Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #156977 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-28 17:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-08-30 15:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 126 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Another system management tool to disappear. Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-08-28 17:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 17:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 13:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 13:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 14:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 21:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-08-28 18:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 18:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-08-29 01:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 12:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2015-08-29 15:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 15:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2015-08-29 16:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2015-08-29 16:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 16:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2015-08-29 17:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2015-08-29 16:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 16:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2015-08-30 02:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 10:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 14:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 15:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2015-08-30 14:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-08-30 10:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-08-29 15:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2015-08-29 16:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 23:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 00:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2015-08-30 17:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-08-30 17:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2015-08-30 20:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-08-30 21:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 21:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-08-30 21:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-08-30 21:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 22:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-08-31 00:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 06:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 12:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 22:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 16:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 20:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. "T. J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 22:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 17:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-09-02 17:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2015-09-03 11:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-08-31 14:30 +0200
Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> - 2015-08-31 17:50 +0200
Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-08-31 18:10 +0200
Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> - 2015-09-01 03:00 +0200
Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-09-01 05:30 +0200
Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2015-09-01 11:40 +0200
Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-09-01 15:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-08-31 19:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-09-01 15:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2015-09-01 15:50 +0200
Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-09-01 16:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-09-01 21:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2015-09-03 11:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-09-05 06:00 +0200
Re: uselessd Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> - 2015-08-31 17:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> - 2015-08-30 23:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-08-31 09:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-08-31 14:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-08-31 14:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 18:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> - 2015-08-31 17:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-08-31 17:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 17:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-08-31 18:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 19:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-08-31 20:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 20:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2015-08-31 20:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 20:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 21:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> - 2015-08-31 18:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 19:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-08-31 19:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 19:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-08-31 19:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 20:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Charlie Kravetz <cjk@teamcharliesangels.com> - 2015-08-31 21:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2015-08-31 21:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2015-09-02 10:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 12:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2015-09-03 07:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 08:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-09-03 16:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiatipy.org> - 2015-09-02 12:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-09-02 12:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2015-09-03 17:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2015-09-03 18:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-09-03 19:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2015-09-03 21:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-09-03 21:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2015-09-03 22:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2015-09-03 08:30 +0200
Re: How to exit /bin/sh Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> - 2015-08-31 23:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> - 2015-08-31 18:40 +0200
Re: "su is really a broken concept" Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> - 2015-09-01 02:50 +0200
Re: "su is really a broken concept" "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 03:00 +0200
Re: "su is really a broken concept" Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> - 2015-09-03 01:20 +0200
Re: "su is really a broken concept" "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 10:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-08-31 20:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-08-31 21:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-09-01 13:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-09-01 15:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-09-01 16:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-09-01 16:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-09-01 16:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 18:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 04:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 15:40 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 16:30 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 02:20 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-09-03 05:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-03 05:40 +0200
Re: No-one working on 'su' has stated that they will stop. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> - 2015-08-31 18:30 +0200
Re: No-one working on 'su' has stated that they will stop. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 07:50 +0200
Can malware qualify as free software? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> - 2015-08-31 17:50 +0200
Re: Can malware qualify as free software? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-08-31 17:50 +0200
Re: Can malware qualify as free software? Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 18:50 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2015-09-03 10:10 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 03:00 +0200
Re: Another system management tool to disappear. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 15:10 +0200
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 16:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q3UzM-w6-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157259 |
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 5:03 AM, T.J. Duchene <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 08/31/2015 05:14 AM, Joel Rees wrote: >> >> Actually, there's a couple or three questions going begging here, that >> I'd like to ask: > > Sure, ask away! =) > >> >> (1) TJ, have you ever built LFS? Or, even better, built a running OS >> on top of the Linux kernel without even the help of the LFS tutorial >> and tool set? > > No, I have never used LFS. Yeah. > I have, however rebuilt or otherwise modified: > Debian, Gentoo, RedHat and others over the last couple decades. There is a difference between what I asked and what you're telling me. Simply tweaking and recompiling debian or redhat is not what I'm asking about, although it can be tedious enough. Nor is building a functioning gentoo really. I'm asking if you have built an OS from scratch, including the userland tools and apps, for a specific, non-trivial purpose. I'm not asking for your CV/resume. > That is > not including other things Unix: like Solaris. No, I have not always had > documentation and sometimes had to figure it would myself. Documentation is not really the issue. > Is there a more specific answer you wanted? You have already given me your answer. >> (1a) If you have, have you ever implemented your own init system for a >> Linux-based OS that you built yourself? > > No, I never had a reason to. Clearly. > As with many things, necessity breeds invention. I have had no reason to > invent my own when I can modify an existing one to do what I want. And there we have, in a nutshell, why it's a little disingenuous of you to raise the "You can always build your own!" argument. You haven't done this one. > With > respect, Should I believe you when you say that? (I know it seems to be picky of me, but I've often found that this particular expression is used more in the ironic mood. So I ask. Not that it's fair of me to ask, because I know it's not a question that can be answered meaningfully. But please don't ask me to assume that assertion means anything, either.) > I doubt most programmers would bother creating an entirely new init > unless they had a pressing need or just wanted something new. The whole > point of open source is adaptation. Perhaps it is to you. But if I needed only adaptation, the Macintosh is a much more comfortable environment to do the adaptation thing in. I have other needs. Unfortunately, there is no current OS/community that can provide me those needs. The nice, though uncomfortable, thing about the systemd business is that it brought my attention to that fact. > There are quite a few inits to chose from. The fact that Systemd was > created in addition to the dozen or so previously existed probably had more > to do with cgroups than anything else if you ask me. Well, I never said I cared much for cgroups, either. Quite the opposite, really. cgroups is, in fact, part of the stuff I specifically do not need in my OS. >> (2) Having done that much, have you ever kept that system maintained >> and updated, even at just the level of keeping only the critical >> applications patched or updated against vulnerabilities on a timely >> basis? > > Yes, I have. Well, ... > I used to manage servers for ISPs. Yes, I'd even patched them > by hand because the OEM no longer provided updates. Hey, we've all managed servers and/or workstations here, I think. Or we are learning how. That's not the question I'm asking. And, since you haven't built the OS from scratch, ... No. I beg to disagree with you, but I don't think you have maintained an OS you've built from scratch. Sorry. Your CV looks promising, but that's not what I'm asking you about. >> Okay, there's actually one more question here: >> >> (3) Have you ever done the first two while holding down a full-time, >> 40+ hour a week job that doesn't particularly make allowances for >> employees that need to spend the time necessary for maintaining their >> OS? > > Well, I can honestly say "No." As I said, I have never bothered to write a > new init from scratch. There it is. > What you are really asking Please don't put words in my mouth. > is when I was working other jobs as we all have, > and maintain my own systems as best I could on my own time. Sure. We all > do the best we can. None of us are perfect and I have never claimed to be > either. Perfection is hard to achieve, as el viejo used to say. It's also not really what I'm asking about. >> If you have, how long did you keep it up without developing >> personality issues for lack of sleep, developing dysfunctional >> digestion problems like ulcers and diabetes, and/or ending up breaking >> up your family? > > Well, to be perfectly honest, I do have some of those problems. Some are bad > enough to where I am probably on medication for the rest of my life. Sorry to hear that. There are doctors who want to get me on medications for life, too. Fortunately, I know just enough medicine to avoid needing what they sell. I don't think they are particularly evil, but what they want me to take would kill me. Not immediately, just by gradually making it impossible for me to keep any sort of job at all. Maybe my non-standard health has something to do with my non-standard requirements in my OS. You know, personality does impact technology. > I even > have a few others heaped on top of them that you didn't mention, like > cerebral palsy and arthritis. Actually, cerebral palsy is why I got into > computers in the first place. > > I understand why you asked. Again, don't put words in my mouth. It makes it very difficult to communicate. > You are probably wondering if I have > unreasonable expectations of others. I don't. I don't expect someone like > Doug to compile everything from scratch, Now, you see, you and I have a very different perspective on things here. I don't want to even put Doug into the position of having to wonder whether he should learn how to build his own OS from scratch. At least, not now, when it would not be very meaningful to do so. That's why, when asked, I've always advocated that the systemd/cgroups/udev/etc. crowd be kind enough to set up their own separate distros, instead of insisting that their thing must be included as a by-default part of all major distributions. > or you to rebuild Debian by > yourself. I hope you realize that you've kind of misjudged something here. > Conversely, I do expect anyone - myself included - to back up > what they are saying with good reasons and at least some experience. So, you'd like to hear my CV? Sorry, it's not exciting. It would be a bit difficult for you to judge my skill level by it anyway. You can look up some of my back-burner projects on sourceforge.org and osdn.jp. Not that it would tell you much. > I also prefer that in discussions of this nature, that people maintain some > logical distance - separating the person from the code. No self-respecting engineer will claim that the code he produces can be separated from the context he operates in, including his personality. Sorry if I'm being too blunt with that. > Lennart Poettering > is not systemd and systemd is not Lennart Poettering. If that is not > possible, then I really see no point in continuing. Which, I am afraid, puts you in the pattern of those who defend the approach the cabal has taken. (Concerning the use of "cabal": http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html Although I'm not really sure they understood what their own choice of words seemed to imply.) I will agree that some people have made too much of personality issues. Theo is not a perfect person, but he's the right guy to lead openbsd. Steve Jobs was not a perfect person, but he was the right guy to lead Apple. The cabal is right for systemd, et. al. The issue is not whether they should be leading their projects or not, the issue is whether what they build is really appropriate for becoming a necessary part of all major distributions of Linux kernel OSses. > A lot of people posting over systemd forget or do not realize a lot of > important details - for example: > > 1. Many other people had added and subtracted from the code before you or I > ever got our hands on it, including Debian. What relevance does that have? Does it somehow cease to be systemd when people outside the project compile it? > 2. GCC is also a finicky beast, and is hardly bug free. It matters what > compiler is used, even when compiling the kernel, much less anything else. > You can introduce bugs into software just by using a different version of > GCC than what the developers are using. What relevance does that have? (Other than that, if I find gcc version changes causing errors in my code, I go looking for what I messed up. Without fail, I've found real bugs in my source code.) > 3. The management tools for systemd are written in Python. I personally > find it a very questionable choice. It can be considered famous for hard to > find runtime bugs. Python seems to me a very natural match for systemd, and the personalities of those who develop it. That's actually a good thing more than a bad thing. People should use tools they understand. > Take care! > T.J. You, too. -- Joel Rees You know, I really can't say reinventing wheels is evil. http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/2015/08/why-i-cant-use-phrase-re-inventing.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q3Yk2-5Tw-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157289 |
On 09/01/2015 09:11 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > I'm asking if you have built an OS from scratch, including the > userland tools and apps, for a specific, non-trivial purpose. That depends. If you consider using LFS to be the only answer you will accept, then "No", since as I said, I have never used it. If you consider that I have taken existing code, compiled, rearranged, or added to it to save time, then the answer might be "Yes." depending on if you accept the answer provisionally codebase, then I do not see why we are even having it is very likely that no one on this list as done anything of the sort. If you are setting the bar to ignore anything I might comment on, then I suspect I will fall short of your expectations no matter what I have done. > I'm not asking for your CV/resume. >> That is >> not including other things Unix: like Solaris. No, I have not always had >> documentation and sometimes had to figure it would myself. > Documentation is not really the issue. > >> Is there a more specific answer you wanted? > You have already given me your answer. > >>> (1a) If you have, have you ever implemented your own init system for a >>> Linux-based OS that you built yourself? >> No, I never had a reason to. > Clearly. > >> As with many things, necessity breeds invention. I have had no reason to >> invent my own when I can modify an existing one to do what I want. > And there we have, in a nutshell, why it's a little disingenuous of > you to raise the "You can always build your own!" argument. > > You haven't done this one. > >> With >> respect, > Should I believe you when you say that? (I know it seems to be picky > of me, but I've often found that this particular expression is used > more in the ironic mood. So I ask. Not that it's fair of me to ask, > because I know it's not a question that can be answered meaningfully. > But please don't ask me to assume that assertion means anything, > either.) > >> I doubt most programmers would bother creating an entirely new init >> unless they had a pressing need or just wanted something new. The whole >> point of open source is adaptation. > Perhaps it is to you. But if I needed only adaptation, the Macintosh > is a much more comfortable environment to do the adaptation thing in. > > I have other needs. Unfortunately, there is no current OS/community > that can provide me those needs. The nice, though uncomfortable, thing > about the systemd business is that it brought my attention to that > fact. > >> There are quite a few inits to chose from. The fact that Systemd was >> created in addition to the dozen or so previously existed probably had more >> to do with cgroups than anything else if you ask me. > Well, I never said I cared much for cgroups, either. Quite the opposite, really. > > cgroups is, in fact, part of the stuff I specifically do not need in my OS. > >>> (2) Having done that much, have you ever kept that system maintained >>> and updated, even at just the level of keeping only the critical >>> applications patched or updated against vulnerabilities on a timely >>> basis? >> Yes, I have. > Well, ... > >> I used to manage servers for ISPs. Yes, I'd even patched them >> by hand because the OEM no longer provided updates. > Hey, we've all managed servers and/or workstations here, I think. Or > we are learning how. That's not the question I'm asking. > > And, since you haven't built the OS from scratch, ... > > No. I beg to disagree with you, but I don't think you have maintained > an OS you've built from scratch. Sorry. > > Your CV looks promising, but that's not what I'm asking you about. > >>> Okay, there's actually one more question here: >>> >>> (3) Have you ever done the first two while holding down a full-time, >>> 40+ hour a week job that doesn't particularly make allowances for >>> employees that need to spend the time necessary for maintaining their >>> OS? >> Well, I can honestly say "No." As I said, I have never bothered to write a >> new init from scratch. > There it is. > >> What you are really asking > Please don't put words in my mouth. > >> is when I was working other jobs as we all have, >> and maintain my own systems as best I could on my own time. Sure. We all >> do the best we can. None of us are perfect and I have never claimed to be >> either. > Perfection is hard to achieve, as el viejo used to say. It's also not > really what I'm asking about. > >>> If you have, how long did you keep it up without developing >>> personality issues for lack of sleep, developing dysfunctional >>> digestion problems like ulcers and diabetes, and/or ending up breaking >>> up your family? >> Well, to be perfectly honest, I do have some of those problems. Some are bad >> enough to where I am probably on medication for the rest of my life. > Sorry to hear that. There are doctors who want to get me on > medications for life, too. Fortunately, I know just enough medicine to > avoid needing what they sell. > > I don't think they are particularly evil, but what they want me to > take would kill me. Not immediately, just by gradually making it > impossible for me to keep any sort of job at all. Maybe my > non-standard health has something to do with my non-standard > requirements in my OS. You know, personality does impact technology. > >> I even >> have a few others heaped on top of them that you didn't mention, like >> cerebral palsy and arthritis. Actually, cerebral palsy is why I got into >> computers in the first place. >> >> I understand why you asked. > Again, don't put words in my mouth. It makes it very difficult to communicate. > >> You are probably wondering if I have >> unreasonable expectations of others. I don't. I don't expect someone like >> Doug to compile everything from scratch, > Now, you see, you and I have a very different perspective on things > here. I don't want to even put Doug into the position of having to > wonder whether he should learn how to build his own OS from scratch. > At least, not now, when it would not be very meaningful to do so. > > That's why, when asked, I've always advocated that the > systemd/cgroups/udev/etc. crowd be kind enough to set up their own > separate distros, instead of insisting that their thing must be > included as a by-default part of all major distributions. > >> or you to rebuild Debian by >> yourself. > I hope you realize that you've kind of misjudged something here. > >> Conversely, I do expect anyone - myself included - to back up >> what they are saying with good reasons and at least some experience. > So, you'd like to hear my CV? > > Sorry, it's not exciting. It would be a bit difficult for you to judge > my skill level by it anyway. You can look up some of my back-burner > projects on sourceforge.org and osdn.jp. Not that it would tell you > much. > >> I also prefer that in discussions of this nature, that people maintain some >> logical distance - separating the person from the code. > No self-respecting engineer will claim that the code he produces can > be separated from the context he operates in, including his > personality. > > Sorry if I'm being too blunt with that. > >> Lennart Poettering >> is not systemd and systemd is not Lennart Poettering. If that is not >> possible, then I really see no point in continuing. > Which, I am afraid, puts you in the pattern of those who defend the > approach the cabal has taken. > > (Concerning the use of "cabal": > > http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html > > Although I'm not really sure they understood what their own choice of > words seemed to imply.) > > I will agree that some people have made too much of personality > issues. Theo is not a perfect person, but he's the right guy to lead > openbsd. Steve Jobs was not a perfect person, but he was the right guy > to lead Apple. The cabal is right for systemd, et. al. > > The issue is not whether they should be leading their projects or not, > the issue is whether what they build is really appropriate for > becoming a necessary part of all major distributions of Linux kernel > OSses. > >> A lot of people posting over systemd forget or do not realize a lot of >> important details - for example: >> >> 1. Many other people had added and subtracted from the code before you or I >> ever got our hands on it, including Debian. > What relevance does that have? Does it somehow cease to be systemd > when people outside the project compile it? > >> 2. GCC is also a finicky beast, and is hardly bug free. It matters what >> compiler is used, even when compiling the kernel, much less anything else. >> You can introduce bugs into software just by using a different version of >> GCC than what the developers are using. > What relevance does that have? (Other than that, if I find gcc version > changes causing errors in my code, I go looking for what I messed up. > Without fail, I've found real bugs in my source code.) > >> 3. The management tools for systemd are written in Python. I personally >> find it a very questionable choice. It can be considered famous for hard to >> find runtime bugs. > Python seems to me a very natural match for systemd, and the > personalities of those who develop it. > > That's actually a good thing more than a bad thing. People should use > tools they understand. > >> Take care! >> T.J. > You, too. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "T. J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q3ZSN-7XX-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157289 |
Sorry had an issue that caused a premature post before I could finish it. On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:11:51 +0900 Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is a difference between what I asked and what you're telling me. > > Simply tweaking and recompiling debian or redhat is not what I'm > asking about, although it can be tedious enough. Nor is building a > functioning gentoo really. > > I'm asking if you have built an OS from scratch, including the > userland tools and apps, for a specific, non-trivial purpose. That depends. If you consider using LFS to be the only answer you will accept, then "No", since as I said, I have never used it. If you consider that I have taken existing code, compiled, rearranged, or added to it to save time, then the answer might be "Yes." It really depends on if you accept that I have rebuilt most of Linux over multiple occasions, but never all at once. I suspect that anyone who has done so is a tiny minority on this list. I do not think that it is fair to judge what a person is saying based on that. > > Should I believe you when you say that? Whether or not you believe anything I say is entirely up to you. Personally, I would like to think that you would at least consider it, but ultimately what we discuss here has very little to do with the "price of tea in China." > I know it seems to be picky of me, but I've often found that this > particular expression is used more in the ironic mood. You don't know me, and that's fine. If you did, when I say I am offering you respect, you'd know that I mean exactly that. I might not always agree with you, but we can have a civilized discussion. > > Perhaps it is to you. But if I needed only adaptation, the Macintosh > is a much more comfortable environment to do the adaptation thing in. If open source means something different to you that is certainly your prerogative and I have nothing to say about it. For myself, the whole point of open code is to improve it and find new uses. > > I have other needs. Unfortunately, there is no current OS/community > that can provide me those needs. The nice, though uncomfortable, thing > about the systemd business is that it brought my attention to that > fact. I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. =( I find the systemd issue to be less important because at any point anyone who can reasonably compile code can assemble something that they can use - with or without systemd. For me personally, the important thing is FOSS: free open source software, not Linux specifically. Generally speaking, I do not give a damn what certain factions within Linux does, because if I am motivated, I can and will always be able to ignore them. I can take the code and use it as I see fit. You could respond that that is impossible for the non-programmer. Truthfully, I do not think that is entirely the case anymore. Using the right setup anyone can compile or assemble a working Linux with a modicum of personal skill. I say this because after I showed a few people how to use configure and make, they were able to take over from there as long as they were using a stable codebase. That is not to say that there can't be issues, but with tools, anyone can follow directions. > > Please don't put words in my mouth. Fair enough. That was never my intent, and if you are offended, I apologize. One of the problems with the written word is that it is not always possible to arrive at the same meaning, and we have different cultures, which sometimes lead to misunderstandings in non-technical conversation. > > > Now, you see, you and I have a very different perspective on things > here. I don't want to even put Doug into the position of having to > wonder whether he should learn how to build his own OS from scratch. > At least, not now, when it would not be very meaningful to do so. I think that we are less far apart then you do, but in the end it does not really make much difference to others. I would ask "Why is someone using Debian or a Linux in the first place?" If the answer is only because I do not want Windows, then I believe that Debian is the wrong place for them. Once, I felt as you do, but I realized Debian has at its heart a DIY philosophy concerned primarily with FOSS. It has too many rough edges and usability issues to be a user operating system. That is why Linux never really succeeded in the consumer world until Android came along. > > > I also prefer that in discussions of this nature, that people > > maintain some logical distance - separating the person from the > > code. > > No self-respecting engineer will claim that the code he produces can > be separated from the context he operates in, including his > personality. > > Sorry if I'm being too blunt with that. That's fine. You're welcome to think what you like. For myself, code is just code. It either works or it does not. It is literally a mathematical expression that has absolutely nothing to do with a person's ego. That's why I have virtually no tolerance for the whole "Lennart" argument. Systemd works. Whether it works for you, works well, or is even appropriate in your situation is entirely another matter that only you as Joel Rees, the human being, can decide. > > Which, I am afraid, puts you in the pattern of those who defend the > approach the cabal has taken. You can go your own way as you see fit. That is whole point of the GPL in my opinion. The code is FOSS. You can add or subtract whatever you want. You can reject systemd as you see fit. Systemd is just one approach. The Linux community seems to like it, and so the majority are using it. If I might say so, this is nothing new. Linux tends to snatch up whatever is considered "fashionable" at the time. I've seen it before. Systemd and Docker are just the latest in a long line of obsessions. > > The issue is not whether they should be leading their projects or not, > the issue is whether what they build is really appropriate for > becoming a necessary part of all major distributions of Linux kernel > OSses. If you will excuse me, that's not our decision to make. FOSS is not about making everyone happy or whether something is "really appropriate". It is about empowering you to make your own decisions. Should you desire, you have the ability to fork code, and part company with the herd. Distributors have every right to build their Linux as they see fit. You have the right to reject that and build your own. That's your freedom, and that is all that was ever promised - nothing more. If you ask me, Linux users are far too dependent on binary distributions to start with. They fill a need for those who have time constraints, but that's all. You are willingly allowing others to make decisions for you, in return for using the fruits of their labor. As such, IMHO, binary distro users have no standing to complain. > > > 2. GCC is also a finicky beast, and is hardly bug free. It > > matters what compiler is used, even when compiling the kernel, much > > less anything else. You can introduce bugs into software just by > > using a different version of GCC than what the developers are using. > What relevance does that have? Quite a bit of relevance when I have seen people seize on bugs as an excuse to proclaim something "bad." The drama in the Linux mailing-list community never ends. Generally, most Linux distros are a hodge-podge, and a number of bugs are not necessarily caused by the software, but the manner in which it was compiled. IMHO, the first thing anyone should do is find the bug, and the reason for it, then they might have reason to say someone else is at fault. T.J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 17:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q4hPI-bE-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157314 |
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:54 AM, T. J. Duchene <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry had an issue that caused a premature post before I could
> finish it.
Happens to all of us every now and then, I think.
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:11:51 +0900
> Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a difference between what I asked and what you're telling me.
And it remains so.
>> Simply tweaking and recompiling debian or redhat is not what I'm
>> asking about, although it can be tedious enough. Nor is building a
>> functioning gentoo really.
Please re-read that.
>> I'm asking if you have built an OS from scratch, including the
>> userland tools and apps, for a specific, non-trivial purpose.
And that.
> That depends.
Only if you can convince me to back off the bar you say I set too high.
I didn't set the bar. The people who say, "Compile it yourself if you
don't like it our way!" are they who set that bar. I'm not the one who
could have lowered that bar by putting systemd in a parallel
distribution.
> If you consider using LFS to be the only answer you will
> accept, then "No", since as I said, I have never used it.
Well, LFS is not the only option, but it's the easiest of the options
I see for "compiling it myself" relative to the current discussion.
Everything else requires more experience, skill, and time.
Steve mentioned (off-list, was it?) that an OS without systemd is
(relatively speaking) not that hard to switch a new init under, where
an OS with systemd is significantly more difficult. Perhaps thinking
about that should point you in the direction I'm thinking.
> If you
> consider that I have taken existing code, compiled, rearranged, or
> added to it to save time, then the answer might be "Yes."
>
> It really depends on if you accept that I have rebuilt most of Linux
> over multiple occasions, but never all at once.
As I say. this is not about your CV. It's about whether you understand
what "compile it yourself" means in this case.
> I suspect that anyone who has done so is a tiny minority on this list.
Not as few as you think, I'd say, but the relative minority numbers
are really rather to the point that "compile it yourself" is not an
argument in favor of systemd. Quite the opposite.
> I do not think that it is fair to judge what a person is saying based
> on that.
Once again, I am not talking about anyone's CV.
>[...]
And so you repeat a bunch of that self-styled cabal's talking points.
I let you waste my time that direction last night. I've got to get
some sleep tonight.
But,
Build it yourself!
you say. Sure. Simple.
But cleaning out the bits and pieces of systemd api from various
packages takes time. Even if most of the packages have compile-time
switches, there is a lot of recompiling, and the current state of the
debian community does not allow for the community to do much testing
of the results. That means, really, that the DIYer has quite a bit of
regression tests to build, in addition to tweaking the build variables
and getting the compiles started on whatever passes as his or her
build farm.
The partial replacement for su that started this thread is a case in
point. Every package that uses it will be rather intimately tied to
systemd, and I, if I were to build a completely systemd-free debian,
would have to re-write parts of those packages, hunt for or write
replacements for some packages, and write new regression testing for
the results.
In addition to the tweaking, re-writing, collecting alternative tools,
etc., it would mean for me, several days, minimum, of down time during
the build process, since my build environment is my workstation, and
my CPUs are not fast enough to allow me to compile and do certain
parts of my regular work at the same time.
Working from Debian sources is going to take more regression testing
than going through an LFS recipe. If I go the LFS route, using
binaries from debian or fedora would be inviting coredumps. Using
source, less so, but then I end up re-compiling more non-OS apps.
Even working from Debian sources, stripping out systemd means subtly
altering the APIs and ABIs, inviting subtle bugs. Subtle bugs tend to
be the most dangerous.
Going one's own way on something like this essentially means
abandoning the community. And because of the amount of work required,
you end up needing to start your own community. So compiling it
yourself in this case requires more than technical skill and a little
extra time. It requires a charismatic leader to start a new community,
too.
"Build it yourself." is only a whitewashed version of "Don't let the
door hit you on your way out."
--
Joel Rees
Be careful when you look at conspiracy.
Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well:
http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/2011/10/conspiracy-theories.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 17:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q4hZn-n0-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157342 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2015-09-02 at 11:07, Joel Rees wrote: > Steve mentioned (off-list, was it?) that an OS without systemd is > (relatively speaking) not that hard to switch a new init under, > where an OS with systemd is significantly more difficult. I don't remember that post, and I'm not even sure which Steve you're talking about, but if it was public (just not on this list) I'd be interested in seeing it. That's been my position and my concern since the idea of switching Debian over to systemd was first raised, and when I brought it up on debian-devel in what I think was the first real wave of discussions there, I recall it as having been more or less dismissed as being somewhere between "not true" and "irrelevant"; I don't recall having seen anyone else even raise that concern, much less treat it as a noteworthy consideration, then or since. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 11:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q4z0d-7Rx-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157289 |
On 2/09/2015 12:11 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > Which, I am afraid, puts you in the pattern of those who defend the > approach the cabal has taken. > > (Concerning the use of "cabal": > > http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html > > Although I'm not really sure they understood what their own choice of > words seemed to imply.) It's not exactly secret, but many are blinded to these facts and the implications. In AU, we recently had a law passed over metadata; it was framed in such a way that it was simple to *include* an otherwise excluded body from seeking access -- border protection were made law enforcement. That was sneaky and political, it was secret, it was done in stealth; we can expect more of the same with systemd as evidenced by Lennart's referenced posting. Cheers A.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q3wnL-7Bj-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157172 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2015-08-31 at 00:39, T.J. Duchene wrote: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> > wrote: >> What we would like is stability, and until Poettering started >> messing with Linux, we pretty much had it--at least in any given >> distro. > > That's where we part in agreement. You can't blame Poettering for > messing with Linux. We can blame him for his design decisions WRT systemd, the philosophy behind it, and the attitude with which he pushes it. systemd's actual functionality, for the most part (various more-or-less superficial things aside), isn't that bad; a lot of it is actually (at least potentially) good. It's the compromises in principle that are the biggest problems, and Lennart simply does not seem to share the principles which are being compromised. > The distributor makers looked at systemd and realized that it would > make things easier for them. Systemd fills a distributor's need. You > don't have to like it, but only Debian is responsible for Debian. > Poettering had no input in that decision, so you should not blame him > for it. Debian could not have chosen systemd if Lennart had not written it, and Debian could not have chosen systemd-in-its-current-form if Lennart had not designed it in that form, so some layer of the blame does fall on him. > Frankly, at no point have I seen Linux become more "unstable" > because of systemd. In my experience, Linux as an operating system > is not horribly stable when you use the bleeding edge releases. It's > much better than Windows most of the time, but I would not use even a > stable Linux in a nuclear reactor. Linux is not designed for > extreme stability. It depends on what kind of stability you're talking about. The init-time experience with sysvinit and sysvrc has been fairly stable for years, if not decades; systemd breaks with that stability, in an attempt to introduce a new paradigm which its developers think is better. There are plenty of reports of systems which worked just fine with a given configuration which do not work with that configuration after being transitioned to systemd; for one easy non-cosmetic example (there are apparently others), consider the "a failed mount which is not explicitly marked for failures to be ignored will result in a failed boot" behavior, which did not occur without systemd but does happen with systemd. Yes, you can change your system's configuration to make it work, but in a stable system you shouldn't have to. (And I'm not talking about "stable" in the sense of the Debian repository codenames; I'm talking about 'stable" in the larger sense.) On a more cosmetic level, without systemd, if you use a "quiet" option on the kernel command line you will silence kernel output during boot but not silence service-startup (etc.) option during the later stages of the bootstrap process - but with systemd, using that option silences both kernel output _and_ service-startup (etc.) output.. Yes, you can add half-a-dozen-ish systemd-specific options on the kernel command line to get systemd to display the same combination of output types as would have happened by default without systemd - but if you have to change your system configuration in order to get the same behavior, that system is not behaving in a stable fashion. Also on a mostly-cosmetic level, if you log in at a text console without systemd, you will get a certain set of messages, coming mostly from login and from your shell - but with systemd, logging in at a text console also produces a mess of extra messages coming from logind, which are largely irrelevant to whoever just logged in and which step all over either the original set of messages or the actual shell prompt. As far as I've been able to determine, there is no way to get logind to not produce these messages, without also preventing it from producing messages later - or in background logging - which you might actually want. And, if I'm interpreting the situation correctly, you will probably see these messages in your console every time _anyone_ gets a new "session" on that computer, even if it's not you. This is the final-straw behavior which led me to reject systemd for my own systems. (And, no, logind is not systemd-the-PID1-binary - but is part of systemd-the-collection-of-other-binaries-which-orbit-that-binary, and is developed by systemd-the-project-which-develops-all-those-binaries. This is part of the name ambiguity which I was wanting to fix.) The systemd developers acknowledge the need for some degree of backwards compatibility, in that they have "support" on some level for /etc/init.d/ init scripts. However, without _full_ backwards compatibility on _every_ level - including the cosmetic - being at least _available for those who want to choose it_ (and preferably being the default behavior), the behavior seen before a transition to systemd will be similar enough to the behavior seen after such a transition for the whole to deserve the description "stable". -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 17:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login |
| Message-ID | <q3zvk-3E1-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157205 |
The Wanderer: > Also on a mostly-cosmetic level, if you log in at a text console > without systemd, you will get a certain set of messages, coming mostly > from login and from your shell - but with systemd, logging in at a > text console also produces a mess of extra messages coming from > logind, which are largely irrelevant to whoever just logged in and > which step all over either the original set of messages or the actual > shell prompt. > > As far as I've been able to determine, there is no way to get logind > to not produce these messages, without also preventing it from > producing messages later - or in background logging - which you might > actually want. And, if I'm interpreting the situation correctly, you > will probably see these messages in your console every time _anyone_ > gets a new "session" on that computer, even if it's not you. This is > the final-straw behavior which led me to reject systemd for my own > systems. > That last part doesn't sound right. Did you do a detailed write up of what's happening, anywhere?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 18:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login |
| Message-ID | <q3zOI-4hj-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157225 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2015-08-31 at 11:32, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > The Wanderer: > >> Also on a mostly-cosmetic level, if you log in at a text console >> without systemd, you will get a certain set of messages, coming >> mostly from login and from your shell - but with systemd, logging >> in at a text console also produces a mess of extra messages coming >> from logind, which are largely irrelevant to whoever just logged in >> and which step all over either the original set of messages or the >> actual shell prompt. >> >> As far as I've been able to determine, there is no way to get >> logind to not produce these messages, without also preventing it >> from producing messages later - or in background logging - which >> you might actually want. And, if I'm interpreting the situation >> correctly, you will probably see these messages in your console >> every time _anyone_ gets a new "session" on that computer, even if >> it's not you. This is the final-straw behavior which led me to >> reject systemd for my own systems. > > That last part doesn't sound right. Did you do a detailed write up > of what's happening, anywhere? No, but I believe I still have my laptop configured in a way which gets this behavior. If you want, I can reboot it and do a detailed examination; I'm probably about due for a reboot of that laptop, anyway. I need to leave for work soon, however, so that won't happen before tomorrow morning at the earliest. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 03:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login |
| Message-ID | <q3I5z-7zX-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157232 |
The Wanderer:
> No, but I believe I still have my laptop configured in a way which
> gets this behavior. If you want, I can reboot it and do a detailed
> examination; I'm probably about due for a reboot of that laptop, anyway.
>
It's mainly the final part about other people's login sessions causing
messages on unrelated terminals that is perplexing. The only mechanisms
that immediately spring to mind for that are ones like {r,}syslog
configured to take logind messages from the journal and write them to
the console, splatting over whatever kernel virtual terminal happens to
be active, which presumably you would have already thought of and checked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 05:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login |
| Message-ID | <q3KqK-2NR-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157268 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2015-08-31 at 20:37, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> The Wanderer:
>
>> No, but I believe I still have my laptop configured in a way which
>> gets this behavior. If you want, I can reboot it and do a detailed
>> examination; I'm probably about due for a reboot of that laptop,
>> anyway.
>
> It's mainly the final part about other people's login sessions
> causing messages on unrelated terminals that is perplexing.
Actually, that part is speculative on my part (and I tried to label it
that way, by saying "if I'm interpreting the situation correctly, [this
will probably happen]"); my understanding of the mechanism by which
logind dumps those messages into the console in the first place
indicates that it will dump them into any and every active text console,
so that whoever is logged in gets the notification that a new session
(or maybe that's "seat"? I'm not clear on the official terminology) has
activated.
Part of the "detailed examination" (which I do think I want to do at
some point, regardless) would be to verify, if I can, whether or not
this does happen. If it does not, then that's my bad.
> The only mechanisms that immediately spring to mind for that are ones
> like {r,}syslog configured to take logind messages from the journal
> and write them to the console, splatting over whatever kernel virtual
> terminal happens to be active, which presumably you would have
> already thought of and checked.
I believe that's roughly how it works, yes - and I believe rsyslog is
intentionally set up that way, so that various system messages which
would appear in the active console if the journal were not present will
still appear there. It's just that now there are _more_ messages, which
would not have existed in the absence of
systemd-the-collection-of-binaries-which-orbit-the-PID1-binary. (These
unambiguous names get kind of unwieldy...)
If there's a way to disable doing this for just those messages, without
disabling it for the other messages (which I do want and expect to
appear in the console, at least in some cases), I haven't found it.
--
The Wanderer, hoping he hasn't flubbed something after the long day
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 11:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login |
| Message-ID | <q3QcN-2CC-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157270 |
On 01/09/15 04:07, The Wanderer wrote: > I believe that's roughly how it works, yes - and I believe rsyslog is > intentionally set up that way, so that various system messages which > would appear in the active console if the journal were not present will > still appear there. It's just that now there are _more_ messages, which > would not have existed in the absence of > systemd-the-collection-of-binaries-which-orbit-the-PID1-binary. (These > unambiguous names get kind of unwieldy...) "the systemd suite".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 15:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login |
| Message-ID | <q3U6J-8ac-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157276 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2015-09-01 at 05:15, Martin Read wrote: > On 01/09/15 04:07, The Wanderer wrote: > >> I believe that's roughly how it works, yes - and I believe rsyslog >> is intentionally set up that way, so that various system messages >> which would appear in the active console if the journal were not >> present will still appear there. It's just that now there are >> _more_ messages, which would not have existed in the absence of >> systemd-the-collection-of-binaries-which-orbit-the-PID1-binary. >> (These unambiguous names get kind of unwieldy...) > > "the systemd suite". Good suggestion; I'll try to adopt it. Thanks. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q3B46-5ZA-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157205 |
Quoting The Wanderer (wanderer@fastmail.fm): > Debian could not have chosen systemd if Lennart had not written it, and > Debian could not have chosen systemd-in-its-current-form if Lennart had > not designed it in that form, so some layer of the blame does fall on > him. That's a very interesting argument. Can we apply it to Presidents' parents? > There are plenty of reports of systems which worked just fine with a > given configuration which do not work with that configuration after > being transitioned to systemd; for one easy non-cosmetic example (there > are apparently others), consider the "a failed mount which is not > explicitly marked for failures to be ignored will result in a failed > boot" behavior, which did not occur without systemd but does happen with > systemd. > > Yes, you can change your system's configuration to make it work, but in > a stable system you shouldn't have to. (And I'm not talking about > "stable" in the sense of the Debian repository codenames; I'm talking > about 'stable" in the larger sense.) I can't see what's wrong with adding new features or with changing defaults. Your example was documented in the release notes. Personally I'm more unhappy with the fact that the fstab man page implies the file is interpreted whereas systemd's behaviour is more like as if it's been compiled. > On a more cosmetic level, without systemd, if you use a "quiet" option > on the kernel command line you will silence kernel output during boot > but not silence service-startup (etc.) option during the later stages of > the bootstrap process - but with systemd, using that option silences > both kernel output _and_ service-startup (etc.) output.. > > Yes, you can add half-a-dozen-ish systemd-specific options on the kernel > command line to get systemd to display the same combination of output > types as would have happened by default without systemd - but if you > have to change your system configuration in order to get the same > behavior, that system is not behaving in a stable fashion. All I've added to /etc/default/grub is systemd.show_status=true which gives me about the same level of output from booting as before. (A bit more, it's true: eg it says both starting and started for each service, and the granularity is finer.) > Also on a mostly-cosmetic level, if you log in at a text console without > systemd, you will get a certain set of messages, coming mostly from > login and from your shell - but with systemd, logging in at a text > console also produces a mess of extra messages coming from logind, which > are largely irrelevant to whoever just logged in and which step all over > either the original set of messages or the actual shell prompt. > > As far as I've been able to determine, there is no way to get logind to > not produce these messages, without also preventing it from producing > messages later - or in background logging - which you might actually > want. And, if I'm interpreting the situation correctly, you will > probably see these messages in your console every time _anyone_ gets a > new "session" on that computer, even if it's not you. This is the > final-straw behavior which led me to reject systemd for my own systems. I've tried to work out what you're talking about here. Here's a comparison of my (admittedly rather noisy) VC login on two systems: west!david 12:22:14 ~ $ diff -U0 VC-login-*[ey] --- VC-login-jessie 2015-08-31 11:34:23.476573261 -0500 +++ VC-login-wheezy 2015-08-31 11:38:11.000000000 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +[....] Starting MTA:hostname --fqdn did not return a fully qualified name, dc_minimaldns will not work. +Please fix your /etc/hosts setup. +[ ok 4. @@ -2 +5 @@ -Debian GNU/Linux jessie/sid west tty2 Mon Aug 31 2015 11:32:04 +Debian GNU/Linux 7 wheezy alum tty1 Mon Aug 31 2015 06:01:14 @@ -4 +7 @@ -west login: david +alum login: david @@ -6,2 +9,2 @@ -Last login: Mon Aug 31 08:37:15 CDT 2015 on tty2 -Linux west 3.16.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt11-1+deb8u3 (2015-08-04) i686 +Last login: Mon Aug 31 09:44:02 CDT 2015 from west on pts/3 +Linux alum 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.68-1+deb7u3 i686 @@ -15 +18 @@ -You have new mail. +You have mail. @@ -18,6 +21,6 @@ -(This is /home/david/.bash-1-west 2015 July 13 on jessie) -(This is /home/david/.bash-9-west 2015 August 04) -Disks last checked: Tuesday 18 August -west!david 11:32:11 ~ $ ls -l /sbin/init -lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 May 26 11:40 /sbin/init -> /lib/systemd/systemd -west!david 11:33:27 ~ $ cat > VC-login-jessie +(This is /home/david/.bash-1-alum 2015 July 13 on wheezy) +(This is /home/david/.bash-9-alum 2015 July 29) +Disks last checked: Friday 28 August +alum!david 11:37:01 ~ $ ls -l /sbin/init +-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 35216 Jul 17 2013 /sbin/init +alum!david 11:37:12 ~ $ cat > VC-login-wheezy 1 west!david 12:22:24 ~ $ > (And, no, logind is not systemd-the-PID1-binary - but is part of > systemd-the-collection-of-other-binaries-which-orbit-that-binary, and is > developed by systemd-the-project-which-develops-all-those-binaries. This > is part of the name ambiguity which I was wanting to fix.) I was unaware of the existence of logind until I once saw messages about it failing to start (which IIRC had no effect on my ability to log in). Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 15:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q3Tu3-7qR-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157242 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2015-08-31 at 13:25, David Wright wrote: > Quoting The Wanderer (wanderer@fastmail.fm): > >> Debian could not have chosen systemd if Lennart had not written it, >> and Debian could not have chosen systemd-in-its-current-form if >> Lennart had not designed it in that form, so some layer of the >> blame does fall on him. > > That's a very interesting argument. Can we apply it to Presidents' > parents? A person's parents do not design or define that person. They have input, which is not to be entirely discounted - but even on the assumption that "nature vs. nurture" gets resolved entirely in favor of nurture, there are many other sources for "nurture" than just the parents. Plus, of course, a person has a mind of his/her/etc. own, which a program or set of programs does not. (Barring AI or obscure arguable corner cases, anyway.) All that aside, blaming parents does happen in the real world - things like "you didn't raise that boy right" appear often enough in certain parts of the culture. >> There are plenty of reports of systems which worked just fine with >> a given configuration which do not work with that configuration >> after being transitioned to systemd; for one easy non-cosmetic >> example (there are apparently others), consider the "a failed mount >> which is not explicitly marked for failures to be ignored will >> result in a failed boot" behavior, which did not occur without >> systemd but does happen with systemd. >> >> Yes, you can change your system's configuration to make it work, >> but in a stable system you shouldn't have to. (And I'm not talking >> about "stable" in the sense of the Debian repository codenames; I'm >> talking about 'stable" in the larger sense.) > > I can't see what's wrong with adding new features or with changing > defaults. Your example was documented in the release notes. I was speaking to the claim that systemd represented a lack of stability, vs. the claim that no instability had been seen because of systemd. (Paraphrasing in both cases.) Adding new features, while remaining 100% backwards compatible, is not ordinarily a problem - except inasmuch as doing so has side effects like increasing footprint or increasing attack surface, which is a separate discussion. Changing defaults isn't inherently a problem either (although I have an entire other discussion there), but it's difficult to claim that such a change is stable behavior. >> On a more cosmetic level, without systemd, if you use a "quiet" >> option on the kernel command line you will silence kernel output >> during boot but not silence service-startup (etc.) option during >> the later stages of the bootstrap process - but with systemd, using >> that option silences both kernel output _and_ service-startup >> (etc.) output.. >> >> Yes, you can add half-a-dozen-ish systemd-specific options on the >> kernel command line to get systemd to display the same combination >> of output types as would have happened by default without systemd - >> but if you have to change your system configuration in order to get >> the same behavior, that system is not behaving in a stable >> fashion. > > All I've added to /etc/default/grub is systemd.show_status=true > which gives me about the same level of output from booting as before. > (A bit more, it's true: eg it says both starting and started for each > service, and the granularity is finer.) Hmm. Maybe I'm remembering wrong; I thought that when people complained about this before, the documentation to which they were pointed listed various individual options to re-enable various different types of boot messages separately. I did not see one to enable the messages en-masse which would not also enable the messages which the original 'quiet' option would have silenced. If such an option does exist and function, that blunts this example pretty solidly. >> Also on a mostly-cosmetic level, if you log in at a text console >> without systemd, you will get a certain set of messages, coming >> mostly from login and from your shell - but with systemd, logging >> in at a text console also produces a mess of extra messages coming >> from logind, which are largely irrelevant to whoever just logged in >> and which step all over either the original set of messages or the >> actual shell prompt. >> >> As far as I've been able to determine, there is no way to get >> logind to not produce these messages, without also preventing it >> from producing messages later - or in background logging - which >> you might actually want. And, if I'm interpreting the situation >> correctly, you will probably see these messages in your console >> every time _anyone_ gets a new "session" on that computer, even if >> it's not you. This is the final-straw behavior which led me to >> reject systemd for my own systems. (For clarification, the reason this was the final straw was that it meant I could not simply ignore the presence of systemd entirely for normal use, since this would push it into my attention on every console login.) > I've tried to work out what you're talking about here. Here's a > comparison of my (admittedly rather noisy) VC login on two systems: > > west!david 12:22:14 ~ $ diff -U0 VC-login-*[ey] > --- VC-login-jessie 2015-08-31 11:34:23.476573261 -0500 > +++ VC-login-wheezy 2015-08-31 11:38:11.000000000 -0500 How did you get these files? I haven't been able to come up with a way to get a dump of the exact text that is on a console, short of manually typing it into an editor (probably on another computer, for convenience's sake). Parts of it are logged, but not as far as I can tell into a single file, and I would actively expect that the text I'm objecting to would get logged separately (if at all) in any case. I haven't done a full detailed analysis of exactly what happens yet, but the first time I log in on my laptop after boot, I get the following (retyped, timestamps and other unique numbers mangled, one line of context included): ======== No mail. [ 123.123456] systemd-logind[1234]: New seat seat0. [ 123.234567] systemd-logind[1234]: Watching system buttons on /dev/input/event4 (Power Button) [ 123.123678] systemd-logind[1234]: Watching system buttons on /dev/input/event5 (Video Bus) [ 123.123789] systemd-logind[1234]: Watching system buttons on /dev/input/event1 (Power Button) [ 123.124012] systemd-logind[1234]: Watching system buttons on /dev/input/event3 (Lid Switch) [ 123.124123] systemd-logind[1234]: Watching system buttons on /dev/input/event2 (Sleep Button) [ 123.134567] systemd-logind[1234]: Failed to start user service: Unknown unit: user@1000.service [ 123.138901] systemd-logind[1234]: New session 1 of user foobar. This line was printed by the fortune program, called by ~/.bashrc. ======== On later logins as the same user without rebooting, I get only the "New session X of user foobar" message, which is still bad enough but doesn't deserve the description "a mess of messages". Similarly, on logging out of that session, I get the following at the login prompt: foobar login: [1234567.123456] systemd-logind[1234]: Removed session 1. and the cursor for the login prompt appears on the next line, rather than appearing immediately after the 'hostname login: ' text. (The message from logind does not appear instantly after logout; if I start typing a username quickly enough, this will get printed in the middle of the username, thus completely confusing display of what has and has not already been typed.) This is potentially useful information to see in log files, and if the single "new session X of user foobar" line does get printed to all active consoles every time _anyone_ starts a new session (I still haven't tested that), there are circumstances where it might even be useful to have the immediate heads-up alert that "hey, someone else just logged in to your system!" - but it should not be being printed when the user logs in or out, especially not if it's going to step on the login prompt. Note that this is on a system with only some parts of "the systemd suite" present, and with systemd _not_ running as PID1. (I apologize for not mentioning that earlier; it's been long enough since I was changing any related part of this laptop's config that I didn't remember the exact details of how I'd left it.) Specifically: $ dpkg -l "*systemd*" | grep ii ii libpam-systemd:amd64 224-1 amd64 system and servi ii libsystemd0:amd64 224-1 amd64 systemd utility ii libsystemd0:i386 224-1 i386 systemd utility ii systemd 224-1 amd64 system and servi ii systemd-shim 9-1 amd64 shim for systemd -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q3U6J-8ac-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157283 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Am 01.09.2015 um 15:08 schrieb The Wanderer: > [ 123.134567] systemd-logind[1234]: Failed to start user service: > Unknown unit: user@1000.service > Note that this is on a system with only some parts of "the systemd > suite" present, and with systemd _not_ running as PID1. (I apologize for > not mentioning that earlier; it's been long enough since I was changing > any related part of this laptop's config that I didn't remember the > exact details of how I'd left it.) Specifically: > > $ dpkg -l "*systemd*" | grep ii > ii libpam-systemd:amd64 224-1 amd64 system and servi > ii libsystemd0:amd64 224-1 amd64 systemd utility > ii libsystemd0:i386 224-1 i386 systemd utility > ii systemd 224-1 amd64 system and servi > ii systemd-shim 9-1 amd64 shim for systemd This is https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=756247 And yes, this is due to running systemd-logind under sysvinit/systemd-shim, but not under systemd as PID 1. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 16:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: systemd-logind emitting messages to the terminal upon login |
| Message-ID | <q3UJs-Hp-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157285 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
(It just occurred to me that I posted the previous set of partial "what's happening" descriptions under the unchanged Subject line of the overall thread. Oops.) On 2015-09-01 at 09:49, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 01.09.2015 um 15:08 schrieb The Wanderer: > >> [ 123.134567] systemd-logind[1234]: Failed to start user service: >> Unknown unit: user@1000.service > >> Note that this is on a system with only some parts of "the systemd >> suite" present, and with systemd _not_ running as PID1. (I apologize for >> not mentioning that earlier; it's been long enough since I was changing >> any related part of this laptop's config that I didn't remember the >> exact details of how I'd left it.) Specifically: >> >> $ dpkg -l "*systemd*" | grep ii >> ii libpam-systemd:amd64 224-1 amd64 system and servi >> ii libsystemd0:amd64 224-1 amd64 systemd utility >> ii libsystemd0:i386 224-1 i386 systemd utility >> ii systemd 224-1 amd64 system and servi >> ii systemd-shim 9-1 amd64 shim for systemd > > This is https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=756247 > > And yes, this is due to running systemd-logind under > sysvinit/systemd-shim, but not under systemd as PID 1. I remember that bug, but as far as I recall and as far as I can tell it's only about this one single line, not about the rest of the messages I'm talking about. Also, that bug report claims that this was fixed in systemd-shim upstream in November 2014, but I'm still seeing it in the version of systemd-shim which is now in Debian testing. Has the fix somehow not made it into a Debian package yet? Is there more to the story which didn't get discussed on that bug report? ...I should probably ask those types of questions _on_ the bug report, really. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 21:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q3ZJ7-7Mw-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157283 |
Quoting The Wanderer (wanderer@fastmail.fm): > On 2015-08-31 at 13:25, David Wright wrote: > > Here's a > > comparison of my (admittedly rather noisy) VC login on two systems: > > > > west!david 12:22:14 ~ $ diff -U0 VC-login-*[ey] > > --- VC-login-jessie 2015-08-31 11:34:23.476573261 -0500 > > +++ VC-login-wheezy 2015-08-31 11:38:11.000000000 -0500 > > How did you get these files? I've put the method in a new thread with a better title. You can just see the cat commands in the diff output in my previous posting. I'll leave others who are more expert to help fix those log lines on the console. My logging kind of works, but there's something odd about my /var/log/journal/ files which I suspect is to do with upgrading this laptop from squeeze through wheezy and sid/testing (when stable was wheezy) to jessie. So I haven't bothered to look at how logging works. Another item that will probably fix itself with a clean install. > ii systemd-shim 9-1 amd64 shim for systemd I don't have any experience with that. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 11:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q4yGS-7v1-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157283 |
On 1/09/2015 11:08 PM, The Wanderer wrote: >> > west!david 12:22:14 ~ $ diff -U0 VC-login-*[ey] >> > --- VC-login-jessie 2015-08-31 11:34:23.476573261 -0500 >> > +++ VC-login-wheezy 2015-08-31 11:38:11.000000000 -0500 > How did you get these files? I haven't been able to come up with a way > to get a dump of the exact text that is on a console, short of manually > typing it into an editor (probably on another computer, for > convenience's sake). Parts of it are logged, but not as far as I can > tell into a single file, and I would actively expect that the text I'm > objecting to would get logged separately (if at all) in any case. conspy perhaps ? # aptitude show conspy Thursday 3 September 19:02:30 AEST 2015 -- show conspy Package: conspy State: not installed Version: 1.8-2 Priority: optional Section: admin Maintainer: Russell Stuart <russell-debian@stuart.id.au> Architecture: amd64 Uncompressed Size: 67.6 k Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.5), libncurses5 (>= 5.5-5~), libtinfo5 Description: Remote control of Linux virtual consoles Conspy allows a (possibly remote) user to see what is displayed on a Linux virtual console, and send keystrokes to it. It is rather like VNC, but where VNC takes control of a GUI conspy takes control of a text mode virtual console. Unlike VNC, conspy does not require a server to be installed prior to being used. Homepage: http://www.stuart.id.au/russell/files/conspy/ Cheers A.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 06:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q5cNX-5Il-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #157364 |
Quoting Andrew McGlashan (andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au): > > > On 1/09/2015 11:08 PM, The Wanderer wrote: > >> > west!david 12:22:14 ~ $ diff -U0 VC-login-*[ey] > >> > --- VC-login-jessie 2015-08-31 11:34:23.476573261 -0500 > >> > +++ VC-login-wheezy 2015-08-31 11:38:11.000000000 -0500 > > How did you get these files? I haven't been able to come up with a way > > to get a dump of the exact text that is on a console, short of manually > > typing it into an editor (probably on another computer, for > > convenience's sake). Parts of it are logged, but not as far as I can > > tell into a single file, and I would actively expect that the text I'm > > objecting to would get logged separately (if at all) in any case. > > conspy perhaps ? That is a very neat tool that I hadn't come across. It works over ssh, and cut-and-paste works well. Presumably you can avoid c&p by running it inside a script command. But the limitation that affects me*, compared with using gpm to c&p from the original console, is that you can't run it until you can access the computer remotely, by which time some information that I would want to capture has scrolled off the screen out of conspy's grasp. *My use case is normally capturing messages produced at boot up, most of which have scrolled off the screen by the time you want to capture them. This is why I posted https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/09/msg00038.html Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web