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 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 01:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lulirq$5ud$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12055 |
On 09/09/14 00:20, Bruce Sinclair wrote: > In article <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >> On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: >> >>> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to >>> demonstrate that they have better ideas. >> >> My "better idea" is to leave sysvinit alone :) >> >> Making things worse and going away from "unix is lots of small >> components, each one doing one job well" is not progress! > > Agreed. That sounds like a design (and philosophical) mistake to me. > > I guess the question I still have is ... why do we *need* systemd ? > > I've seen no useful answer to that, apart from 'someone thought it would be a > good idea". I remain very unconvinced. :) > The rationale appears to be 'faster booting' > (snip) > -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 04:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lum1me$s6k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12058 |
In article <lulirq$5ud$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 09/09/14 00:20, Bruce Sinclair wrote: >> In article <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts > <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>> On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: >>> >>>> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to >>>> demonstrate that they have better ideas. >>> >>> My "better idea" is to leave sysvinit alone :) >>> >>> Making things worse and going away from "unix is lots of small >>> components, each one doing one job well" is not progress! >> >> Agreed. That sounds like a design (and philosophical) mistake to me. >> >> I guess the question I still have is ... why do we *need* systemd ? >> >> I've seen no useful answer to that, apart from 'someone thought it would be a >> good idea". I remain very unconvinced. :) > >The rationale appears to be 'faster booting' OK. That's a good start. Faster is good ... but faster than what ? How fast ? .. and what (if any :) ) difference would I see ? If it's a few seconds, then I really don't care. Perhaps some might ? It's not slow now, so maybe this is fixing a problem that doesn't exist ? There's a lot of that around now. :) Thanks
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 12:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7d53eb-cvn.ln1@user-1943a.linux.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12061 |
It was reported that Bruce Sinclair posted: > In article <lulirq$5ud$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>On 09/09/14 00:20, Bruce Sinclair wrote: >>> In article <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts >> <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>>> On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: >>>> >>>>> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to >>>>> demonstrate that they have better ideas. >>>> >>>> My "better idea" is to leave sysvinit alone :) >>>> >>>> Making things worse and going away from "unix is lots of small >>>> components, each one doing one job well" is not progress! >>> >>> Agreed. That sounds like a design (and philosophical) mistake to me. >>> >>> I guess the question I still have is ... why do we *need* systemd ? >>> >>> I've seen no useful answer to that, apart from 'someone thought it would be a >>> good idea". I remain very unconvinced. :) >> >>The rationale appears to be 'faster booting' > > OK. That's a good start. Faster is good ... but faster than what ? How fast ? > .. and what (if any :) ) difference would I see ? > > If it's a few seconds, then I really don't care. Perhaps some might ? > It's not slow now, so maybe this is fixing a problem that doesn't exist ? > There's a lot of that around now. :) > > Thanks There is a comparison chart of the general features of systemd, sysvinit & Upstart, & a comparison chart showing Available Native Service Settings on this page: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html -- Websites taking free content from usenet are parasites. If you are not reading this in a USENET newsgroup, with a newsreader application (Pan, Knode, Forte-Agent, etc) then you are probably using one of the parasitic websites. USENET FAQ: http://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/wiki/faq
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 13:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <us63eb-q6u.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12078 |
On 09/09/14 12:37, William Poaster wrote: > There is a comparison chart of the general features of systemd, sysvinit & > Upstart, & a comparison chart showing Available Native Service Settings > on this page: > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html Defining terms: I regard "sysvinit" as the whole ecosystem of /sbin/init plus the rc.d scripts that go with it. Feel free to disagree with this point, but going with my definition: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html Then it's disingenuous to say that svsvinit does not handle fsck, mount, quota, console setup, locale to name a few. It does via its ecosystem on nearly any system using it. In fact that list scares me as to the number of dependencies it must have to achieve that list of features.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 13:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lumqsr$72i$6@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12079 |
On 09/09/14 13:03, Tim Watts wrote: > On 09/09/14 12:37, William Poaster wrote: >> There is a comparison chart of the general features of systemd, >> sysvinit & >> Upstart, & a comparison chart showing Available Native Service Settings >> on this page: >> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html > > Defining terms: > > I regard "sysvinit" as the whole ecosystem of /sbin/init plus the rc.d > scripts that go with it. Feel free to disagree with this point, but > going with my definition: > > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html > > Then it's disingenuous to say that svsvinit does not handle fsck, mount, > quota, console setup, locale to name a few. It does via its ecosystem on > nearly any system using it. > > > In fact that list scares me as to the number of dependencies it must > have to achieve that list of features. Actually its the other way around. The other programs depend on INIT. INIT can run without anything in the config directories. It wont DO much, but it doesn't depend on them being non-empty. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 14:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lumt16$jak$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12079 |
On Tuesday 09 September 2014 14:03, Tim Watts conveyed the following to
comp.os.linux.misc...
> On 09/09/14 12:37, William Poaster wrote:
>
>> There is a comparison chart of the general features of systemd,
>> sysvinit & Upstart, & a comparison chart showing Available Native
>> Service Settings on this page:
>> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
>
> Defining terms:
>
> I regard "sysvinit" as the whole ecosystem of /sbin/init plus the rc.d
> scripts that go with it. Feel free to disagree with this point, but
> going with my definition:
>
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
>
> Then it's disingenuous to say that svsvinit does not handle fsck,
> mount, quota, console setup, locale to name a few. It does via its
> ecosystem on nearly any system using it.
>
> In fact that list scares me as to the number of dependencies it must
> have to achieve that list of features.
If I'm not mistaken, then the article on that website was written by
Lennart Poettering, and it is definitely far from impartial.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 23:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luo5av$iob$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12081 |
In article <lumt16$jak$1@dont-email.me>, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: >On Tuesday 09 September 2014 14:03, Tim Watts conveyed the following to >comp.os.linux.misc... > >> On 09/09/14 12:37, William Poaster wrote: >> >>> There is a comparison chart of the general features of systemd, >>> sysvinit & Upstart, & a comparison chart showing Available Native >>> Service Settings on this page: >>> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html >> >> Defining terms: >> >> I regard "sysvinit" as the whole ecosystem of /sbin/init plus the rc.d >> scripts that go with it. Feel free to disagree with this point, but >> going with my definition: >> >> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html >> >> Then it's disingenuous to say that svsvinit does not handle fsck, >> mount, quota, console setup, locale to name a few. It does via its >> ecosystem on nearly any system using it. >> >> In fact that list scares me as to the number of dependencies it must >> have to achieve that list of features. > >If I'm not mistaken, then the article on that website was written by >Lennart Poettering, and it is definitely far from impartial. To be fair, it does say that it was written by one of the developers ... and they may well think that an extensive list of "yes" alongside the list of features is a "good thing". As someone else has already suggested, it probably isn't. :) Sounds a bit like snake oil to me ... can be used for everything and only $9-95 a bottle. :) :) No thanks remains my view here. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 23:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luo3er$bo7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12079 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > On 09/09/14 12:37, William Poaster wrote: > > There is a comparison chart of the general features of systemd, sysvinit & > > Upstart, & a comparison chart showing Available Native Service Settings > > on this page: > > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html > Defining terms: > I regard "sysvinit" as the whole ecosystem of /sbin/init plus the rc.d > scripts that go with it. Feel free to disagree with this point, but > going with my definition: > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html > Then it's disingenuous to say that svsvinit does not handle fsck, mount, > quota, console setup, locale to name a few. It does via its ecosystem on > nearly any system using it. Yeah, that list looks like someone was intentionally trying to omit all the jobs that the rc.d files perform as part of the sysv/bsd init system. But then again, it is potterings blog, so I'm not at all surprised that he intentionally omits everything the rc.d files perform as items that systvinit does not do, but systemd does. > In fact that list scares me as to the number of dependencies it must > have to achieve that list of features. No wonder it is taking over everything, that list is nearly everything but the kitchen sink.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 23:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luo556$iob$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12078 |
In article <7d53eb-cvn.ln1@user-1943a.linux.individual.net>, William Poaster <wp@dev.null> wrote: >It was reported that Bruce Sinclair posted: > >> In article <lulirq$5ud$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher > <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>On 09/09/14 00:20, Bruce Sinclair wrote: >>>> In article <6o71eb-dgc.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts >>> <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>>>> On 08/09/14 18:41, Dan Espen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What I'm seeing is a bunch of complainers that can't seem to >>>>>> demonstrate that they have better ideas. >>>>> >>>>> My "better idea" is to leave sysvinit alone :) >>>>> >>>>> Making things worse and going away from "unix is lots of small >>>>> components, each one doing one job well" is not progress! >>>> >>>> Agreed. That sounds like a design (and philosophical) mistake to me. >>>> >>>> I guess the question I still have is ... why do we *need* systemd ? >>>> >>>> I've seen no useful answer to that, apart from 'someone thought it would be > a >>>> good idea". I remain very unconvinced. :) >>> >>>The rationale appears to be 'faster booting' >> >> OK. That's a good start. Faster is good ... but faster than what ? How fast ? > >> .. and what (if any :) ) difference would I see ? >> >> If it's a few seconds, then I really don't care. Perhaps some might ? >> It's not slow now, so maybe this is fixing a problem that doesn't exist ? >> There's a lot of that around now. :) >> >> Thanks > >There is a comparison chart of the general features of systemd, sysvinit & >Upstart, & a comparison chart showing Available Native Service Settings >on this page: >http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html Thanks - that was interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 07:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mbj2eb-mqk.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #12058 |
On 09/09/14 01:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > The rationale appears to be 'faster booting' Sound like time to do a test - I have VMWare on my 6GB laptop. I'll pick a distribution where systemd is an option and try it with and without. Might be a day or two...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 08:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <877g1dq6pu.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #12065 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > The rationale appears to be 'faster booting' While Sysvinit as implemented in Debian does support dependency based and parallel booting, it's become a bit of a kludge with those bolted on. This results in some technical problems which the developers have been able to work around so far with lots of anguishing and hair-tearing. Systemd was designed from the ground up to support these features (and others). I think that replacing Sysvinit is a good idea, but I don't like the all-singing all dancing Systemd approach what with sucking in unrelated things like syslogd and making application-level stuff like dbus part of the core system. More serious is the fact that it is being implemented with little thought about backward compatibility. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-09 15:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lun1cf$m0u$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12082 |
On 09/09/14 14:11, John Hasler wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> The rationale appears to be 'faster booting' > > While Sysvinit as implemented in Debian does support dependency based > and parallel booting, it's become a bit of a kludge with those bolted > on. This results in some technical problems which the developers have > been able to work around so far with lots of anguishing and > hair-tearing. Systemd was designed from the ground up to support these > features (and others). > > I think that replacing Sysvinit is a good idea, but I don't like the > all-singing all dancing Systemd approach what with sucking in unrelated > things like syslogd and making application-level stuff like dbus part of > the core system. More serious is the fact that it is being implemented > with little thought about backward compatibility. > And that is about the most balanced comment yet. Nothing wrong with an all singing PID 1 root daemon in principle. Saves on process slots anyway. The devil is in the detail...and since I don't know the detail I am retiring from the fray. -- 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 | notbob <notbob@nothome.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 01:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c6nairF3vp4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #11889 |
On 2014-09-02, Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: > 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 ? This is the only list I've seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Adoption Also, the BSDs are systemd free. I use Slackware, now, but have used OBSD in the past, so no biggie. I hope Pat doesn't change, though. nb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 03:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lu61ju$u7c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11889 |
Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: > Hi > I vaguely followed a discussion or 2 on one of more of the linux groups > recently about systemd and its uses and pitfalls. I wasn't greatly concerned > at the time, but having chatted to someone that knows a bit more than me about > it, I am now. :) > Is there a list of distros anywhere that shows which use and which do not use > systemd ? Not that I know of. > I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if > anyone knows where there is such a thing ? 1) Slackware Also of note, while Slackware uses sysv init as the /sbin/init program, it utilizes BSD style /etc/rc.d/ files (which means /etc/rc.d/ is actually filled with a set of scripts that are executed instead of an opaque forrest of symlinks). So, you want to change how something's configured, you can simply edit the appropriate script in /etc/rc.d rather than figure out what magic symlink to insert where to get thing X to actually occur.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-02 22:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dfkidbxhki.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
| In reply to | #11895 |
On 2014-09-03, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > 1) Slackware Currently true, but Pat has said that he wouldn't rule it out completely. http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/i%27m-back-after-a-break-from-slackware-sharing-thoughts-and-seeing-whats-new-4175482641/#post5054861 > Also of note, while Slackware uses sysv init as the /sbin/init program, > it utilizes BSD style /etc/rc.d/ files (which means /etc/rc.d/ is > actually filled with a set of scripts that are executed instead of an > opaque forrest of symlinks). Slackware supports both BSD-style startup scripts and SysV-style. Check out rc.sysvinit in /etc/rc.d. > So, you want to change how something's > configured, you can simply edit the appropriate script in /etc/rc.d > rather than figure out what magic symlink to insert where to get thing > X to actually occur. Not that I'm a huge fan of SysV-style, but it's not like it's all that hard to get the symlinks correct. If Slackware does support systemd in the future, it is possible it would look the same as SysV support currently looks: not a core part of the init process, but available in case it's needed. --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 | noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-07 23:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luis98$v1h$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11895 |
In article <lu61ju$u7c$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: >> Hi > >> I vaguely followed a discussion or 2 on one of more of the linux groups >> recently about systemd and its uses and pitfalls. I wasn't greatly concerned >> at the time, but having chatted to someone that knows a bit more than me > about >> it, I am now. :) > >> Is there a list of distros anywhere that shows which use and which do not use > >> systemd ? > >Not that I know of. > >> I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if >> anyone knows where there is such a thing ? > >1) Slackware > > >Also of note, while Slackware uses sysv init as the /sbin/init program, >it utilizes BSD style /etc/rc.d/ files (which means /etc/rc.d/ is >actually filled with a set of scripts that are executed instead of an >opaque forrest of symlinks). So, you want to change how something's >configured, you can simply edit the appropriate script in /etc/rc.d >rather than figure out what magic symlink to insert where to get thing >X to actually occur. That sounds attractive. Never did see the point of having symlinks. :) Thanks
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 00:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luiui2$hng$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12000 |
Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: > In article <lu61ju$u7c$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > >Bruce Sinclair <noydb@no.way> wrote: > >> Hi > > > >> I vaguely followed a discussion or 2 on one of more of the linux groups > >> recently about systemd and its uses and pitfalls. I wasn't greatly concerned > >> at the time, but having chatted to someone that knows a bit more than me > > about > >> it, I am now. :) > > > >> Is there a list of distros anywhere that shows which use and which do not use > > > >> systemd ? > > > >Not that I know of. > > > >> I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if > >> anyone knows where there is such a thing ? > > > >1) Slackware > > > > > >Also of note, while Slackware uses sysv init as the /sbin/init program, > >it utilizes BSD style /etc/rc.d/ files (which means /etc/rc.d/ is > >actually filled with a set of scripts that are executed instead of an > >opaque forrest of symlinks). So, you want to change how something's > >configured, you can simply edit the appropriate script in /etc/rc.d > >rather than figure out what magic symlink to insert where to get thing > >X to actually occur. > That sounds attractive. Never did see the point of having symlinks. :) As far as I can tell, the only point to the symlink forrest was that it made it easier to impliment a gui to hide the details of how to configure one's system from the sysadmin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-07 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bjevdbxu6q.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
| In reply to | #12001 |
On 2014-09-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > > As far as I can tell, the only point to the symlink forrest was that it > made it easier to impliment a gui to hide the details of how to > configure one's system from the sysadmin. That is of course completely inaccurate; the point of SysV init was to be able to provide many different runlevels (init itself provides this; even Slackware uses SysV init) and a directory per runlevel--this is where the "symlink forest" comes from, but in this context the symlink forest actually makes a lot of sense, because otherwise you'd have to have separate files in each runlevel, which risks having the script for a service in one runlevel being different from that of another runlevel. I wouldn't disagree that SysV style init scripts and their corresponding runlevel directories never really caught on--people change runlevels seldom enough, and even less seldom between levels other than 0, 1, 6, and the default, that the effort to maintain the symlink forest seems not worth it. But trying to claim that the ''point'' to SysV style was to hide admin details is simply FUD (especially since any competent sysadmin could work out the details in about five minutes). --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 | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-08 08:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lujglg$85a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12004 |
On Monday 08 September 2014 03:50, Keith Keller conveyed the following
to comp.os.linux.misc...
> On 2014-09-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> As far as I can tell, the only point to the symlink forrest was that
>> it made it easier to impliment a gui to hide the details of how to
>> configure one's system from the sysadmin.
>
> That is of course completely inaccurate; the point of SysV init was to
> be able to provide many different runlevels (init itself provides
> this; even Slackware uses SysV init) and a directory per
> runlevel--this is where the "symlink forest" comes from, but in this
> context the symlink forest actually makes a lot of sense, because
> otherwise you'd have to have separate files in each runlevel, which
> risks having the script for a service in one runlevel being different
> from that of another runlevel.
+1
> I wouldn't disagree that SysV style init scripts and their
> corresponding runlevel directories never really caught on--people
> change runlevels seldom enough, and even less seldom between levels
> other than 0, 1, 6, and the default, that the effort to maintain the
> symlink forest seems not worth it. But trying to claim that the
> ''point'' to SysV style was to hide admin details is simply FUD
> (especially since any competent sysadmin could work out the details in
> about five minutes).
+1
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-07 23:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <540D47F9.5080601@thadlabs.com> |
| In reply to | #12004 |
On 9/7/2014 6:50 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2014-09-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, the only point to the symlink forrest was that it
>> made it easier to impliment a gui to hide the details of how to
>> configure one's system from the sysadmin.
>
> That is of course completely inaccurate; the point of SysV init was to
> be able to provide many different runlevels (init itself provides this;
> even Slackware uses SysV init) and a directory per runlevel--this is
> where the "symlink forest" comes from, but in this context the symlink
> forest actually makes a lot of sense, because otherwise you'd have to
> have separate files in each runlevel, which risks having the script for
> a service in one runlevel being different from that of another runlevel.
>
> I wouldn't disagree that SysV style init scripts and their corresponding
> runlevel directories never really caught on--people change runlevels
> seldom enough, and even less seldom between levels other than 0, 1, 6,
> and the default, that the effort to maintain the symlink forest seems
> not worth it. But trying to claim that the ''point'' to SysV style was
> to hide admin details is simply FUD (especially since any competent
> sysadmin could work out the details in about five minutes).
Hi Keith,
That's 100% correct. I still have 3 SysV systems (3B1, UNIXpc, PC7300)
in my home garage that still function perfectly and run a full SysV with
4 MB (megabyte) RAM, 67MB HD and a "measly" Motorola MC68010 at 10MHz
that boots fairly quickly, supports full Ethernet and StarLAN, drives the
VoicePower expansion card for a complete home PBX with voice mail, etc.,
and having an expansion chassis to support multiple QIC tapes for backups
and data interchange. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Unix_PC
You can see part of my home network using 3B1s in 1985 in this 4-page
excerpted PDF from the O'Reilly "Managing uucp and Usenet" book here
(which is now out of print and I cannot find a full PDF of it):
http://thadlabs.com/FILES/OR_Mng_uucp+Usenet.pdf 165kB
During the last several years of the West Coast Computer Faire that was
held annually in San Francisco , I'd demo two of my 3B1 systems in the
[original] AT&T booth with one running emacs, gcc and spacewar all at
the same time as seen on the builtin tilt'n'swivel monitor, and the
other system was used to demo networking and program development and
I let people "play" with it hands-on. These had great keyboards and
3-button mice back then, too.
The systems were easy to manage, and editing rc.* files or creating new
ones (e.g., rc.local) was trivial because all configs were plain ASCII
files. FWIW, I ran the AT&T Silicon Valley UNIX Users' Group for the
entirety of its existence until AT&T abandoned UNIX and I lost the use
of the huge AT&T building that was in Sunnyvale CA (and is now the AMD
HQ) for the user meetings. AT&T was a very gracious host and also
provided us free food (sandwiches, drinks, fruit) for each meeting.
I also submitted many of my programs to the comp.sources.unix group
and many other archives (e.g., UUnet, Simtel, etc.). One of the most
popular programs was tprobe (for which I still receive thanks today,
22+ years later); the shortest URL to an archive of it used to be here:
http://ae-www.technion.ac.il/pkgs/g-k/in/tprobe/tprobe
but that's now an aerospace site. A shell archive ('man 1 shar') is
here:
http://thadlabs.com/FILES/tprobe.shar.txt 46kB
and a PDF of its man page created using groff is here:
http://thadlabs.com/FILES/tprobe.pdf 13kB
and a copy of the source file of that man page from the shar file
is here:
http://thadlabs.com/FILES/tprobe.man.txt 9kB
and a description about tprobe is here:
http://www.drdobbs.com/on-the-networks/184402700?_requestid=139511
The original purpose of tprobe was to determine why boot tapes could
not be easily duplicated -- the reason was variable-length records
hence the name tprobe for "tape probe".
tprobe would analyze any given boot tape and could duplicate it on
the current system, a remote system, or between two remote systems
depending where the tape drive(s) were located with the current system
in control, and not consuming RAM or disk space to do the duplication
which is why it was very popular.
Heh, it took longer to write the man page than it took to design the
program, implement it, and test it. Writing UNIX-style man pages is
a real pain which is why we see such poor or non-existent man pages
for most linux distros nowadays.
Thad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web