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 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-02 09:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wwvfve1x6uo.fsf@l1AntVDjLrnP7Td3DQJ8ynzIq3lJMueXf87AxnpFoA.invalid> |
| In reply to | #12584 |
Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes: > 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. All these things use shared libraries, that’s not unique to KDE. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clark Smith <noaddress@nowhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-02 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m35foe$f6m$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12584 |
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 06:59:57 +0100, Aragorn wrote: > 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. C++ and a full object-oriented approach can still yield a bloated end product (no matter what many would have you believe, they are not silver bullets.) KDE is not a bad example. Still, my big problem with KDE (and Gnome, at that) is that it insists in being the "star" of the show. I.e. it is always to the forefront in your interaction with the computer, it knows what is best for you, it tells you what to do, how to do it and when to do it; it is its way, or the highway. This, in my view, the opposite of what a good desktop should be: small, compact, lean, invisible, nimble and always ready to do what you tell it to do, when you tell it do it and even how you tell it to do it, if you so choose. Which is why I moved to XFCE and LXDE years ago, since KDE 4.0 and Gnome 3.0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-02 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m35m3k41aar@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #12584 |
On 2014-11-02, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: > 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. Still, it feels bloated to me. (Well, let's say heavyweight.) Whenever I've tried it - or even run KDE-based utilities (e.g. kwrite) under another window manager, my bash window spits out random messages from KDE-based processes that are sitting in the background chewing up memory and CPU cycles, even after I've shut down the utility that spawned them. I usually wind up doing a ps -ef | grep k and killing a few things afterwards. >> ...] 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. I may have been overreacting there. Actually, KDE looks beautiful and runs pretty well, and I'd probably recommend it to naive users who just want something pretty as well as functional (and have the horsepower to support it). (I was recommending Ubuntu back in the Gnome 2 days, but I don't like the look and feel of Unity.) Myself, I prefer something lean and mean and have the knowledge to use it. But that's the beauty of *n*x - you can pick the window manager you want, rather than being forced to accept whatever Microsoft or Apple thinks you should have. -- /~\ 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 | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-02 07:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m35igd$k15$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12581 |
On 11/01/2014 09:58 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2014-11-01, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> It does no good to hate though. > > Perhaps, but I find Microsoft-based schadenfreude to be satisfying > entertainment. (I do still hate them passionately, though; anywhere > else their deeds would be considered crimes against humanity.) > >> The innovations and constant security updates are assumed to be >> improvements. > > Yeah, if you consider it an improvement for M$ 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 was talking about the constant improvements and security fixes in regard to Linux. > >> 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. What does "too bloated" mean to you. In these days of gigabytes of memory on disk or in ram I will not ever pull out the stats on how small the Amiga OS was. With even 4 cheap cores to handle the workload all the systems that work together to put my desktop environment up on the screen I am using. > >> 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. > Enjoy! bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-01 11:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <q2cfib-l2l.ln1@raspberry-pi.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #12569 |
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. I am just tired of the 100% linux beta test. I need something that is more stable and doesn't gut the system as in holy shit here comes systemd. > > 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? I don't hate any system I just want something that works, stable and isn't in 100% alpha/beta all the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-01 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m33kc8$rd3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12575 |
Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote: > 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. > I am just tired of the 100% linux beta test. I need something that is more > stable and doesn't gut the system as in holy shit here comes systemd. > ... > I don't hate any system I just want something that works, stable and isn't > in 100% alpha/beta all the time. For Linux, try Slackware. It is not in 100% alpha/beta all the time like some of the other more talked about Linux distros. There's much more stability and less churn for churn's sake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-01 18:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <353gib-gql.ln1@raspberry-pi.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #12578 |
Rich wrote: > Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote: >> 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. > >> I am just tired of the 100% linux beta test. I need something that is >> more stable and doesn't gut the system as in holy shit here comes >> systemd. > >> ... > >> I don't hate any system I just want something that works, stable and >> isn't in 100% alpha/beta all the time. > > For Linux, try Slackware. It is not in 100% alpha/beta all the time > like some of the other more talked about Linux distros. There's much > more stability and less churn for churn's sake. I used slack some years ago... As I said I moved to FreeBSD and I ain't going back. FreeBSD is extremely easy to enable ans setup daemons/services and systemd won't be corrupting FreeBSD. It took me almost two weeks to setup a raspberry pi as a name server as well as email and news groups server. On FreeBSD it took me exactly two days to setup a raspberry pi just like the linux one. Xref: raspberry-pi.bildanet.com comp.os.linux.misc:323 raspberry-pi.bildanet.com is running FreeBSD 11.0 using unbound as the name server. Exim and dovecot handle the mail and leafnode does the NNTP. And of course fetchmail consolidates all the mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-01 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m32ubj$5q1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12555 |
Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote: > 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 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! Note that the "jesus christ who the hell changed that" effect with Linux is highly distribution specific. Slackware Linux has very much less "jesus christ who the hell changed that" effect than the distributions that like to play "ride the cutting edge". Sadly, the "ride the cutting edge" distro's are the one's most folks have heard of, and therefore, gravitate towards trying out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-01 12:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j7ffib-16l.ln1@raspberry-pi.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #12572 |
Rich wrote: > Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote: >> 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 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! > > Note that the "jesus christ who the hell changed that" effect with > Linux is highly distribution specific. Slackware Linux has very much > less "jesus christ who the hell changed that" effect than the > distributions that like to play "ride the cutting edge". Sadly, the > "ride the cutting edge" distro's are the one's most folks have heard > of, and therefore, gravitate towards trying out. I think that linux is becoming incompatible with the rest of the open source world.. ie the *BSD Have you ever tried to create a custom linux based system for your own use? I took LFS and added arch linux pacman package manager. arch changed pacman in the middle of me trying to come up with a build system. So I had to move to rpm as a package manager due to a butt load of new dependencies that pacman now required. It was too much of a problem to bootstrap the build with the new pacman package manager. So after a loss of 6 months time I incorporated rpm instead. I finally got the base system working only to find out that it is now obsolete because 1/3 of the packages have changed or been updated. I could never complete the task and start on adding the packages needed to build a desktop. After 1 and 1/2 years I simply gave up trying to stay current. Too much work for one person. Yes I have the linux build system on github, But I ain't updating it as it is dead duck. Could not get anyone to help with building that system, all anyone wanted to do was take. So I moved to FreeBSD and now I don't need to deal with the nitemare that linux has become. I has been a very pleasent move to FreeBSD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Baeuerle <michael.baeuerle@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-02 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <AABUVl1TzHAAAAMY.A1.flnews@WStation1.micha.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #12576 |
Baho Utot wrote: > > []... Could not get anyone to help with building that system, all > anyone wanted to do was take. That is the main problem. The former "linux community" has become a "consumer community" who no longer is interested in contributing own work. It's the "free as in free beer" philosophy that RMS once has rejected for GNU. > So I moved to FreeBSD and now I don't need to > deal with the nitemare that linux has become. I has been a very pleasent > move to FreeBSD. I'm using NetBSD (if there is a choice) since some years now. But systemd will make it harder for the BSD users in the future (because parts of the OSS world likely become "linux-only via systemd dependency").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-02 15:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <efiiib-r6r.ln1@raspberry-pi.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #12589 |
Michael Baeuerle wrote: > Baho Utot wrote: >> >> []... Could not get anyone to help with building that system, all >> anyone wanted to do was take. > > That is the main problem. The former "linux community" has become > a "consumer community" who no longer is interested in contributing own > work. It's the "free as in free beer" philosophy that RMS once has > rejected for GNU. And then bitch when something goes wrong, demanding you fix their problem pronto. On the other hand if you ask some help all you get name calling. This "consumer community" has no manners. > >> So I moved to FreeBSD and now I don't need to >> deal with the nitemare that linux has become. I has been a very pleasent >> move to FreeBSD. > > I'm using NetBSD (if there is a choice) since some years now. But > systemd will make it harder for the BSD users in the future (because > parts of the OSS world likely become "linux-only via systemd > dependency"). I think that is true also. It looks like FreeBSD is removing "linux-isms" in the newer releases, so it may not matter. Reading the porters handbook has been enlightening.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-02 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m36ar4$mfp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12590 |
On 2014-11-02, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote: > Michael Baeuerle wrote: > >> Baho Utot wrote: > > On the other hand if you ask some help all you get name calling. I have seen loads and loads of posts where people try to help. There is the occasionaly "name calling" by a few individuals, but in general there is genuine attempt to help. Note that someone who asks for help by starting with "Linux is crap" is, I admit, liable to get harsher comments. > > This "consumer community" has no manners. Some people in all walks of life have no manners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-01 20:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tfrfib-b8n.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12572 |
On 01/11/14 15:30, Rich wrote: > Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote: >> 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 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! > > Note that the "jesus christ who the hell changed that" effect with > Linux is highly distribution specific. Slackware Linux has very much > less "jesus christ who the hell changed that" effect than the > distributions that like to play "ride the cutting edge". Sadly, the > "ride the cutting edge" distro's are the one's most folks have heard > of, and therefore, gravitate towards trying out. > There was a time when "cutting edge" was necessary for some of us. Trying to make sure current hardware was working, or needing devfs (later udev) so device hot plugging would actually be viable (I still remember having systems with the "user" option on some fstabe entries for the CDrom and floppy. Also, needing the latest GIMP, or the latest video codec libs to have any chance of being able to get certain every day jobs done... These days I find I can be quite content with a 2 year old Long term release and not actually miss much... It's a good thing - it means linux has reached a certain maturity and "stuff works".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-02 04:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m34dls4fve@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #12577 |
On 2014-11-01, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > These days I find I can be quite content with a 2 year old Long term > release and not actually miss much... It's a good thing - it means linux > has reached a certain maturity and "stuff works". Generally that's true - although the laptop I'm posting this on is running a fairly new version of Debian Jessie because that's the only way I could get OpenGL drivers modern enough for me to play the Linux version of Portal. -- /~\ 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 | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-28 14:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m2omg1$p28$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12541 |
"Charles T. Smith" <cts.private.yahoo@gmail.com> writes: > 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? I guess you mean on-topic. So, the question is which distros aren't using systemd. That's a pretty clear assertion that there is something wrong with systemd. I don't see anything important wrong with systemd so I guess I should just shut up instead of saying so. Oh well. Seems like a fools errand. It's only a matter of time before ALL distros are using systemd. It's a nice improvement. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Baeuerle <michael.baeuerle@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-28 21:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <AABUT/+KzvgAAAe5.A1.flnews@WStation1.micha.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #12544 |
Dan Espen wrote: > > Dan Espen wrote: > > > Bruce Sinclair wrote: > > > > > Bruce Sinclair wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > 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 ? I don't know about a *complete* list, Wikipedia has an incomplete list: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Adoption> > [...] > So, the question is which distros aren't using systemd. > That's a pretty clear assertion that there is something wrong with > systemd. > [...] > Seems like a fools errand. It's only a matter of time before ALL > distros are using systemd. Yes, it really looks like that. > It's a nice improvement. ... in your opinion. Many users, including me, think different. Even if we don't have a choice any more on Linux in the future, we should at least fight to prevent most packages from becoming "Linux only" by injected systemd dependencies (to be able to use *BSD or something else). To answer the question of this thread: - Crux - Gentoo - Slackware are Linux distributions which currently don't use systemd as default init system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-02 20:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xlk6ccdqa3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #11889 |
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:35:45 -0400, Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: > 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. :) While I'm not interested in getting into an argument about how systemd has been implemented, in general, I'm in favour of the ideas behind it. I am curious though, about what is making you want to avoid it. 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 | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 03:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnm0d1pe.ql.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #11891 |
On 2014-09-03, David W. Hodgins <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:35:45 -0400, Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: > >> 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. :) > > While I'm not interested in getting into an argument about how systemd > has been implemented, in general, I'm in favour of the ideas behind it. > > I am curious though, about what is making you want to avoid it. > > Regards, Dave Hodgins Not speaking for the OP. My first experience with systemd was with a Mageia 2 test VM. I wasn't aware of how to use KVM, so the VM was using QEMU. Installation went fine. First boot took a long time due to QEMU's slowness. Systemd timed out and wedged the system in an inoperational state. The tool needed to convert the binary journal to a partially-releadable timeline was not installed, and installation of the package was no easily on a non-bootable system. Even that tool did not really provide any good clues as to why the system failed to boot. It was that experience that convinced me I should be one of the last people on this planet still running something other than system as PID 1. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-07 23:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luis5e$v1h$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11891 |
In article <op.xlk6ccdqa3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net>, "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:35:45 -0400, Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: > >> 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. :) > >While I'm not interested in getting into an argument about how systemd >has been implemented, in general, I'm in favour of the ideas behind it. > >I am curious though, about what is making you want to avoid it. The words that frightened me the most during the discussion were ... "like the windows registry". :) I don't like the windows registry (though it was marginally OKbecause it wasa text file). IIRC, I was told systemd was a binary, not text file. That seems to have all the makings of a cock up waiting to happen to me. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 07:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p9tvdb-ptn.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #11999 |
On 08/09/14 00:10, Bruce Sinclair wrote: > In article <op.xlk6ccdqa3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net>, "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:35:45 -0400, Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: >> >>> 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. :) >> >> While I'm not interested in getting into an argument about how systemd >> has been implemented, in general, I'm in favour of the ideas behind it. >> >> I am curious though, about what is making you want to avoid it. > > The words that frightened me the most during the discussion were ... > > "like the windows registry". :) Ignoring the monolithic binary blob nature, it did have some merits - notably a consistent method of storing config data with a separation between per-user settings and machine wide stuff. But the app developers buggered it up with settings all over the place and I still don't know why there were 4 root nodes and not two. Then you had another executive API just for that. The same thing could have been done perfectly well with a library interface to ini style files as were and a well stated policy of system settings plus user settings. Lot less cruft, lot easier to debug and clean up. Oh and it would have been like unix. Reinvented. Poorly ;-> > I don't like the windows registry (though it was marginally OKbecause it wasa > text file). IIRC, I was told systemd was a binary, not text file. That seems > to have all the makings of a cock up waiting to happen to me. :) Yes. The more this discussion goes on, the more it sounds like systemd is the spawn of satan.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web