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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-05 22:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ludbks$it4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #11968 |
On 05/09/14 21:51, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2014-09-05, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>> On 05/09/14 14:23, Joe Beanfish wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:03:28 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
>>>> On 04/09/14 13:15, Aragorn wrote:
>>>>>>> "the /usr move" [2],
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh god - I don't even know what that is...
>>>>>
>>>>> It is comprised of moving all runtime binaries off of the root
>>>>> filesystem and into /usr, with /bin, /sbin and /lib{,64} only being
>>>>> symbolic links to their respective equivalents under /usr.
>>>>
>>>> And since when did the init process dictate FS naming policy?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not even sure why they would want to do that or why anyone would
>>>> think it a good idea.
>>>
>>> I'm only guessing at their rationale here but...
>>>
>>> It's common these days for /usr to be the same FS as / because of large
>>> disks and no longer needing a tiny / for bootstrap. In that case it's
>>> a bit pointless to have redundant copies of stuff in /bin and /usr/bin
>>> etc..
>>>
>>
>> There wouldn't be redundant copies though - stuff that's in /bin stays
>> there and isn't replicated to /usr/bin as both are in $PATH for any
>> given process.
>
> Nope on the more recent systems, everything in /bin has been moved to
> /usr/bin, and /bin made a link to /usr/bin.
>
>
Nope. Not on this system freshly installed. /bin /usr/bin and /usr/sbin
all have different contents.
>>
>> I really don't get it ---
--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-05 22:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ludbv2$207$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11970 |
On 2014-09-05, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/09/14 21:51, William Unruh wrote:
>> On 2014-09-05, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>>> On 05/09/14 14:23, Joe Beanfish wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:03:28 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
>>>>> On 04/09/14 13:15, Aragorn wrote:
>>>>>>>> "the /usr move" [2],
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh god - I don't even know what that is...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is comprised of moving all runtime binaries off of the root
>>>>>> filesystem and into /usr, with /bin, /sbin and /lib{,64} only being
>>>>>> symbolic links to their respective equivalents under /usr.
>>>>>
>>>>> And since when did the init process dictate FS naming policy?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not even sure why they would want to do that or why anyone would
>>>>> think it a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> I'm only guessing at their rationale here but...
>>>>
>>>> It's common these days for /usr to be the same FS as / because of large
>>>> disks and no longer needing a tiny / for bootstrap. In that case it's
>>>> a bit pointless to have redundant copies of stuff in /bin and /usr/bin
>>>> etc..
>>>>
>>>
>>> There wouldn't be redundant copies though - stuff that's in /bin stays
>>> there and isn't replicated to /usr/bin as both are in $PATH for any
>>> given process.
>>
>> Nope on the more recent systems, everything in /bin has been moved to
>> /usr/bin, and /bin made a link to /usr/bin.
>>
>>
> Nope. Not on this system freshly installed. /bin /usr/bin and /usr/sbin
> all have different contents.
And what distro is that?
On Mageia 3
ls -l /bin
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jan 3 2014 /bin -> usr/bin
ls -l /lib
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jan 3 2014 /lib -> usr/lib
>
>
>>>
>>> I really don't get it ---
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-05 23:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ludd7v$m12$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #11971 |
On 05/09/14 23:03, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2014-09-05, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 05/09/14 21:51, William Unruh wrote:
>>> On 2014-09-05, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 05/09/14 14:23, Joe Beanfish wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:03:28 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/09/14 13:15, Aragorn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "the /usr move" [2],
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh god - I don't even know what that is...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is comprised of moving all runtime binaries off of the root
>>>>>>> filesystem and into /usr, with /bin, /sbin and /lib{,64} only being
>>>>>>> symbolic links to their respective equivalents under /usr.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And since when did the init process dictate FS naming policy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not even sure why they would want to do that or why anyone would
>>>>>> think it a good idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm only guessing at their rationale here but...
>>>>>
>>>>> It's common these days for /usr to be the same FS as / because of large
>>>>> disks and no longer needing a tiny / for bootstrap. In that case it's
>>>>> a bit pointless to have redundant copies of stuff in /bin and /usr/bin
>>>>> etc..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There wouldn't be redundant copies though - stuff that's in /bin stays
>>>> there and isn't replicated to /usr/bin as both are in $PATH for any
>>>> given process.
>>>
>>> Nope on the more recent systems, everything in /bin has been moved to
>>> /usr/bin, and /bin made a link to /usr/bin.
>>>
>>>
>> Nope. Not on this system freshly installed. /bin /usr/bin and /usr/sbin
>> all have different contents.
>
> And what distro is that?
Linux Mint 17
> On Mageia 3
>
> ls -l /bin
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jan 3 2014 /bin -> usr/bin
> ls -l /lib
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jan 3 2014 /lib -> usr/lib
ls -l /bin
total 9912
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1017016 Apr 23 23:43 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 31152 Oct 21 2013 bunzip2
......
ls -l /lib
total 672
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 May 30 00:56 brltty
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Aug 28 21:20 cpp -> /etc/alternatives/cpp
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 May 30 00:51 crda
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 May 30 00:51 cryptsetup
drwxr-xr-x 61 root root 20480 Aug 29 00:09 firmware
.....
etc etc
I think Mageia is the exception here. all the debian derivs are t'other
way about
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I really don't get it ---
>>
>>
--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 01:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ludpci$poa$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11972 |
On 2014-09-05, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/09/14 23:03, William Unruh wrote:
>> On 2014-09-05, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 05/09/14 21:51, William Unruh wrote:
>>>> On 2014-09-05, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/09/14 14:23, Joe Beanfish wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:03:28 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/09/14 13:15, Aragorn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "the /usr move" [2],
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh god - I don't even know what that is...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is comprised of moving all runtime binaries off of the root
>>>>>>>> filesystem and into /usr, with /bin, /sbin and /lib{,64} only being
>>>>>>>> symbolic links to their respective equivalents under /usr.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And since when did the init process dictate FS naming policy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not even sure why they would want to do that or why anyone would
>>>>>>> think it a good idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm only guessing at their rationale here but...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's common these days for /usr to be the same FS as / because of large
>>>>>> disks and no longer needing a tiny / for bootstrap. In that case it's
>>>>>> a bit pointless to have redundant copies of stuff in /bin and /usr/bin
>>>>>> etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There wouldn't be redundant copies though - stuff that's in /bin stays
>>>>> there and isn't replicated to /usr/bin as both are in $PATH for any
>>>>> given process.
>>>>
>>>> Nope on the more recent systems, everything in /bin has been moved to
>>>> /usr/bin, and /bin made a link to /usr/bin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nope. Not on this system freshly installed. /bin /usr/bin and /usr/sbin
>>> all have different contents.
>>
>> And what distro is that?
>
> Linux Mint 17
>
>> On Mageia 3
>>
>> ls -l /bin
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jan 3 2014 /bin -> usr/bin
>> ls -l /lib
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jan 3 2014 /lib -> usr/lib
>
> ls -l /bin
> total 9912
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1017016 Apr 23 23:43 bash
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 31152 Oct 21 2013 bunzip2
> ......
>
> ls -l /lib
> total 672
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 May 30 00:56 brltty
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Aug 28 21:20 cpp -> /etc/alternatives/cpp
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 May 30 00:51 crda
> drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 May 30 00:51 cryptsetup
> drwxr-xr-x 61 root root 20480 Aug 29 00:09 firmware
>
> .....
>
> etc etc
>
> I think Mageia is the exception here. all the debian derivs are t'other
> way about
As far as I know Debian has not yet implimented systemd. They are just
doing so, with a lot of argy bargy about it on the Debian newsgroups.
Once they do I suspect that they will also amalgamate those directories.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't get it ---
>>>
>>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 07:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8dnqdb-ak6.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #11974 |
On 06/09/14 02:52, William Unruh wrote: > As far as I know Debian has not yet implimented systemd. They are just > doing so, with a lot of argy bargy about it on the Debian newsgroups. > Once they do I suspect that they will also amalgamate those directories. If Debian goes stupid I might finally have to look at bsd...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luf169$pg6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11980 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > On 06/09/14 02:52, William Unruh wrote: > > As far as I know Debian has not yet implimented systemd. They are > > just doing so, with a lot of argy bargy about it on the Debian > > newsgroups. Once they do I suspect that they will also amalgamate > > those directories. > If Debian goes stupid I might finally have to look at bsd... So far, Slackware's not "gone stupid". It still uses BSD style rc files (there is support for allowing sysv style symlink forrests for those packages that come with a sysv style symlink forrest and you the user don't want to rewrite a proper bsd rc file). So given that it never fell into the symlink forrest camp when all the others went that way, I'd say that Pat V. isn't likely to go systemd anytime soon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | notbob <notbob@nothome.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 15:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c70md4Fh36tU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #11984 |
On 2014-09-06, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > others went that way, I'd say that Pat V. isn't likely to go systemd > anytime soon. Yeah, but he also sed he's not totally agin' it and only time will tell. Perhaps Pat will leave fans a choice. We can only hope. In the meantime, I think I'll resurrect an old box and see what's up with OBSD since the last time I dabbled. ;) nb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 12:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5j2sdbxkm8.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
| In reply to | #11984 |
On 2014-09-06, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> So far, Slackware's not "gone stupid". It still uses BSD style rc
> files (there is support for allowing sysv style symlink forrests for
> those packages that come with a sysv style symlink forrest and you the
> user don't want to rewrite a proper bsd rc file).
>
> So given that it never fell into the symlink forrest camp when all the
> others went that way, I'd say that Pat V. isn't likely to go systemd
> anytime soon.
Please don't assu.
If your cited example of Slackware SysV support is any indicator, then
Slackware could conceivably provide systemd support, just not as the
default init. Given that systemd is significantly more invasive than
SysV, I don't know how they would do this, but I imagine that Volkerding
would be receptive to someone else contributing the code to do it if he
didn't want to do it himself.
Slackware has typically been very practical about its technology
decisions. When they realized that commercial vendors often insisted on
providing only SysV-style init scripts, Slackware accomodated these
packages without disrupting the core of Slackware. They do not seem
likely to reject systemd solely on religious issues ("OMG symlink
forests are eeeeeeeeeeevil"); if they do reject it, they will have
good technical or practical reasons for doing so.
--keith
--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 01:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ludota$jmc$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11971 |
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> On 2014-09-05, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > On 05/09/14 21:51, William Unruh wrote:
> >> On 2014-09-05, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> >>> On 05/09/14 14:23, Joe Beanfish wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:03:28 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
> >>>>> On 04/09/14 13:15, Aragorn wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "the /usr move" [2],
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh god - I don't even know what that is...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is comprised of moving all runtime binaries off of the root
> >>>>>> filesystem and into /usr, with /bin, /sbin and /lib{,64} only being
> >>>>>> symbolic links to their respective equivalents under /usr.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And since when did the init process dictate FS naming policy?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not even sure why they would want to do that or why anyone would
> >>>>> think it a good idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm only guessing at their rationale here but...
> >>>>
> >>>> It's common these days for /usr to be the same FS as / because of large
> >>>> disks and no longer needing a tiny / for bootstrap. In that case it's
> >>>> a bit pointless to have redundant copies of stuff in /bin and /usr/bin
> >>>> etc..
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> There wouldn't be redundant copies though - stuff that's in /bin stays
> >>> there and isn't replicated to /usr/bin as both are in $PATH for any
> >>> given process.
> >>
> >> Nope on the more recent systems, everything in /bin has been moved to
> >> /usr/bin, and /bin made a link to /usr/bin.
> >>
> >>
> > Nope. Not on this system freshly installed. /bin /usr/bin and /usr/sbin
> > all have different contents.
> And what distro is that?
> On Mageia 3
This is what you get on Slackware 14.1:
$ ls -ld /bin /usr/bin
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Apr 17 20:59 /bin/
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 81920 Sep 5 05:00 /usr/bin/
And the contents do differ, although there are also a lot of symlinks
/from usr/bin/ back into /bin/
$ ls -l /bin/kill /usr/bin/kill
/bin/ls: cannot access /usr/bin/kill: No such file or directory
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 19832 Aug 7 2013 /bin/kill*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-05 18:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lucunc$thq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11954 |
Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:03:28 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
> > On 04/09/14 13:15, Aragorn wrote:
> >>>> "the /usr move" [2],
> >>>
> >>> Oh god - I don't even know what that is...
> >>
> >> It is comprised of moving all runtime binaries off of the root
> >> filesystem and into /usr, with /bin, /sbin and /lib{,64} only being
> >> symbolic links to their respective equivalents under /usr.
> >
> > And since when did the init process dictate FS naming policy?
> >
> > I'm not even sure why they would want to do that or why anyone would
> > think it a good idea.
> I'm only guessing at their rationale here but...
> It's common these days for /usr to be the same FS as / because of
> large disks and no longer needing a tiny / for bootstrap. In that
> case it's a bit pointless to have redundant copies of stuff in /bin
> and /usr/bin etc..
But there's nothing "redundant" about /bin vs. /usr/bin.
I.e., login exists only as /bin/login and not as /usr/bin/login.
For those that appear to "exist" in both directories on my slackware
/system, the item in usr/bin is simply a symlink to /bin, so there is
really only one binary, with a second name "pointing" to it from
elsewhere.
That's not what I call "redundant copies". That's a single copy, but
with two different names pointing towards it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lukc0v$7f4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11965 |
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 18:17:16 +0000, Rich wrote:
> Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:03:28 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
>> > On 04/09/14 13:15, Aragorn wrote:
>> >>>> "the /usr move" [2],
>> >>>
>> >>> Oh god - I don't even know what that is...
>> >>
>> >> It is comprised of moving all runtime binaries off of the root
>> >> filesystem and into /usr, with /bin, /sbin and /lib{,64} only being
>> >> symbolic links to their respective equivalents under /usr.
>> >
>> > And since when did the init process dictate FS naming policy?
>> >
>> > I'm not even sure why they would want to do that or why anyone would
>> > think it a good idea.
>
>> I'm only guessing at their rationale here but...
>
>> It's common these days for /usr to be the same FS as / because of large
>> disks and no longer needing a tiny / for bootstrap. In that case it's a
>> bit pointless to have redundant copies of stuff in /bin and /usr/bin
>> etc..
>
> But there's nothing "redundant" about /bin vs. /usr/bin.
>
> I.e., login exists only as /bin/login and not as /usr/bin/login.
>
> For those that appear to "exist" in both directories on my slackware
> /system, the item in usr/bin is simply a symlink to /bin, so there is
> really only one binary, with a second name "pointing" to it from
> elsewhere.
>
> That's not what I call "redundant copies". That's a single copy, but
> with two different names pointing towards it.
I've encountered more than one system where there were smaller, less
featureful, versions of some programs in /bin and /usr/bin had the full
blown version. I can't recall when/where.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 09:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87k35eryep.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #12016 |
Joe Beanfish writes: > I've encountered more than one system where there were smaller, less > featureful, versions of some programs in /bin and /usr/bin had the > full blown version. I can't recall when/where. Some used to put statically linked binaries in /bin and /sbin. The idea was that these would work even if the libraries and/or linker were buggered up. Would be a good idea to go back to that now that saving a few megabytes is no longer important, but that's not going to happen. /bin and /sbin will probably soon be merged into /usr/bin. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 12:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lu9eko$aln$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #11923 |
Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: >Gentoo's OpenRC is a serious alternative. Even Ubuntu's Upstart was a >serious alternative. Slackware's BSD-style init is also a serious >alternative. We need to agree to disagree here. Grüße Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 07:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vvamdbxuf8.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
| In reply to | #11923 |
On 2014-09-04, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: > > a. They consider RedHat their upstream, and allow RedHat (and its > propaganda platform freedesktop.org) to dictate what they must > do. This is a ridiculous statement. They have not ''allowed'' RedHat to ''dictate'' what they must do. They have *chosen* RHEL as their base. If a RHEL-based distro doesn't like systemd they can do the work to strip it out. > In addition to all of this, the traditional System V init was never > broken. Embedded devices or things that need to be booted up multiple > times a day ...such as service containers. Some organizations might need to boot hundreds or thousands of these a day! This is why RH is pushing this model--their big commercial customers who do huge deploys are pushing for it. > [1] It is obviously a strategic move by RedHat, who are trying to usurp > the market of enterprise-oriented GNU/Linux distributors, Which other distros are in this market? > [3] "We are RedHat. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." > Lennart Poettering has more than once stated on his blog that he > joyfully looks forward to the day where no other init systems than > systemd will exist anymore, and has also equally arrogantly mocked > other distributions - among whom Gentoo - on his blog. Maybe he believes that systemd is truly better. Would you like to see him complain that you ''arrogantly mocked'' RHEL simply because you believe traditional SysV is better? It's funny, because these same religious wars occurred when distros started moving to SysV init from BSD-style. Somehow the open source world survived that move; it'll survive this one. --keith -- kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 14:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xlvstwwxa3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #11923 |
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 05:02:11 -0400, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: > along with those good ideas and innovations also came a great number of > bad ideas, such as "the /usr move" [2], a 1 MiB monolith as PID 1, Just a comment on the size of /lib/systemd/systemd. While the on disk file is 1.1MB (Mageia 4 x86_64), htop shows it's only using 5,132 bytes of ram, with 50,592 bytes of virtual memory allocated, on my system. 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 | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 10:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1jpldb-os5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #11922 |
On 04/09/14 09:14, Marc Haber wrote: > Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >> If that's the attitude of the systemd lead devs, I don't know why >> *anyone* would want to touch it, least of all debian. > > People touch it because there is no serious alternative. init.d/ Really - I do not see the problem systemd is trying to solve. Sure it's cute - and it may be adding value/fluffy kittens/administrative ease. But init.d/ is not *broken* and in fact works very well on embedded devices where systemd may well be too heavy. Then there's upstart and I have vaguely heard of others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 12:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lu9enn$b3g$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #11925 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >On 04/09/14 09:14, Marc Haber wrote: >> Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>> If that's the attitude of the systemd lead devs, I don't know why >>> *anyone* would want to touch it, least of all debian. >> >> People touch it because there is no serious alternative. > >init.d/ > >Really - I do not see the problem systemd is trying to solve. Sure it's >cute - and it may be adding value/fluffy kittens/administrative ease. >But init.d/ is not *broken* and in fact works very well on embedded >devices where systemd may well be too heavy. init.d/ does not handle a bunch of cases that are omnipresent on many of today's systems, for example devices, interfaces and IP addresses appearing and disappearing during run time. init.d also needs many kludges, such as grepping the process table for processes with a distinctly matching name to kill all your children, which will in a multi-instance setup inevitably kill other instances as well. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 13:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <521mdb-1q9.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #11929 |
On 04/09/14 11:25, Marc Haber wrote: > Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >> On 04/09/14 09:14, Marc Haber wrote: >>> Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>>> If that's the attitude of the systemd lead devs, I don't know why >>>> *anyone* would want to touch it, least of all debian. >>> >>> People touch it because there is no serious alternative. >> >> init.d/ >> >> Really - I do not see the problem systemd is trying to solve. Sure it's >> cute - and it may be adding value/fluffy kittens/administrative ease. >> But init.d/ is not *broken* and in fact works very well on embedded >> devices where systemd may well be too heavy. > > init.d/ does not handle a bunch of cases that are omnipresent on many > of today's systems, for example devices, interfaces and IP addresses > appearing and disappearing during run time. I see your point and I will counter with: That should be a stand alone daemon IMHO - like Network Manager - but totally independent of any GUI. If there are dependencies like autofs needs a new config or stopping/starting, then starting it belongs to the netman daemon and not init.d on an admin choice basis. However, on servers, the network is usually stable with the possible exception of a server2server VPN needing to come up. > init.d also needs many kludges, such as grepping the process table for > processes with a distinctly matching name to kill all your children, > which will in a multi-instance setup inevitably kill other instances > as well. This could also be solved incrementally without throwing the whole thing in the bin. In fact /var/run/<proc>.pid files are a perfectly reasonable approach though it could be made a little more robust against the relatively rare case of the process dying and the PID getting recycled and pointing at an unrelated process. I'm not know for being a "dinosaur" but there have been so many efforts to rewrite "init" from the ground up and the fact that none have yet endured the test of time suggests an evolutionary approach on the original method might be more fruitful. Most of the successes in the unix world have been incremental. X.org started off from XF86. Ext4 sits on the shoulders of Ext3 then Ext2 and the latter is very much a traditional unix FS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 21:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <luag67$nss$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #11932 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >That should be a stand alone daemon IMHO - like Network Manager - but >totally independent of any GUI. Yes. But there ain't no such daemon. >However, on servers, the network is usually stable with the possible >exception of a server2server VPN needing to come up. Now introduce IPv6. >> init.d also needs many kludges, such as grepping the process table for >> processes with a distinctly matching name to kill all your children, >> which will in a multi-instance setup inevitably kill other instances >> as well. > >This could also be solved incrementally without throwing the whole thing >in the bin. Yes, but nobody did it yet. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lu9m1q$c81$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11929 |
On Thursday 04 September 2014 12:25, Marc Haber conveyed the following
to comp.os.linux.misc...
> Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 04/09/14 09:14, Marc Haber wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If that's the attitude of the systemd lead devs, I don't know why
>>>> *anyone* would want to touch it, least of all debian.
>>>
>>> People touch it because there is no serious alternative.
>>
>> init.d/
>>
>> Really - I do not see the problem systemd is trying to solve. Sure
>> it's cute - and it may be adding value/fluffy kittens/administrative
>> ease. But init.d/ is not *broken* and in fact works very well on
>> embedded devices where systemd may well be too heavy.
>
> init.d/ does not handle a bunch of cases that are omnipresent on many
> of today's systems, for example devices, interfaces and IP addresses
> appearing and disappearing during run time.
That is not the task of an init system. There are other services for
that, and udev was initially designed to provide for consistency with
regard to device names and interfaces, as well as hotplug functionality.
Of course, the systemd developers have merged udev with systemd. That
solves their problem of having to maintain two separate projects, but in
their typical narcissism, they don't care how it screws up things for
everybody else. That /is/ why some of the Gentoo developers chose to
fork udev into eudev.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web