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 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | Stef <not@this.address.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 15:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lua18v$4qu$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #11920 |
Marc Haber wrote: > Stef <not@this.address.com> wrote: >>Currently, yes. However, for next release, Debian 8 Jessie, due out >>next May or so, but in Beta now, systemd will be the default. Lots of >>gnashing of teeth on the Debian mail lists about that, > > Debian's Technical Committee has ruled that systemd will be the > default, but other init systems should remain possible, leaving the > choice to the user. I don't think that choice will be viable for long. > However, at the rate that support for "older" tools that do not > originate from the systemd universe is vanishing from the various > software products, it looks unlikely that one will be able, for > example, to run a modern desktop environment on Jessie without > systemd. Obsolescence is a result of inovation. > I'd say, that's not what the Debian Technical Committee has intended. The road to damnation has always been paved with good intent. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 17:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q1gmdb-b8j.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #11943 |
On 04/09/14 16:42, Stef wrote: > Obsolescence is a result of inovation. Soemtimes innovation is not necessary or the payback is too small vs the other problems it causes. This is not to say people shouldn't play - but some dogmatic drive to force acceptance of something not everyone wants is silly. It could eventually drive me to BSD! ;-> cf: MS Office's "ribbon" or the horrific interface on Windows 8.x (I am sooo unconvinced that a touchscreen on a laptop is a good idea - but on a pad or a phone it's bloody brilliant.) My new laptop I am about to order (Dell E7440) has a choice of touchscreen or no touchscreen. With TS: shiny glass that reflects the sun like a mirror (reviews). Yep, that'll work well on the train. Without TS: matte gorilla glass - oh finally (again) I can get a matte screen. Glossy screens were another "innovation" that were as welcome as piles on a cold day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-04 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <luapf1$uvg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11944 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > On 04/09/14 16:42, Stef wrote: > Without TS: matte gorilla glass - oh finally (again) I can get a > matte screen. Glossy screens were another "innovation" that were as > welcome as piles on a cold day. Glossy screens were the result of allowing the marketing department too much power over defining the product. Glossy screens made the display look more "brilliant" on the store demo shelves when sitting next to the traditional matte screens. So they tended to sell better (because of the "ohhh, shiny object" mentality of far too many folks). Because they tended to sell better, all the marketing departments started pushing out "glossy" versions. Of course, by the time one noticed that glossy really was not what you actually wanted, it was too late, you'd already bought it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stef <not@this.address.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-05 06:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lubkc9$kj5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #11944 |
Tim Watts wrote: > On 04/09/14 16:42, Stef wrote: > >> Obsolescence is a result of inovation. > > Soemtimes innovation is not necessary or the payback is too small vs the > other problems it causes. Being "not necessary" has never stopped innovations before, whether good or bad, nor has the problems they may manifest, either directly or indirectly. With smart marketing, and advertising, most anything can be made profitable. > This is not to say people shouldn't play - but some dogmatic drive to > force acceptance of something not everyone wants is silly. Only governments can do that with impunity. And they do so, repeatedly, much to the detriment the governed. However with companies and their wears, the consumer still can refuse to buy. So far. > > [snip] Stef
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Balwinder S Dheeman <bdheeman.SANSPAM@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 23:42 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <lu7lm0$p67$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #11889 |
On 09/03/2014 05:05 AM, Bruce Sinclair 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 ? ASFICT, latest Slackware i.e. 14.1 does not use systemd and they don't even plan to do so in the near future. FYI, the Porteus, based on Slackware 14.1 boots off of Live CD/USB in less than 15 seconds! -- Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman (http://bdheeman.BlogSpot.in/) "Working together, works! The proof is GNU/Linux and F/LOSS Projects; Do you too voluntarily work on or contribute to making any difference?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 19:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lu7rse$9qh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11910 |
Balwinder S Dheeman <bdheeman.SANSPAM@outlook.com> wrote: > On 09/03/2014 05:05 AM, Bruce Sinclair wrote: > > I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if > > anyone knows where there is such a thing ? > ASFICT, latest Slackware i.e. 14.1 does not use systemd and they don't > even plan to do so in the near future. Confirmed - at least as to 14.1 having no systemd. And I've not seen/heard any rumors of Pat planning to adopt the thing either. > FYI, the Porteus, based on Slackware 14.1 boots off of Live CD/USB in > less than 15 seconds! Somewhat defeating the one "reason" why the hydra needed to be created, to speed up the boot sequence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lu7u4c$ieu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11911 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > Balwinder S Dheeman <bdheeman.SANSPAM@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 09/03/2014 05:05 AM, Bruce Sinclair wrote: >> > I'm told gentoo is one that does not, but I'd love a complet-ish list if >> > anyone knows where there is such a thing ? > >> ASFICT, latest Slackware i.e. 14.1 does not use systemd and they don't >> even plan to do so in the near future. > > Confirmed - at least as to 14.1 having no systemd. And I've not > seen/heard any rumors of Pat planning to adopt the thing either. > >> FYI, the Porteus, based on Slackware 14.1 boots off of Live CD/USB in >> less than 15 seconds! > > Somewhat defeating the one "reason" why the hydra needed to be created, > to speed up the boot sequence. Salix 14.1, a derivative of Slackware, boots in roughly 13 seconds on this AA1 netbook. That's from the grub2 prompt to the XDM prompt. Other compters are about the same, though they seldom get re-booted, currently both are at 25 days uptime..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-03 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lu81tb$m56$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11913 |
Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote: > Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > > Balwinder S Dheeman <bdheeman.SANSPAM@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 09/03/2014 05:05 AM, Bruce Sinclair 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 ? > > > >> ASFICT, latest Slackware i.e. 14.1 does not use systemd and they don't > >> even plan to do so in the near future. > > > > Confirmed - at least as to 14.1 having no systemd. And I've not > > seen/heard any rumors of Pat planning to adopt the thing either. > > > >> FYI, the Porteus, based on Slackware 14.1 boots off of Live CD/USB in > >> less than 15 seconds! > > > > Somewhat defeating the one "reason" why the hydra needed to be created, > > to speed up the boot sequence. > Salix 14.1, a derivative of Slackware, boots in roughly 13 seconds on > this AA1 netbook. That's from the grub2 prompt to the XDM prompt. > Other compters are about the same, though they seldom get re-booted, > currently both are at 25 days uptime.. 19 days on the laptop upon which I'm typing this. 100 days on another machine that does not move about (the Slack 14.1 machine) 101 days on two others that don't move about (looks like I had a power failure 101 or so days ago where these three located). My personal record was just shy of one year on a desktop system. Power failure due to a thunderstorm caused it to be cut short at something like 435 days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-05 09:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lucnia$354$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11915 |
Hi all you smarter folks, I have to say that I see this fuss about systemd as being resistance to learning to use a new tool. I was resistant to using KDE 4.x when it first appeared and it was full of flaws but a few years down the line I have learned to get it to do things that I never thought of doing before. The energy spent complaining about tools changing is better spent learning to use those tools and pointing out problems to developers. Thanks for your attention, however momentary. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-05 17:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lr5pdb-uun.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #11961 |
On 05/09/14 17:15, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > Hi all you smarter folks, > > I have to say that I see this fuss about systemd > as being resistance to learning to use a new tool. > I was resistant to using KDE 4.x when it first > appeared and it was full of flaws but a few years down > the line I have learned to get it to do things that > I never thought of doing before. When KDE4 throws a fit, it does not stop your system booting! ;-> > and pointing > out problems to developers. Which if you read the bug report linked from Linus's rant on LKML gets you exactly nowhere. Which is why half the people are polarised against systemd. it's not just that it is (IMHO) a bloated over complicated behemoth for a PID=1 binary, the developers are more likely to tell you to work around a bug rather than fixing it. I don't want that nonsense at the core of my systems (I have nearly 200 to worry about).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-05 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tcipdbxl4r.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
| In reply to | #11961 |
On 2014-09-05, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > I have to say that I see this fuss about systemd > as being resistance to learning to use a new tool. In all fairness, there have been other prominent developers, like Linus Torvalds and Ted T'so, who have had issues with the systemd developers. So while I agree that resistance is certainly a factor, it's not the only one. I think that there are likely valid complaints about the systemd developers, which we should not cast aside simply because there are curmudgeons resisting systemd for resistance's sake. --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 | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-05 20:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lud833$67o$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11961 |
> Hi all you smarter folks, > > I have to say that I see this fuss about systemd > as being resistance to learning to use a new tool. No. It is resistance to using an obscure, overdevloped single piece of code rather than many, easy to read and fix, pieces. systemd has advantages, but the ability to maintain it and fix it when things break is not one of them. And in boot code, ease of maintainance should be the first, not the last requirement. > I was resistant to using KDE 4.x when it first > appeared and it was full of flaws but a few years down > the line I have learned to get it to do things that > I never thought of doing before. Fine, I am sure that is also true of systemd, but that is not what the issue is. The issue is that boot code is part of the critical path. If it does not work, nothing works. Making sure that it works and that it can be fixed easily when it breaks is critical. Under ssvinit one could for example remove a startup script (for example if networking did not work, or something else did not work). Now that has been made hard to do and to find. > The energy spent complaining about tools changing > is better spent learning to use those tools and pointing > out problems to developers. That is what people are doing. But from reports, including from Linux Torvald, the developers are essentially saying "Screw you" whenever a problem is pointed out. > > Thanks for your attention, however momentary. > > bliss ~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 01:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ludpeg$jmc$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11969 |
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: > > Hi all you smarter folks, > > > > I have to say that I see this fuss about systemd as being > > resistance to learning to use a new tool. > > ... > > The energy spent complaining about tools changing is better > > spent learning to use those tools and pointing out problems to > > developers. > That is what people are doing. But from reports, including from Linux > Torvald, the developers are essentially saying "Screw you" whenever a > problem is pointed out. And this is a huge problem, esp. with a boot critical piece of code. To reuse Eric S. Raymond's famous piece [1], the systemd developers are the ones sitting in the Cathedral, ignoring those in the Bazaar, deciding among themselves "the one and only true way", and then dictating that everyone, everywhere, must adhere to that one true way. [1]: http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 05:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lue0k4$1se$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11961 |
On Friday 05 September 2014 18:15, Bobbie Sellers conveyed the following
to comp.os.linux.misc...
> Hi all you smarter folks,
>
> I have to say that I see this fuss about systemd
> as being resistance to learning to use a new tool.
Well, I'm afraid that's not really what this is about, Bobby.
> I was resistant to using KDE 4.x when it first appeared and it was
> full of flaws but a few years down the line I have learned to get it
> to do things that I never thought of doing before.
The transition to KDE4 was a different matter. KDE4 was pushed by the
distributions - and some went so far as to deliberately break KDE3 so as
to force that push - long before it was production-ready.
> The energy spent complaining about tools changing is better spent
> learning to use those tools and pointing out problems to developers.
This is not about learning a new tool, but about a tool which not only
is still sufficiently broken to at the very least delay its adoption in
the first place - so far the comparison with KDE4 - but which also
totally goes in against the UNIX philosophy, while carefully masking a
"we're going to take over the course of GNU/Linux development by making
as much as we can dependent on systemd" agenda of RedHat.
A 1 MiB binary as PID 1 is a bad idea. Logs in a binary format is also
a bad idea. Making PID 1 control all of the system (and in a rather
opaque way) is another bad idea. The list goes on.
I repeat what I said earlier: there's a reason why UNIX has survived for
over 40 years. It is flexible, it is easily maintainable, it is robust,
and it makes perfect sense.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 07:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jknqdb-ak6.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #11976 |
On 06/09/14 04:55, Aragorn wrote: > A 1 MiB binary as PID 1 is a bad idea. Logs in a binary format is also > a bad idea. Making PID 1 control all of the system (and in a rather > opaque way) is another bad idea. The list goes on. Exactly the reasons I think systemd is a crap idea. > I repeat what I said earlier: there's a reason why UNIX has survived for > over 40 years. It is flexible, it is easily maintainable, it is robust, > and it makes perfect sense. And also the reason GNU/linux can run on very large computers and very tiny ones - because it's very easy to pull out and/or simplify all the components to suit. And yet OpenWRT is familiar enough when I log is as to be as comfortable as any other linux. And yes, it uses init.d/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 10:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <luehqr$ebn$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #11976 |
Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: >On Friday 05 September 2014 18:15, Bobbie Sellers conveyed the following >to comp.os.linux.misc... >> I was resistant to using KDE 4.x when it first appeared and it was >> full of flaws but a few years down the line I have learned to get it >> to do things that I never thought of doing before. > >The transition to KDE4 was a different matter. KDE4 was pushed by the >distributions - and some went so far as to deliberately break KDE3 so as >to force that push - long before it was production-ready. They had no choice, upstream declared KDE 3 unmaintained, even security-wise, years before KDE 4 was remotely ready to replace it. 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 | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lufdmu$1q0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11982 |
On 09/06/2014 01:49 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: >> On Friday 05 September 2014 18:15, Bobbie Sellers conveyed the following >> to comp.os.linux.misc... >>> I was resistant to using KDE 4.x when it first appeared and it was >>> full of flaws but a few years down the line I have learned to get it >>> to do things that I never thought of doing before. >> >> The transition to KDE4 was a different matter. KDE4 was pushed by the >> distributions - and some went so far as to deliberately break KDE3 so as >> to force that push - long before it was production-ready. > > They had no choice, upstream declared KDE 3 unmaintained, even > security-wise, years before KDE 4 was remotely ready to replace it. > > Greetings > Marc > Ok so the issues are clarified in my mind. A Big Thank You to All who contributed to this thread. Systemd sounds like a unnecessary digression in the GNU/Linux style of doing things. It seems I have to reboot a lot more since I started using a system that uses systemd, i.e. Mageia 4.1. Maybe I will try Open Mandriva or wipe 8.1 (MS program launcher) and go back to PCLOS Is there anything about GPT and UEFI/EFI that would require a monolithic program like systemd? Bobbie Sellers
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 11:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <h52sdbxck8.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> |
| In reply to | #11989 |
On 2014-09-06, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > Is there anything about GPT and UEFI/EFI that would require > a monolithic program like systemd? No. *Something* needs to be PID 1, whether it's SysV init, systemd, busybox init, or something else. Speaking of busybox, I'm curious what those of you who rail against the systemd concepts think of using busybox init instead of SysV. It simplifies the init process, right? http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/examples/inittab --keith -- kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-06 21:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lufqqm$2pe$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #11990 |
On 06/09/14 19:59, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2014-09-06, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >> Is there anything about GPT and UEFI/EFI that would require >> a monolithic program like systemd? > > No. *Something* needs to be PID 1, whether it's SysV init, systemd, > busybox init, or something else. > > Speaking of busybox, I'm curious what those of you who rail against the > systemd concepts think of using busybox init instead of SysV. It > simplifies the init process, right? > > http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/examples/inittab > > --keith > > $ ps -eadf | grep systemd root 357 1 0 Sep05 ? 00:00:00 /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd --daemon root 871 1 0 Sep05 ? 00:00:00 /lib/systemd/systemd-logind Linux mint. systemd again No linked executable directories. -- 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 | Baho Uttot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-07 07:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tmqtdb-dee.ln1@raspberrypi.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #11992 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 06/09/14 19:59, Keith Keller wrote: >> On 2014-09-06, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>> >>> Is there anything about GPT and UEFI/EFI that would require >>> a monolithic program like systemd? >> >> No. *Something* needs to be PID 1, whether it's SysV init, systemd, >> busybox init, or something else. >> >> Speaking of busybox, I'm curious what those of you who rail against the >> systemd concepts think of using busybox init instead of SysV. It >> simplifies the init process, right? >> >> http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/examples/inittab >> >> --keith >> >> > $ ps -eadf | grep systemd > root 357 1 0 Sep05 ? 00:00:00 > /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd --daemon > root 871 1 0 Sep05 ? 00:00:00 > /lib/systemd/systemd-logind > > Linux mint. > > systemd again > > No linked executable directories. > > ps -eadf | grep systemd root 197 1 0 07:01 ? 00:00:00 /usr/lib/systemd/systemd- journald root 213 1 0 07:01 ? 00:00:00 /usr/lib/systemd/systemd- udevd root 307 1 0 07:01 ? 00:00:00 /usr/lib/systemd/systemd- logind dbus 308 1 0 07:01 ? 00:00:00 /usr/bin/dbus-daemon -- system --address=systemd: --nofork --nopidfile --systemd-activation scrat 423 1 0 07:01 ? 00:00:00 /usr/lib/systemd/systemd -- user root 936 932 0 07:03 pts/1 00:00:00 grep systemd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web