getting features > for free, we should be willing to beta test them. > > So, I realize that if I want consistency, I've got to sacrifice > modernness and go with something like FreeBSD, obviously made by people > who understand the timelessness of Unix. Linux is for people who want to > compete with Microsoft... What is "modernness" but a concept applied to "jelly nailed to a tree"? Modern is what you are using now compared to last month/year/ decade. One of the reason Linux changes is because views of the "right way" to do things changes as we get older but Unix still presents the same face to the user as it ever did but not on all the hardware it used to use. One of the first consumer machines to use Unix as an alternate OS was the Amiga in the 2000 box with a combination of Zorro 16 bit slots and ES PC slots that used a x86 co-processor to be active. Amiga OS opened with a GUI and Unix with a terminal which was quite intimidating to even the Amiga power user who would use Amiga's CLI to get things done. > > By why, really? I spent the last decades hating Microsoft, but when I > look at the energy that goes into following, tracking, competing with > Microsoft, I start to think there's something not right about it. It's > true that Microsoft prevented a development of computers that would have > challenged and grown users, but that's all history now. There's no > longer a need to squash Microsoft. But there's still tremendous energy > and - apparently, money - in countering everything they do. Is it just > hatefulness? > Well Microsoft crushed a lot of companies on its way up. Some of those companies embodied dreams by coders and hackers. MS then buried those dreams. If people dislike Microsoft it is because it has played "dog in the manger" for so long. On the other hand if it had not been so successful I doubt that Linux would have found all those neat x86 machines to play with. Ms also refused to deal and still has not dealt with security issues in a timely manner. I remember when its browser/mailer was set up in such a manner that it was easy for the naive users to download and activate malwares. They did something about it eventually about 10 years down the line from the time the problem became apparent. It does no good to hate though. The innovations and constant security updates are assumed to be improvements. I don't much care for them either. I am happy with KDE and find Unity to be a Microsoft inspired problem, but people coming from later versions of Windows find it useful. I came via the Commodore 64/128/CPM/GEOS, Amiga and XP to find Linux at the end of my road with those machines around 2006. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-02 04:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m34dlp1fve@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #12571 |
On 2014-11-01, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: > It does no good to hate though. Perhaps, but I find Microsoft-based schadenfreude to be satisfying entertainment. (I do still hate them passionately, though; anywhere else their deeds would be considered crimes against humanity.) > The innovations and constant security updates are assumed to be > improvements. Yeah, if you consider it an improvement for M$ to finally get around to fixing all the flaws they introduced decades ago. As for "innovation", remember how Lord Bill used to whine about how the Department of Justice was stifling his ability to "innovate", while what he really was pissed off about was their interfering with his ability to crush those who were really innovating. > I don't much care for them either. I am happy with KDE and find Unity > to be a Microsoft inspired problem, but people coming from later versions > of Windows find it useful. I won't touch KDE or Unity. KDE is too bloated, and both it and Unity are attempts to emulate those excesses of Windows that I'm glad to be free of. > I came via the Commodore 64/128/CPM/GEOS, Amiga and XP to find Linux at > the end of my road with those machines around 2006. I came up through the Amiga, only retiring my last machine six months ago when the hardware finally got too unreliable. My favourite Linux desktops are lightweight ones; I spent quite a while with Blackbox, and am now quite happy with Xfce. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-02 06:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m34h8l$5sm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12581 |
On Sunday 02 November 2014 05:58, Charlie Gibbs conveyed the following
to comp.os.linux.misc...
> On 2014-11-01, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't much care for them either. I am happy with KDE and find
>> Unity to be a Microsoft inspired problem, but people coming from
>> later versions of Windows find it useful.
>
> I won't touch KDE or Unity. KDE is too bloated, [...
Appearances can be deceiving. KDE /appears/ bloated, but it is written
in C++ and is fully object-oriented. That means that when you launch a
KDE-specific application, the application won't be consuming significant
amounts of memory or other resources anymore, given that it heavily
relies on shared libraries which have already been loaded in memory.
> ...] and both it and Unity are attempts to emulate those excesses of
> Windows that I'm glad to be free of.
I'm afraid that's not correct. KDE was not intended to mimic Microsoft
Windows, but rather to provide for a cosmetically more integrated
alternative to CDE, which is a UNIX desktop for the X11 window system.
Of course, the KDE developers are trying to play ball with the
guidelines set forth by freedesktop.org in order to streamline the
interaction between applications written for the different desktop
environments. freedesktop.org is RedHat's propaganda machine, and
RedHat develops GNOME, so that means that RedHat is basically dictating
what a modern GNU/Linux desktop should look like.
Unity is a shell around GNOME3, and both the GNOME developers at RedHat
and Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical are MacIntosh fans, so there's a lot
in there which was inspired by Apple, not by Microsoft Windows [*]. And
through freedesktop.org, this stuff also then gets to make it into KDE
and even into XFCE.
[*] One of those characteristics of both Microsoft and Apple systems
is the volume-oriented approach to storage, which - by way of GNOME
and freedesktop.org - has made it into KDE and XFCE as well, in the
shape of the "Places" menu in file managers (and even already in
GNOME2 itself). That may make sense if you install the entire OS
into a single partition and when your other storage is comprised of
nothing but removable media, but if you do as I do (and as many
other seasoned UNIX users do) and you install the system across
multiple distinct filesystems - e.g. /boot, /usr, /home, et al -
then that "Places" menu becomes an ugly kludge. On UNIX, it makes
much more sense to simply stick to the uniform hierarchic directory
tree than to approach storage as individual volumes.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web