Groups > linux.debian.user > #178777 > unrolled thread

If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Started by	Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com>
First post	2017-03-13 20:40 +0100
Last post	2017-04-05 11:10 +0200
Articles	20 on this page of 77 — 38 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

  If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 20:40 +0100
    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... "John L. Ries" <jries@salford-systems.com> - 2017-03-13 20:50 +0100
    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-03-13 20:50 +0100
      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2017-03-13 20:50 +0100
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 21:50 +0100
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2017-03-13 22:00 +0100
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-15 13:20 +0100
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 12:40 +0100
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2017-03-14 20:00 +0100
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 21:30 +0100
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Glenn Holmer <cenbe@kolabnow.com> - 2017-03-14 21:30 +0100
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2017-03-14 21:50 +0100
      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2017-03-13 22:00 +0100
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2017-03-13 22:50 +0100
      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2017-04-03 14:10 +0200
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2017-04-03 14:30 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 16:40 +0200
            Systemd services (was Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-04-03 18:00 +0200
              Re: Systemd services Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2017-04-03 19:00 +0200
              Re: Systemd services (was Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...) Joshua Schaeffer <jschaeffer0922@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 19:10 +0200
              Re: Systemd services (was Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 22:50 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2017-04-05 10:30 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2017-04-05 13:30 +0200
                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 17:20 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 15:50 +0200
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-04-05 16:50 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2017-04-05 17:10 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2017-04-05 19:30 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2017-04-05 20:10 +0200
                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2017-04-05 20:20 +0200
                  Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Latincom <latincom@vcn.bc.ca> - 2017-04-06 11:00 +0200
                    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-04-06 17:20 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-04-06 11:20 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-04-06 12:00 +0200
                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-04-06 12:20 +0200
                  Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-04-06 12:40 +0200
                    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 13:10 +0200
                      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-04-06 13:40 +0200
                        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Carl Fink <carl@finknetwork.com> - 2017-04-06 15:10 +0200
                          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-04-06 16:10 +0200
                            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Carl Fink <carl@finknetwork.com> - 2017-04-06 16:30 +0200
                          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 16:20 +0200
                          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-04-06 16:50 +0200
                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-04-06 12:20 +0200
                  Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-04-06 13:00 +0200
                    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-04-06 17:50 +0200
                      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-04-06 19:10 +0200
                        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-04-06 20:00 +0200
                          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-04-06 20:20 +0200
    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-03-14 00:40 +0100
      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2017-03-14 01:30 +0100
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-03-14 02:00 +0100
      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2017-03-14 13:10 +0100
    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jan-Peter Rühmann <jan-peter@ruehmann.name> - 2017-03-14 12:20 +0100
    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-15 13:10 +0100
    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2017-04-01 13:50 +0200
      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 01:40 +0200
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-04-02 02:30 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-04-03 13:10 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2017-04-03 13:50 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-04-03 14:10 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-04-03 14:30 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Carl Fink <carl@finknetwork.com> - 2017-04-03 14:40 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 15:20 +0200
                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 16:20 +0200
                  Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 19:10 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2017-04-03 16:00 +0200
                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-04-03 16:40 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Latincom <latincom@vcn.bc.ca> - 2017-04-04 00:50 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2017-04-04 18:20 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-04-05 05:10 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 18:10 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2017-04-03 20:00 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 18:40 +0200
                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 00:50 +0200
                  Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-04-05 01:30 +0200
                  Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-04-05 11:10 +0200

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

#179757 — Re: Systemd services (was Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...)

From	deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com>
Date	2017-04-03 22:50 +0200
Subject	Re: Systemd services (was Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...)
Message-ID	<tsh5g-3nO-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179745

Kevin O'Gorman wrote:

> Are you sure?  On my system, this produces nothing at all.  But the
> directory
> exists and is populated.

It works great in jessie

$ systemd --version
systemd 215
+PAM +AUDIT +SELINUX +IMA +SYSVINIT +LIBCRYPTSETUP +GCRYPT +ACL
+XZ -SECCOMP -APPARMOR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179796

From	Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com>
Date	2017-04-05 10:30 +0200
Message-ID	<tsOud-bB-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179741

On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> wrote:

> But I kind of understand why systemd, but I wish I could find a good
> cookbook description of how to add or modify a new process.

+1

Indeed: 
The main thing I personally have a problem with in systemd that I did not have a problem with in sysvinit is that the documentation for how to do things “the systemd way” is hard to find and opaque once you do find it.  In contrast, anyone who can read and write simple shell scripts has little need for documentation to do things “the sysvinit way”, though documentation is available if you want it.  Any working sysvinit system has dozens of self-documenting examples right there in /etc/init.d/ .

Pointers to any tutorials as mentioned above by Tom, will be greatly appreciated!!!

Enjoy
Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179800

From	Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk>
Date	2017-04-05 13:30 +0200
Message-ID	<tsRip-1Ze-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179796

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 01:29:07AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
>
>On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But I kind of understand why systemd, but I wish I could find a good
>> cookbook description of how to add or modify a new process.
>
>+1
>
>Indeed:
>The main thing I personally have a problem with in systemd that I did not have a problem with in sysvinit is that the documentation for how to do things “the systemd way” is hard to find and opaque once you do find it.  In contrast, anyone who can read and write simple shell scripts has little need for documentation to do things “the sysvinit way”, though documentation is available if you want it.  Any working sysvinit system has dozens of self-documenting examples right there in /etc/init.d/ .

Corollary: This is why systemd is needed. So many bad habits have been
"copied" from other scripts. How many sysv scripts' reload functions
consist of "$0 stop; sleep 5; $0 start"? What's that sleep for? A proper
init script should not really be returning from "stop" unless the
daemon has stopped. But many daemons are writted such that it's
difficult to tell - meaning that if you do "$0 stop; $0 start", it's not
reliable.

Systemd deliberately restricts what can be done in order to encourage
better-written init-scripts resulting in a more reliable, more
performant system.

At least, that's the theory.

>
>Pointers to any tutorials as mentioned above by Tom, will be greatly appreciated!!!
>
>Enjoy
>Rick

-- 
For more information, please reread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179811

From	Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@gmail.com>
Date	2017-04-05 17:20 +0200
Message-ID	<tsUT0-4j0-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179800

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 5 April 2017 at 12:27, Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 01:29:07AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But I kind of understand why systemd, but I wish I could find a good
>>> cookbook description of how to add or modify a new process.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Indeed:
>> The main thing I personally have a problem with in systemd that I did not
>> have a problem with in sysvinit is that the documentation for how to do
>> things “the systemd way” is hard to find and opaque once you do find it.
>> In contrast, anyone who can read and write simple shell scripts has little
>> need for documentation to do things “the sysvinit way”, though
>> documentation is available if you want it.  Any working sysvinit system has
>> dozens of self-documenting examples right there in /etc/init.d/ .
>>
>
> Corollary: This is why systemd is needed. So many bad habits have been
> "copied" from other scripts. How many sysv scripts' reload functions
> consist of "$0 stop; sleep 5; $0 start"? What's that sleep for? A proper
> init script should not really be returning from "stop" unless the
> daemon has stopped. But many daemons are writted such that it's
> difficult to tell - meaning that if you do "$0 stop; $0 start", it's not
> reliable.
>
> Systemd deliberately restricts what can be done in order to encourage
> better-written init-scripts resulting in a more reliable, more
> performant system.
>

So systemd was designed to make spamming the boot up process with an array
of Heath Robinson style non standard scripts difficult in practice.....

Thus systemd is about spam reduction ie moving from
Spam, egg, Spam, Spam, bacon and Spam to Kimchi Fried Rice and low entropy
self assembling alphabet spam.

I feel suitably edified by this discussion.

Regards

MF

 


>
> At least, that's the theory.
>
>
>
>> Pointers to any tutorials as mentioned above by Tom, will be greatly
>> appreciated!!!
>>
>> Enjoy
>> Rick
>>
>
> --
> For more information, please reread.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179857

From	Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com>
Date	2017-04-06 15:50 +0200
Message-ID	<ttfXs-HN-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179796

Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> writes:

> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But I kind of understand why systemd, but I wish I could find a good
>> cookbook description of how to add or modify a new process.
>
> +1
>
> Indeed: 
> The main thing I personally have a problem with in systemd that I did
> not have a problem with in sysvinit is that the documentation for how
> to do things “the systemd way” is hard to find and opaque once you do
> find it.

'man systemd' gives a good overview and points you to the other
manpages, which all are explicit, expansive, and full of examples.

I never got the feeling that systemd was underdocumented. In fact, I
sometimes wish it were a bit more concise.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179807

From	Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>
Date	2017-04-05 16:50 +0200
Message-ID	<tsUpX-3RS-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179727

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:06:22AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> Aside from being insulting, this is just plain untrue.  There are well over
> 100,000 professional Linux sysadmins worldwide.  I'd estimate that at least
> a third of them administer at least one - and probably  more than one -
> systems that work better with sysvinit than with systemd.

That estimate sounds plucked out of the air to me.

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179809

From	Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org>
Date	2017-04-05 17:10 +0200
Message-ID	<tsUJk-4eA-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179807

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:47:33PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:06:22AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > Aside from being insulting, this is just plain untrue.  There are well over
> > 100,000 professional Linux sysadmins worldwide.  I'd estimate that at least
> > a third of them administer at least one - and probably  more than one -
> > systems that work better with sysvinit than with systemd.
> 
> That estimate sounds plucked out of the air to me.

It certainly is.

For example, I run on the order of a thousand servers that are
running Wheezy because we haven't managed a smooth transition to
Jessie yet, and systemd is a large part of that problem.

We also have about a half-dozen desktops which have no
particular problems with systemd.

So our ratio is roughly 200:1. But I have no idea of other
people and places.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179816

From	Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>
Date	2017-04-05 19:30 +0200
Message-ID	<tsWUO-5zn-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179809

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Am 05.04.2017 um 17:04 schrieb Dan Ritter:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:47:33PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:06:22AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
>>> Aside from being insulting, this is just plain untrue.  There are well over
>>> 100,000 professional Linux sysadmins worldwide.  I'd estimate that at least
>>> a third of them administer at least one - and probably  more than one -
>>> systems that work better with sysvinit than with systemd.
>>
>> That estimate sounds plucked out of the air to me.
> 
> It certainly is.
> 
> For example, I run on the order of a thousand servers that are
> running Wheezy because we haven't managed a smooth transition to
> Jessie yet, and systemd is a large part of that problem.
> 

what problems exactly do you have which are caused by systemd?



-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179820

From	Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org>
Date	2017-04-05 20:10 +0200
Message-ID	<tsXxv-63J-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179816

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:26:03PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 05.04.2017 um 17:04 schrieb Dan Ritter:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:47:33PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:06:22AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> >>> Aside from being insulting, this is just plain untrue.  There are well over
> >>> 100,000 professional Linux sysadmins worldwide.  I'd estimate that at least
> >>> a third of them administer at least one - and probably  more than one -
> >>> systems that work better with sysvinit than with systemd.
> >>
> >> That estimate sounds plucked out of the air to me.
> > 
> > It certainly is.
> > 
> > For example, I run on the order of a thousand servers that are
> > running Wheezy because we haven't managed a smooth transition to
> > Jessie yet, and systemd is a large part of that problem.
> > 
> 
> what problems exactly do you have which are caused by systemd?

We have our own applications, built over the last 19 years, that
are managed by sysvinit scripts which are handled by a configuration
management system that we built and open-sourced before Chef or Puppet
were born. Nobody wants to rewrite all of this. Initial testing of
systemd compatibility were negative, and nothing looked so easy to fix
that someone jumped up and said "I'll do that!"

Eventually we'll have to do the work, but the operations staff here has
a consensus that if we're going to do the work, we might as well go to
a system that we feel capable of understanding and trusting, something
more like daemontools. Nosh is being considered.

It's not Debian's problem, it's our problem. But we wouldn't have this
problem if Debian hadn't decided to change a fundamental part of the
infrastructure.

Now you know why I'm grumpy about systemd.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179822

From	Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>
Date	2017-04-05 20:20 +0200
Message-ID	<tsXHb-66T-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179820

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Am 05.04.2017 um 20:05 schrieb Dan Ritter:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:26:03PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Am 05.04.2017 um 17:04 schrieb Dan Ritter:
>>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:47:33PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:06:22AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
>>>>> Aside from being insulting, this is just plain untrue.  There are well over
>>>>> 100,000 professional Linux sysadmins worldwide.  I'd estimate that at least
>>>>> a third of them administer at least one - and probably  more than one -
>>>>> systems that work better with sysvinit than with systemd.
>>>>
>>>> That estimate sounds plucked out of the air to me.
>>>
>>> It certainly is.
>>>
>>> For example, I run on the order of a thousand servers that are
>>> running Wheezy because we haven't managed a smooth transition to
>>> Jessie yet, and systemd is a large part of that problem.
>>>
>>
>> what problems exactly do you have which are caused by systemd?
> 
> We have our own applications, built over the last 19 years, that
> are managed by sysvinit scripts which are handled by a configuration
> management system that we built and open-sourced before Chef or Puppet
> were born. Nobody wants to rewrite all of this. Initial testing of
> systemd compatibility were negative, and nothing looked so easy to fix
> that someone jumped up and said "I'll do that!"
> 

Any specifics? What problems did you run into with the sysv compat
support in systemd?


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179842

From	Latincom <latincom@vcn.bc.ca>
Date	2017-04-06 11:00 +0200
Message-ID	<ttbqO-6ei-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179822

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 20:12:53 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:

> Am 05.04.2017 um 20:05 schrieb Dan Ritter:
>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:26:03PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>> Am 05.04.2017 um 17:04 schrieb Dan Ritter:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:47:33PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:06:22AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
>>>>>> Aside from being insulting, this is just plain untrue.  There are
>>>>>> well over 100,000 professional Linux sysadmins worldwide.  I'd
>>>>>> estimate that at least a third of them administer at least one -
>>>>>> and probably  more than one - systems that work better with
>>>>>> sysvinit than with systemd.
>>>>>
>>>>> That estimate sounds plucked out of the air to me.
>>>>
>>>> It certainly is.
>>>>
>>>> For example, I run on the order of a thousand servers that are
>>>> running Wheezy because we haven't managed a smooth transition to
>>>> Jessie yet, and systemd is a large part of that problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> what problems exactly do you have which are caused by systemd?
>> 
>> We have our own applications, built over the last 19 years, that are
>> managed by sysvinit scripts which are handled by a configuration
>> management system that we built and open-sourced before Chef or Puppet
>> were born. Nobody wants to rewrite all of this. Initial testing of
>> systemd compatibility were negative, and nothing looked so easy to fix
>> that someone jumped up and said "I'll do that!"
>> 
>> 
> Any specifics? What problems did you run into with the sysv compat
> support in systemd?

Do you feel confident whit it Michel Biebl? My clients could not feel 
confident whit it!

"Community

Systemd is a lively project with dozens of developers from various 
companies, including Red Hat, Samsung and Intel. It integrates 
contributions from even more individual contributors: to this date, 438 
authors, with 63 having at least 10 commits. It can also be noted that 
two of the Debian maintainers have commit permissions."

https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179864

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date	2017-04-06 17:20 +0200
Message-ID	<tthmx-2d4-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179842

On Thu 06 Apr 2017 at 08:55:49 (+0000), Latincom wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 20:12:53 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 
> > Am 05.04.2017 um 20:05 schrieb Dan Ritter:
> >> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:26:03PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >>> Am 05.04.2017 um 17:04 schrieb Dan Ritter:
> >>>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:47:33PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:06:22AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> >>>>>> Aside from being insulting, this is just plain untrue.  There are
> >>>>>> well over 100,000 professional Linux sysadmins worldwide.  I'd
> >>>>>> estimate that at least a third of them administer at least one -
> >>>>>> and probably  more than one - systems that work better with
> >>>>>> sysvinit than with systemd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That estimate sounds plucked out of the air to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> It certainly is.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, I run on the order of a thousand servers that are
> >>>> running Wheezy because we haven't managed a smooth transition to
> >>>> Jessie yet, and systemd is a large part of that problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> what problems exactly do you have which are caused by systemd?
> >> 
> >> We have our own applications, built over the last 19 years, that are
> >> managed by sysvinit scripts which are handled by a configuration
> >> management system that we built and open-sourced before Chef or Puppet
> >> were born. Nobody wants to rewrite all of this. Initial testing of
> >> systemd compatibility were negative, and nothing looked so easy to fix
> >> that someone jumped up and said "I'll do that!"
> >> 
> >> 
> > Any specifics? What problems did you run into with the sysv compat
> > support in systemd?
> 
> Do you feel confident whit it Michel Biebl? My clients could not feel 
> confident whit it!
> 
> "Community
> 
> Systemd is a lively project with dozens of developers from various 
> companies, including Red Hat, Samsung and Intel. It integrates 
> contributions from even more individual contributors: to this date, 438 
> authors, with 63 having at least 10 commits. It can also be noted that 
> two of the Debian maintainers have commit permissions."
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd

Sorry, but could you explain why you quoted that paragraph
from this web page. Are you supporting or disputing the
statistics in it, or is it meant to give weight to some
argument that you haven't yet made?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179843

From	Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>
Date	2017-04-06 11:20 +0200
Message-ID	<ttbKb-6Cm-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179809

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:04:04AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> For example, I run on the order of a thousand servers that are
> running Wheezy because we haven't managed a smooth transition to
> Jessie yet, and systemd is a large part of that problem.

If you go for Jessie-using-sysvinit instead, what blockers remain?

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179844

From	Joe <joe@jretrading.com>
Date	2017-04-06 12:00 +0200
Message-ID	<ttcmR-6Rh-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179843

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:18:05 +0100
Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:04:04AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > For example, I run on the order of a thousand servers that are
> > running Wheezy because we haven't managed a smooth transition to
> > Jessie yet, and systemd is a large part of that problem.  
> 
> If you go for Jessie-using-sysvinit instead, what blockers remain?
> 

I understood that an upgrade from Wheezy to Jessie would switch to
systemd as init. Even if that could be fixed afterwards, then there
will be server downtime and a manual procedure involved which will not
be part of the upgrade procedure and therefore will not have been tested
by the upgrade designers.

Is that not the case?

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179845

From	Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk>
Date	2017-04-06 12:20 +0200
Message-ID	<ttcGd-7cD-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179844

On 06/04/17 10:58, Joe wrote:
> I understood that an upgrade from Wheezy to Jessie would switch to
> systemd as init. Even if that could be fixed afterwards, then there
> will be server downtime and a manual procedure involved which will not
> be part of the upgrade procedure and therefore will not have been tested
> by the upgrade designers.
>
> Is that not the case?

*By default*, an upgrade from Wheezy to Jessie will switch to systemd as 
init. However, per section 5.6 of the official published release notes 
for Debian 8 "jessie", APT pinning can be used to prevent this changeover:

https://www.debian.org/releases/jessie/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#systemd-upgrade-default-init-system

Quoted here for convenience:

==== BEGIN QUOTE ====
As an example, to prevent systemd-sysv from being installed during the 
upgrade, you can create a file called 
/etc/apt/preferences.d/local-pin-init with the following contents:

Package: systemd-sysv
Pin: release o=Debian
Pin-Priority: -1
==== END QUOTE ====

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179850

From	Joe <joe@jretrading.com>
Date	2017-04-06 12:40 +0200
Message-ID	<ttcZz-7iO-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179845

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:10:12 +0100
Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 06/04/17 10:58, Joe wrote:
> > I understood that an upgrade from Wheezy to Jessie would switch to
> > systemd as init. Even if that could be fixed afterwards, then there
> > will be server downtime and a manual procedure involved which will
> > not be part of the upgrade procedure and therefore will not have
> > been tested by the upgrade designers.
> >
> > Is that not the case?  
> 
> *By default*, an upgrade from Wheezy to Jessie will switch to systemd
> as init. However, per section 5.6 of the official published release
> notes for Debian 8 "jessie", APT pinning can be used to prevent this
> changeover:
> 
> https://www.debian.org/releases/jessie/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#systemd-upgrade-default-init-system
> 
> Quoted here for convenience:
> 
> ==== BEGIN QUOTE ====
> As an example, to prevent systemd-sysv from being installed during
> the upgrade, you can create a file called 
> /etc/apt/preferences.d/local-pin-init with the following contents:
> 
> Package: systemd-sysv
> Pin: release o=Debian
> Pin-Priority: -1
> ==== END QUOTE ====
> 

Thanks, I haven't gone through this yet, I've only got one server to
do, but it hasn't yet reached the top of the priorities list...

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179852

From	Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com>
Date	2017-04-06 13:10 +0200
Message-ID	<ttdsC-7HU-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179850

On 06-04-17, Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:10:12 +0100
> Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On 06/04/17 10:58, Joe wrote:
> > > I understood that an upgrade from Wheezy to Jessie would switch to
> > > systemd as init. Even if that could be fixed afterwards, then there
> > > will be server downtime and a manual procedure involved which will
> > > not be part of the upgrade procedure and therefore will not have
> > > been tested by the upgrade designers.
> > >
> > > Is that not the case?  
> > 
> > *By default*, an upgrade from Wheezy to Jessie will switch to systemd
> > as init. However, per section 5.6 of the official published release
> > notes for Debian 8 "jessie", APT pinning can be used to prevent this
> > changeover:
> > 
> > https://www.debian.org/releases/jessie/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#systemd-upgrade-default-init-system
> > 
> > Quoted here for convenience:
> > 
> > ==== BEGIN QUOTE ====
> > As an example, to prevent systemd-sysv from being installed during
> > the upgrade, you can create a file called 
> > /etc/apt/preferences.d/local-pin-init with the following contents:
> > 
> > Package: systemd-sysv
> > Pin: release o=Debian
> > Pin-Priority: -1
> > ==== END QUOTE ====
> > 
> 
> Thanks, I haven't gone through this yet, I've only got one server to
> do, but it hasn't yet reached the top of the priorities list...
> 
> -- 
> Joe
> 

Have you thought of cloning your specific set up and then testing it to
see how it will upgrade? Like one clone that you will upgrade with
preventing systemd-sysv to install via Pin-Priority and other clone where
you will upgrade to systemd? Upgrade to at least Jessie is something
that will happen in your case anyway, so why not test it up front? Just
thought really.

Have fun :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179855

From	Joe <joe@jretrading.com>
Date	2017-04-06 13:40 +0200
Message-ID	<ttdVD-7UY-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179852

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:03:32 +0200
Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 
> Have you thought of cloning your specific set up and then testing it
> to see how it will upgrade? Like one clone that you will upgrade with
> preventing systemd-sysv to install via Pin-Priority and other clone
> where you will upgrade to systemd? Upgrade to at least Jessie is
> something that will happen in your case anyway, so why not test it up
> front? Just thought really.
> 

If I was a paid admin looking after multiple servers, yes, that's the
obvious thing to do. But this isn't my job, and I can't afford to buy a
second set of hardware, so the only practical test is to actually do
it.

I don't usually take a full backup, but I certainly will this time.
Even so, if I have a serious problem and need to restore, I can't
actually troubleshoot the problem offline, and will simply need to try
again when I have more time.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179856

From	Carl Fink <carl@finknetwork.com>
Date	2017-04-06 15:10 +0200
Message-ID	<ttfkJ-ux-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179855

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:35:37PM +0100, Joe wrote:

> If I was a paid admin looking after multiple servers, yes, that's the
> obvious thing to do. But this isn't my job, and I can't afford to buy a
> second set of hardware, so the only practical test is to actually do
> it.

Second set of hardware is a false requirement. Go to, say,
http://nosupportlinuxhosting.com and rent a VM for $1/month and set up your
server there. Make it work. If you insist on physical hardware, you can then
clone the working setup back to your physical server.
-- 
Carl Fink                           nitpicking@nitpicking.com 

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com.  Reviews!  Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179858

From	Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk>
Date	2017-04-06 16:10 +0200
Message-ID	<ttggO-16l-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#179856

On 06/04/17 14:03, Carl Fink wrote:
> Second set of hardware is a false requirement. Go to, say,
> http://nosupportlinuxhosting.com and rent a VM for $1/month

*cough* That site does not offer VM hosting for $1/month. It offers 
*web* hosting for $1/month. (The sister site offers VPS hosting... for 
$15/month.)

Also, you seem to be presupposing that nothing about the system in 
question requires functioning local peripherals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

csiph-web

If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Contents

#179757 — Re: Systemd services (was Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...)

#179796

#179800

#179811

#179857

#179807

#179809

#179816

#179820

#179822

#179842

#179864

#179843

#179844

#179845

#179850

#179852

#179855

#179856

#179858