Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #32816 > unrolled thread
| Started by | F Russell <fr@random.info> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-08-23 23:04 +0000 |
| Last post | 2021-08-25 00:12 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: What's the best linux distro? F Russell <fr@random.info> - 2021-08-23 23:04 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-24 03:13 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-24 14:19 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Jimmy Johnson <Jimmy@disposable.invalid> - 2021-08-25 20:47 -0700
Re: What's the best linux distro? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2021-08-26 04:05 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 09:48 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 09:46 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-08-26 12:11 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2021-08-26 13:21 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 16:53 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 16:51 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? F Russell <fr@random.info> - 2021-08-24 12:53 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-25 00:41 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-25 10:18 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-25 11:56 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-25 12:10 +0100
Re: X-post and follow-Up (Was: What's the best linux distro?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-26 11:33 +0200
Re: X-post and follow-Up Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-29 06:52 -0400
Re: X-post and follow-Up "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-29 14:02 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-25 13:10 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-25 14:36 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-25 08:53 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-25 15:13 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-25 14:31 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-25 12:14 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-25 20:13 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-08-26 20:57 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-27 01:38 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:04 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-27 09:29 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-08-27 17:01 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-29 07:26 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-29 14:27 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-08-26 20:53 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:01 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-25 08:23 -0700
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-25 12:21 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-27 01:54 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-08-28 12:51 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-28 11:40 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-08-28 17:39 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-28 14:25 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-28 23:08 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2021-08-29 00:10 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-29 08:09 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-29 14:43 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-29 07:11 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-29 14:29 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2021-08-29 16:09 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-25 14:27 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-25 15:38 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-25 18:44 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-25 20:15 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-26 05:19 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-26 11:40 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-25 12:07 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-25 12:10 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-08-26 21:03 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-08-27 17:04 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-08-28 13:12 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-28 11:39 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-29 11:05 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-29 07:06 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-29 12:50 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-29 08:07 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-29 13:23 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-29 11:38 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-29 22:45 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-30 01:10 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-29 20:18 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-30 08:23 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-30 08:02 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-30 14:26 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 10:13 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 10:38 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-08-31 20:39 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-08-29 12:59 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-29 15:43 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-29 11:41 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 09:09 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 09:49 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-26 11:31 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-25 16:47 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? jjb <invalid@invalid.nl> - 2021-08-25 18:17 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-25 10:39 -0700
Re: What's the best linux distro? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2021-08-25 22:14 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-29 08:19 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-25 12:23 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-25 18:14 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-25 20:19 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-29 07:32 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-29 14:36 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-29 15:16 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Jimmy Johnson <Jimmy@disposable.invalid> - 2021-08-25 21:02 -0700
Re: What's the best linux distro? Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-26 05:35 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-08-26 11:28 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2021-08-26 18:10 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-26 13:12 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2021-08-26 19:41 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2021-08-27 11:02 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-29 07:42 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2021-08-29 15:26 +0200
Re: What's the best linux distro? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-29 14:57 +0100
Re: What's the best linux distro? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-29 10:47 -0400
Re: What's the best linux distro? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-08-26 21:12 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-08-31 21:36 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-08-26 20:41 +0000
Re: What's the best linux distro? SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-25 00:12 -0400
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-28 11:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sgdlar$mo6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32939 |
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: > I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But > saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. What could be eliminated or simplified? -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 11:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8735qsk1lf.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #32940 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: > Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: > >> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. > > Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't > imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the > simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend there’s no learning curve here. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 07:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sgfpo5$op9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32960 |
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >> >>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. >> >> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't >> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the >> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. > > A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. > There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, > with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not > badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend > there’s no learning curve here. Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts, each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links. Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file syntax? No one said ANYTHING about "no learning curve". Systemd presents the simplest user interface possible, especially compared to initd. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wno4ii5a.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #32962 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >>> >>>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >>>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. >>> >>> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't >>> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the >>> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. >> >> A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. >> There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, >> with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not >> badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend >> there’s no learning curve here. > > Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts, > each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links. > Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file > syntax? I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 08:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sgft97$j5k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32967 |
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >>>> >>>>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >>>>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. >>>> >>>> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't >>>> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the >>>> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. >>> >>> A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. >>> There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, >>> with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not >>> badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend >>> there’s no learning curve here. >> >> Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts, >> each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links. >> Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file >> syntax? > > I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since > there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. It's the only visible user interface. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 13:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87o89gignr.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #32969 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >>>>>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. >>>>> >>>>> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't >>>>> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the >>>>> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. >>>> >>>> A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. >>>> There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, >>>> with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not >>>> badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend >>>> there’s no learning curve here. >>> >>> Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts, >>> each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links. >>> Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file >>> syntax? >> >> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since >> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. > > It's the only visible user interface. systemd.syntax is tiny indeed, but if that’s all someone reads they will still have no idea how to write or interpret a unit file. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 11:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sgg9l1$e98$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32972 |
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >>>>>>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't >>>>>> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the >>>>>> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. >>>>> >>>>> A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. >>>>> There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, >>>>> with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not >>>>> badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend >>>>> there’s no learning curve here. >>>> >>>> Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts, >>>> each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links. >>>> Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file >>>> syntax? >>> >>> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since >>> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. >> >> It's the only visible user interface. > > systemd.syntax is tiny indeed, but if that’s all someone reads they will > still have no idea how to write or interpret a unit file. "No idea"? Hardly. Have you looked? They seem pretty straight forward to me. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 22:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87czpvj560.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #32985 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >>>>>>>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't >>>>>>> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the >>>>>>> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. >>>>>> >>>>>> A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. >>>>>> There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, >>>>>> with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not >>>>>> badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend >>>>>> there’s no learning curve here. >>>>> >>>>> Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts, >>>>> each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links. >>>>> Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file >>>>> syntax? >>>> >>>> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since >>>> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. >>> >>> It's the only visible user interface. >> >> systemd.syntax is tiny indeed, but if that’s all someone reads they will >> still have no idea how to write or interpret a unit file. > > "No idea"? Hardly. > Have you looked? Yes, I have written a number. > They seem pretty straight forward to me. Go on then, explain how to write a unit file that actually does something useful, using only information in `man systemd.syntax`. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-30 01:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iogtvhxosb.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor> |
| In reply to | #32991 |
On 29/08/2021 23.45, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But
>>>>>>>>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't
>>>>>>>> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the
>>>>>>>> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand.
>>>>>>> There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options,
>>>>>>> with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not
>>>>>>> badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend
>>>>>>> there’s no learning curve here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts,
>>>>>> each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links.
>>>>>> Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file
>>>>>> syntax?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since
>>>>> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that.
>>>>
>>>> It's the only visible user interface.
>>>
>>> systemd.syntax is tiny indeed, but if that’s all someone reads they will
>>> still have no idea how to write or interpret a unit file.
>>
>> "No idea"? Hardly.
>> Have you looked?
>
> Yes, I have written a number.
>
>> They seem pretty straight forward to me.
>
> Go on then, explain how to write a unit file that actually does
> something useful, using only information in `man systemd.syntax`.
>
I don't. I look at existing files.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 20:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sgh85b$4f7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32991 |
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >>>>>>>>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't >>>>>>>> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the >>>>>>>> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. >>>>>>> There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, >>>>>>> with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not >>>>>>> badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend >>>>>>> there’s no learning curve here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts, >>>>>> each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links. >>>>>> Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file >>>>>> syntax? >>>>> >>>>> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since >>>>> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. >>>> >>>> It's the only visible user interface. >>> >>> systemd.syntax is tiny indeed, but if that’s all someone reads they will >>> still have no idea how to write or interpret a unit file. >> >> "No idea"? Hardly. >> Have you looked? > > Yes, I have written a number. > >> They seem pretty straight forward to me. > > Go on then, explain how to write a unit file that actually does > something useful, using only information in `man systemd.syntax`. Here is the existing emacs.service file on my system: [Unit] Description=Emacs: the extensible, self-documenting text editor [Service] Type=forking ExecStart=/usr/bin/emacs --daemon ExecStop=/usr/bin/emacsclient --eval "(kill-emacs)" Restart=always [Install] WantedBy=default.target If I wanted to add arguments to emacs I'd change the ExecStart line. No reference to the man page is required. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-30 08:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <871r6bief4.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #32993 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >>>>>>>>>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't >>>>>>>>> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the >>>>>>>>> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. >>>>>>>> There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, >>>>>>>> with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not >>>>>>>> badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend >>>>>>>> there’s no learning curve here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts, >>>>>>> each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links. >>>>>>> Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file >>>>>>> syntax? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since >>>>>> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. >>>>> >>>>> It's the only visible user interface. >>>> >>>> systemd.syntax is tiny indeed, but if that’s all someone reads they will >>>> still have no idea how to write or interpret a unit file. >>> >>> "No idea"? Hardly. >>> Have you looked? >> >> Yes, I have written a number. >> >>> They seem pretty straight forward to me. >> >> Go on then, explain how to write a unit file that actually does >> something useful, using only information in `man systemd.syntax`. > > Here is the existing emacs.service file on my system: > > [Unit] > Description=Emacs: the extensible, self-documenting text editor > > [Service] > Type=forking > ExecStart=/usr/bin/emacs --daemon > ExecStop=/usr/bin/emacsclient --eval "(kill-emacs)" > Restart=always > > [Install] > WantedBy=default.target > > If I wanted to add arguments to emacs I'd change the ExecStart line. > > No reference to the man page is required. Cargo-culting one example is a bit different to understanding the system. If you wanted to do anything even slightly different you’d need to read the manual. Which isn’t unreasonable, but it’s a long way beyond knowing the config file surface syntax. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-30 08:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sgihdk$u1r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33000 |
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: > >> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >>>>>>>>>>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't >>>>>>>>>> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the >>>>>>>>>> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. >>>>>>>>> There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, >>>>>>>>> with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not >>>>>>>>> badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend >>>>>>>>> there’s no learning curve here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts, >>>>>>>> each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links. >>>>>>>> Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file >>>>>>>> syntax? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since >>>>>>> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's the only visible user interface. >>>>> >>>>> systemd.syntax is tiny indeed, but if that’s all someone reads they will >>>>> still have no idea how to write or interpret a unit file. >>>> >>>> "No idea"? Hardly. >>>> Have you looked? >>> >>> Yes, I have written a number. >>> >>>> They seem pretty straight forward to me. >>> >>> Go on then, explain how to write a unit file that actually does >>> something useful, using only information in `man systemd.syntax`. >> >> Here is the existing emacs.service file on my system: >> >> [Unit] >> Description=Emacs: the extensible, self-documenting text editor >> >> [Service] >> Type=forking >> ExecStart=/usr/bin/emacs --daemon >> ExecStop=/usr/bin/emacsclient --eval "(kill-emacs)" >> Restart=always >> >> [Install] >> WantedBy=default.target >> >> If I wanted to add arguments to emacs I'd change the ExecStart line. >> >> No reference to the man page is required. > > Cargo-culting one example is a bit different to understanding the > system. If you wanted to do anything even slightly different you’d need > to read the manual. Which isn’t unreasonable, but it’s a long way beyond > knowing the config file surface syntax. I was asked for an example, I gave it. Not enough for you? I'm wasting my time. Cargo cult: A cargo cult is an indigenist millenarian belief system in which adherents perform rituals which they believe will cause a more technologically advanced society to deliver goods. WTF? -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-30 14:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sgim9h$2np$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33002 |
On 30/08/2021 13:02, Dan Espen wrote: > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >>>>>>>>>>>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't >>>>>>>>>>> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the >>>>>>>>>>> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. >>>>>>>>>> There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, >>>>>>>>>> with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not >>>>>>>>>> badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend >>>>>>>>>> there’s no learning curve here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts, >>>>>>>>> each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links. >>>>>>>>> Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file >>>>>>>>> syntax? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since >>>>>>>> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's the only visible user interface. >>>>>> >>>>>> systemd.syntax is tiny indeed, but if that’s all someone reads they will >>>>>> still have no idea how to write or interpret a unit file. >>>>> >>>>> "No idea"? Hardly. >>>>> Have you looked? >>>> >>>> Yes, I have written a number. >>>> >>>>> They seem pretty straight forward to me. >>>> >>>> Go on then, explain how to write a unit file that actually does >>>> something useful, using only information in `man systemd.syntax`. >>> >>> Here is the existing emacs.service file on my system: >>> >>> [Unit] >>> Description=Emacs: the extensible, self-documenting text editor >>> >>> [Service] >>> Type=forking >>> ExecStart=/usr/bin/emacs --daemon >>> ExecStop=/usr/bin/emacsclient --eval "(kill-emacs)" >>> Restart=always >>> >>> [Install] >>> WantedBy=default.target >>> >>> If I wanted to add arguments to emacs I'd change the ExecStart line. >>> >>> No reference to the man page is required. >> >> Cargo-culting one example is a bit different to understanding the >> system. If you wanted to do anything even slightly different you’d need >> to read the manual. Which isn’t unreasonable, but it’s a long way beyond >> knowing the config file surface syntax. > > I was asked for an example, I gave it. > Not enough for you? > I'm wasting my time. > > Cargo cult: > > A cargo cult is an indigenist millenarian belief system in which > adherents perform rituals which they believe will cause a more > technologically advanced society to deliver goods. > > WTF? > Well yes, I was a bit puzzled by the use of that term. I assumed it was sort of like 'using something not invented or understood here, but delivered by someone who knew what they were doing' Which is stretching the definition of cargo cult past breaking part. 'cribbing' would have been simpler to say. It's a tradition that goes back to Bletchley Park, cryptography and the dawn of the computer age. We used to call it hacking - copy everything and then hack it about till it does what you want. A very fast way to develop similar code since you only need to really understand the bit that needs changing. -- Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-31 10:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87v93mgenu.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #33002 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I never said systemd is easy to understand. It would be a lie. But >>>>>>>>>>>> saying SysV is easy would be a lie too. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Funny you should say systemd is not easy to understand. I can't >>>>>>>>>>> imagine a simpler system. One file type for configuration with the >>>>>>>>>>> simplest syntax possible, and just a few keywords to know about. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A simple config file syntax doesn’t make a system easy to understand. >>>>>>>>>> There are thousands of lines of man pages containing over 160 options, >>>>>>>>>> with an implementation exceeding half a million lines of C. It’s not >>>>>>>>>> badly documented, but it’s a complex system and it’s silly to pretend >>>>>>>>>> there’s no learning curve here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Where is the user interface? With initd, it's that pile of scripts, >>>>>>>>> each one a custom creation and a forest of symbolic links. >>>>>>>>> Where is the learning curve compared to systemd's simple config file >>>>>>>>> syntax? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since >>>>>>>> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's the only visible user interface. >>>>>> >>>>>> systemd.syntax is tiny indeed, but if that’s all someone reads they will >>>>>> still have no idea how to write or interpret a unit file. >>>>> >>>>> "No idea"? Hardly. >>>>> Have you looked? >>>> >>>> Yes, I have written a number. >>>> >>>>> They seem pretty straight forward to me. >>>> >>>> Go on then, explain how to write a unit file that actually does >>>> something useful, using only information in `man systemd.syntax`. >>> >>> Here is the existing emacs.service file on my system: >>> >>> [Unit] >>> Description=Emacs: the extensible, self-documenting text editor >>> >>> [Service] >>> Type=forking >>> ExecStart=/usr/bin/emacs --daemon >>> ExecStop=/usr/bin/emacsclient --eval "(kill-emacs)" >>> Restart=always >>> >>> [Install] >>> WantedBy=default.target >>> >>> If I wanted to add arguments to emacs I'd change the ExecStart line. >>> >>> No reference to the man page is required. >> >> Cargo-culting one example is a bit different to understanding the >> system. If you wanted to do anything even slightly different you’d need >> to read the manual. Which isn’t unreasonable, but it’s a long way beyond >> knowing the config file surface syntax. > > I was asked for an example, I gave it. > Not enough for you? You were asked for an example that used only knowledge of the syntax, which is what you’ve spent the last few posts claiming is all you need. Turns out what you really meant by “knowledge of the syntax” was “an example to blindly copy, with no particular understanding of the wider system”. Perhaps the conversation would have gone faster if you’d said what you meant at the start. > I'm wasting my time. > > Cargo cult: > > A cargo cult is an indigenist millenarian belief system in which > adherents perform rituals which they believe will cause a more > technologically advanced society to deliver goods. > > WTF? The practice of copying things without understanding why they do what they do. In my experience it’s a commonly used term among techies, at least among the ones who do make the effort to fully understand the technology they use, when faced with the output of people who guess and bluff. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-31 10:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sgkt9o$1dk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33020 |
On 31/08/2021 10:13, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > In my experience it’s a commonly used term among techies, at > least among the ones who do make the effort to fully understand the > technology they use, when faced with the output of people who guess and > bluff. Never heard it used that way, ever. -- For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery. Jonathan Swift
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-31 20:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eli$2108311635@qaz.wtf> |
| In reply to | #33021 |
In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 31/08/2021 10:13, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > > In my experience it’s a commonly used term among techies, at > > least among the ones who do make the effort to fully understand the > > technology they use, when faced with the output of people who guess and > > bluff. Yes. Sometimes used in reference to people who lean on Stack Overflow too much. > Never heard it used that way, ever. Congratuations, now you have. Some further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science Elijah ------ the "see also" sections of those two pages are also good reading
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 12:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsin15c.2bq.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #32969 |
Le 29-08-2021, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> a écrit : > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > >> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since >> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. > > It's the only visible user interface. What about that? journalctl systemctl systemd-cryptenroll systemd-hwdb systemd-nspawn systemd-stdio-bridge systemd-analyze systemd-delta systemd-id128 systemd-path systemd-sysext systemd-ask-password systemd-detect-virt systemd-inhibit systemd-repart systemd-sysusers systemd-cat systemd-dissect systemd-machine-id-setup systemd-resolve systemd-tmpfiles systemd-cgls systemd-escape systemd-mount systemd-run systemd-tty-ask-password-agent systemd-cgtop systemd-firstboot systemd-notify systemd-socket-activate systemd-umount They don't count as visible user interface? Systemd is not only about launching services, but managing them too. Unlike SysV which was only starting the system and didn't care of the processes once launched. The best things brought by systemd are not only a few seconds at the startup. The few seconds are just a good side effect. For example, I'd say systemd was the first to use the cgroups, even if they were available in the kernel a long time before. And to understand the way the cgroups are managed by systemd, it's not enough to look at the config file syntax. Another example, some people complain because the logs are by default in a binary format. But now the search in the logs is really great. Using this new way isn't related with the config file syntax. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 15:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5gfsvhxjbv.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor> |
| In reply to | #32977 |
On 29/08/2021 14.59, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 29-08-2021, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since
>>> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that.
>>
>> It's the only visible user interface.
>
> What about that?
>
> journalctl systemctl systemd-cryptenroll systemd-hwdb systemd-nspawn
> systemd-stdio-bridge systemd-analyze systemd-delta systemd-id128
> systemd-path systemd-sysext systemd-ask-password systemd-detect-virt
> systemd-inhibit systemd-repart systemd-sysusers systemd-cat
> systemd-dissect systemd-machine-id-setup systemd-resolve
> systemd-tmpfiles systemd-cgls systemd-escape systemd-mount systemd-run
> systemd-tty-ask-password-agent systemd-cgtop systemd-firstboot
> systemd-notify systemd-socket-activate systemd-umount
>
> They don't count as visible user interface?
No :-)
I only use a handful of commands or maybe less. systemctl and
journalctl, that's it. :-)
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 11:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sgg9s2$e98$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32977 |
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: > Le 29-08-2021, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> a écrit : >> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >> >>> I have no idea why you’re focussing on the config file syntax, since >>> there’s a lot more to systemd (or any nontrivial init) than that. >> >> It's the only visible user interface. > > What about that? > > journalctl systemctl systemd-cryptenroll systemd-hwdb systemd-nspawn > systemd-stdio-bridge systemd-analyze systemd-delta systemd-id128 > systemd-path systemd-sysext systemd-ask-password systemd-detect-virt > systemd-inhibit systemd-repart systemd-sysusers systemd-cat > systemd-dissect systemd-machine-id-setup systemd-resolve > systemd-tmpfiles systemd-cgls systemd-escape systemd-mount systemd-run > systemd-tty-ask-password-agent systemd-cgtop systemd-firstboot > systemd-notify systemd-socket-activate systemd-umount > > They don't count as visible user interface? Yes it does. Of course that's a command line tool and not that hard to learn, but I'd expect the distro to be loaded with tools making use of the command line tool an exception rather than the rule. > Systemd is not only about launching services, but managing them too. > Unlike SysV which was only starting the system and didn't care of the > processes once launched. The best things brought by systemd are not only > a few seconds at the startup. The few seconds are just a good side > effect. > > For example, I'd say systemd was the first to use the cgroups, even if > they were available in the kernel a long time before. And to understand > the way the cgroups are managed by systemd, it's not enough to look at > the config file syntax. True, but then I'd consider cgroups distinct from systemd. > Another example, some people complain because the logs are by default in > a binary format. But now the search in the logs is really great. Using > this new way isn't related with the config file syntax. The journal and systemd the init system are distinct. The journal brings lots of new capabilities while leaving all the old /var/log stuff in place. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 09:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87lf4ok4po.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #32829 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > Having scripts execute in an orderly fashion according to > alphanumerical order was perfectly OK > > You looked at what systems your layer depended on, amd made sure you > were later in the list. If you’re rolling your own, that’s fine, although doing it by hand rather than getting a computer to work it out for you seems rather strange. If you’re building a distribution, with a wide range of possible end user configurations, it’s not sustainable; you need something that will work it out dynamically, based on the local configuration. IIRC Debian had long standing bugs in this area until adopting systemd. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web