Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #205154 > unrolled thread

Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi chris <tknchris@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 00:50 +0100
    Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2019-02-10 09:10 +0100
      Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2019-02-10 12:20 +0100
        Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-02-10 13:40 +0100
          Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 15:10 +0100
            Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-02-10 15:40 +0100
            Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-02-10 15:50 +0100
            Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-02-10 16:10 +0100
          Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2019-02-10 18:20 +0100
            Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-02-10 19:00 +0100
              Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2019-02-10 19:50 +0100
                Re: System d files on a Raspberry Pi Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-02-10 21:40 +0100
                  Re: System d files on a Raspberry Pi Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 22:30 +0100

#205154 — Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi

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

so relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:07 AM Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org> wrote:

> Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> writes:
> > If it quacks like a duck, it's a .... duck, plain and simple.
> >
> > I absolutely agree with the post that systemd is a "cancer"
>
> And I think Debian can do fine without people who only contribute toxic
> behaviour. And yes, calling other projects a cancer is just that.
>
> Ansgar
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: https://lists.debian.org/871th397kc.fsf@deep-thought.43-1.org
>
>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#205157

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

On 10/2/19 10:28 am, chris wrote:
> so relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo

I've seen references to that video and have not yet watched it.

I also understand that people have differing views on what the
presenter concludes or rather the real purpose of the talk.

In the end, is he a supporter of systemd or does he feel that systemd
was a mistake?  Did he change his view from one position to the other?
 Or is it simply preaching to the converted and possibly denigrating
those that don't agree.

Essentially I would like to know if it is worth watching the said
video and what I might expect -- perhaps even another point of view
that /may/ influence my current stance on the matter.

Kind Regards
AndrewM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQTJAoMHtC6YydLfjUOoFmvLt+/i+wUCXF/WYwAKCRCoFmvLt+/i
+0lmAP47ikFQ5lwbWRrYjOjd+Y0yNj6URxWHPFMg+Hq/8pVWPgD/c5UJlx7UhXUR
ia28QW4x6KzZ1OxeqNNggXEHvFdqmmc=
=bkWf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#205161

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

On 10/2/19 6:44 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> On 10/2/19 10:28 am, chris wrote:
>> so relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo
> 
> I've seen references to that video and have not yet watched it.
> 
> I also understand that people have differing views on what the 
> presenter concludes or rather the real purpose of the talk.

Okay, I've watched it now.  I am not convinced that his idea of
"create this or that yourself" is a fair retort.  Entire working
systems have been butchered, for better or worse.  And now we have
competing thoughts on what is best moving forward.  I have not
converted, not that I expected the video to be able to convince me.

I still consider that systemd has caused considerable harm to Debian
as well as the general Linux community.  Not using systemd is fine;
and I know that there are other excellent ways to monitor and restart
services without systemd.

The changes were not necessary, systemd is, even as a collection,
bloatware.

The "Unix is dead" comment was interesting.  Has it really has become
Linux or nothing?  I don't think so, but the fragmentation of efforts
is not positive.

I won't use btrfs for a number of reasons, some of those reasons are
shared with systemd.  I do not think it should be Linux and only Linux
and both system and btrfs (both failed projects in my opinion) are
tied intrinsically to a single kernel (and related system), being Linux.

Now there is Linux and there is Linux, just like there are oils and
there are oils.  Choice is fine, but sometimes change is made for
entirely inappropriate reasons.

It is a pity that Oracle has their licensing problems in relation to
ZFS and there are great alternative implementations now; at least it
isn't tied down to one version or /flavour/ of an OS, so ZFS remains
positive to me.

The split of Linux with systemd and sans systemd is not good for Linux
future and I stand by my views prior to watching the video.  So sad
that it took such a major aberration to bring systemd in to more
prominence than it ever deserved.  But the damage is done and I
believe the implications are far greater than many would ever accept
having gone down the path of embracing systemd to date.

Kind Regards
AndrewM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQTJAoMHtC6YydLfjUOoFmvLt+/i+wUCXGADWAAKCRCoFmvLt+/i
+70bAQDbrNvji30OV97YRXeRqJL4GGLt+AJ7mWdkJWYNvZi74wD/Tddc7ar4J+Dv
q1MyoaKtsNgvAwX6PpRG93xJd2qkL3Q=
=GS/g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#205162

	Hi.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 09:56:30PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 10/2/19 6:44 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> > On 10/2/19 10:28 am, chris wrote:
> >> so relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo
> > 
> > I've seen references to that video and have not yet watched it.
> > 
> > I also understand that people have differing views on what the 
> > presenter concludes or rather the real purpose of the talk.
> 
> Okay, I've watched it now.  I am not convinced that his idea of
> "create this or that yourself" is a fair retort.

There are historical precedents. AIX's init inspired Solaris' SMF which
in turn inspired systemd.


> I still consider that systemd has caused considerable harm to Debian
> as well as the general Linux community.

Those who do not want systemd are free not to use it. And Debian is one
of the few Linux distributions which provides such choice.


> The changes were not necessary, systemd is, even as a collection,
> bloatware.

Moreover, it's a bloatware with fundamental security problems.


> The "Unix is dead" comment was interesting.

AIX and Solaris (well, AIX mostly) are begging to differ.
Free software Unix (if such thing ever existed) - that's dead for sure.


> Has it really has become Linux or nothing?

No. See SCO vs IBM case. Linux is not Unix, and never has been.


> It is a pity that Oracle has their licensing problems in relation to
> ZFS

Please blame Sun Microsystems for *that*. Oracle's merely keeping the
status-quo.

> and there are great alternative implementations now;

You mean, ZFS-on-Linux? It's a fork of OpenSolaris' ZFS implementation,
not something that's written from scratch.

Reco

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

#205163

On 2019-02-10 12:17, Reco wrote:

> No. See SCO vs IBM case. Linux is not Unix, and never has been.

wasn't it IBM gave Minix away and Torvalds used that as a base ?

-- 
Key ID    4BFEBB31

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

#205164

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

On Sun, 2019-02-10 at 13:48 +0000, mick crane wrote:
> On 2019-02-10 12:17, Reco wrote:
> 
> > No. See SCO vs IBM case. Linux is not Unix, and never has been.
> 
> wasn't it IBM gave Minix away and Torvalds used that as a base ?
> 

According to Linus himself, it does not use Minix code.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.minix/dlNtH7RRrGA/SwRavCzVE7gJ

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

#205165

	Hi.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 01:48:35PM +0000, mick crane wrote:
> On 2019-02-10 12:17, Reco wrote:
> 
> > No. See SCO vs IBM case. Linux is not Unix, and never has been.
> 
> wasn't it IBM gave Minix away and Torvalds used that as a base ?

But it wasn't enough to make a Unix from Linux. That's what the Court
has decided, first time at '92, last time at '14.

Besides, it's wrong to call it a Unix™ unless Open Group does. And last
time I've checked [1], there was no Linux at that list.

Reco

[1] https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

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

#205167

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

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 01:48:35PM +0000, mick crane wrote:
> On 2019-02-10 12:17, Reco wrote:
> 
> >No. See SCO vs IBM case. Linux is not Unix, and never has been.
> 
> wasn't it IBM gave Minix away and Torvalds used that as a base ?

Oh, no. Minix is Andrew Tannenbaum's project, has nothing to do with
IBM. And it did serve as inspiration for Linus, but not as a code
source. Actually Linux went a quite different path (monolithic
kernel) than Minix (more or less microkernel) -- Tannenbaum once
scalded Linus and said that Linux would never be portable because
of that :-)

And SCO claimed that IBM had contributed code to Linux which was
SCO's (intellectual) property. Or something like that (the claims
changed quite a bit during this protracted history) [1]

Cheers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_vs_IBM
-- tomás

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

#205168

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

On 10/2/19 11:17 pm, Reco wrote:
>> Okay, I've watched it now.  I am not convinced that his idea of 
>> "create this or that yourself" is a fair retort.
> 
> There are historical precedents. AIX's init inspired Solaris' SMF
> which in turn inspired systemd.

Not SMF -> systemd ... according to the video.  More inspired by
Apple's launchd

>> I still consider that systemd has caused considerable harm to
>> Debian as well as the general Linux community.
> 
> Those who do not want systemd are free not to use it. And Debian is
> one of the few Linux distributions which provides such choice.

If all goes to Pot, then choice will be lessened as projects make it
too difficult to maintain versions of their code sans systemd.

>> The "Unix is dead" comment was interesting.
> 
> AIX and Solaris (well, AIX mostly) are begging to differ. Free
> software Unix (if such thing ever existed) - that's dead for sure.

There is at least the BSD variants, are they really dead too?

>> Has it really has become Linux or nothing?
> 
> No. See SCO vs IBM case. Linux is not Unix, and never has been.

We also have Luminos varieties... SmartOS and others.

>> It is a pity that Oracle has their licensing problems in relation
>> to ZFS
> 
> Please blame Sun Microsystems for *that*. Oracle's merely keeping
> the status-quo.

Yes, but Oracle could fix that if they wanted to.

The JAVA fiasco that Oracle hope to profit from royally from Google is
another box of pox.

>> and there are great alternative implementations now;
> 
> You mean, ZFS-on-Linux? It's a fork of OpenSolaris' ZFS
> implementation, not something that's written from scratch.

Maybe so, but it isn't limited to Sun (or now Oracle systems).  And it
isn't limited to Linux as opposed to BSD variants or Luminos variants.

Kind Regards
AndrewM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQTJAoMHtC6YydLfjUOoFmvLt+/i+wUCXGBXYQAKCRCoFmvLt+/i
+zUVAP9w/Lm3gEAqRkLnD7KQvwEt9mrs8bx96MCMTG4t9rfTSwD+KwFD5Ot5uEVT
0OZKhiGl1k3DRaCraglmSbWz6FZUEE0=
=CI5s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#205170

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 03:55:04AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 10/2/19 11:17 pm, Reco wrote:
> >> Okay, I've watched it now.  I am not convinced that his idea of 
> >> "create this or that yourself" is a fair retort.
> > 
> > There are historical precedents. AIX's init inspired Solaris' SMF
> > which in turn inspired systemd.
> 
> Not SMF -> systemd ... according to the video.  More inspired by
> Apple's launchd

Which, in turn, has xml, central database, socket activation and very
rudimentary dependency resolution. I don't remember off-hand which one
came first, launchd or SMF.


> >> I still consider that systemd has caused considerable harm to
> >> Debian as well as the general Linux community.
> > 
> > Those who do not want systemd are free not to use it. And Debian is
> > one of the few Linux distributions which provides such choice.
> 
> If all goes to Pot, then choice will be lessened as projects make it
> too difficult to maintain versions of their code sans systemd.

That's up to his IBM overlords to decide. As usual for the typical
corporate development. So far they said nothing.


> >> The "Unix is dead" comment was interesting.
> > 
> > AIX and Solaris (well, AIX mostly) are begging to differ. Free
> > software Unix (if such thing ever existed) - that's dead for sure.
> 
> There is at least the BSD variants, are they really dead too?

I specifically mention "Unix". FreeBSD, which is the parent of all
modern BSDs, is free from AT&T code since '94, therefore is not a Unix.
BSDs may be twitching, but they ain't Unix.


> >> Has it really has become Linux or nothing?
> > 
> > No. See SCO vs IBM case. Linux is not Unix, and never has been.
> 
> We also have Luminos varieties... SmartOS and others.

They are as stillborn as their parent, OpenSolaris.
Also, see Netapp vs Nexenta case. That's what happens to OpenSolaris
offsprings once they leave their crib.


> >> It is a pity that Oracle has their licensing problems in relation
> >> to ZFS
> > 
> > Please blame Sun Microsystems for *that*. Oracle's merely keeping
> > the status-quo.
> 
> Yes, but Oracle could fix that if they wanted to.

Why would they? For Oracle any Operating System is a big launcher of
their database and assorted Java shovelware.


> The JAVA fiasco that Oracle hope to profit from royally from Google is
> another box of pox.

So called 'JAVA fiasco' had its share of hype, but that's it.
If you're looking for real fiascoes (sp?), search for HP vs Oracle case.


> >> and there are great alternative implementations now;
> > 
> > You mean, ZFS-on-Linux? It's a fork of OpenSolaris' ZFS
> > implementation, not something that's written from scratch.
> 
> Maybe so, but it isn't limited to Sun (or now Oracle systems).
> And it isn't limited to Linux as opposed to BSD variants or Luminos
> variants.

And here lies the irony. FreeBSD, OpenIndiana, Illumos - they all now
consider ZFS-on-Linux as upstream.
And, as Solaris 11.4 shows us, Oracle too can consider borrowing a
feature or two from ZFS-on-Linux.

The main problem is - ZFS is not native for Linux. It was (as still -
see Solaris porting layer kernel module - spl) written with Solaris
kernel facilities at mind.

Reco

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

#205171

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

On 11/2/19 4:40 am, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 03:55:04AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: 
> Which, in turn, has xml, central database, socket activation and
> very rudimentary dependency resolution. I don't remember off-hand
> which one came first, launchd or SMF.

Yes, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter where it's
origins are from, nor it's inspirations.  It is what it is regardless
of those.

>> If all goes to Pot, then choice will be lessened as projects make
>> it too difficult to maintain versions of their code sans
>> systemd.
> 
> That's up to his IBM overlords to decide. As usual for the typical 
> corporate development. So far they said nothing.

Well, I didn't mean the direct systemd related projects, but ones that
rely upon having systemd present to provide a "feature or service"
that is otherwise missing sans systemd and not coded to work around
that issue ... thus requiring a bad dependency that will lead either
to a project enforcing use of systemd when it really should be optional.

>>>> The "Unix is dead" comment was interesting.
>>> 
>>> AIX and Solaris (well, AIX mostly) are begging to differ. Free 
>>> software Unix (if such thing ever existed) - that's dead for
>>> sure.
>> 
>> There is at least the BSD variants, are they really dead too?
> 
> I specifically mention "Unix". FreeBSD, which is the parent of all 
> modern BSDs, is free from AT&T code since '94, therefore is not a
> Unix. BSDs may be twitching, but they ain't Unix.

That's too literal,  I think more along the lines of *nix -- the more
options, the better, so long as options don't have too many things
that are blockers for their competing OS versions.  That is, not to
heavily rely upon a particular kernel (of any OS).  Both btrfs and
systemd are very much reliant upon specific LINUX ONLY kernels and
even worse, the version of the kernel itself.  There are enough issues
with variants of ext4 having issues with a live USB environment not
being "new" enough to pick up on all the features of the ext4 fs when
trying to do emergency rescue -- amplify that with systemd in a
similar situation.

>>>> Has it really has become Linux or nothing?
>>> 
>>> No. See SCO vs IBM case. Linux is not Unix, and never has
>>> been.

Well, SCO, IBM, RH before IBM, Oracle.... they all have their issues.

>> We also have Luminos varieties... SmartOS and others.
> 
> They are as stillborn as their parent, OpenSolaris. Also, see
> Netapp vs Nexenta case. That's what happens to OpenSolaris 
> offsprings once they leave their crib.

Maybe so, but I don't know current status of these; they were always
(to date when last looked at), not ready for prime time or used by too
few to be relevant enough.  We could relate this to VHS vs Beta, we
know that technically Beta was far better, but VHS won the market with
the same types of problems with HD video content types (HD-DVD vs
Bluray for instance).

>>>> It is a pity that Oracle has their licensing problems in
>>>> relation to ZFS
>>> 
>>> Please blame Sun Microsystems for *that*. Oracle's merely
>>> keeping the status-quo.
>> 
>> Yes, but Oracle could fix that if they wanted to.
> 
> Why would they? For Oracle any Operating System is a big launcher
> of their database and assorted Java shovelware.

They don't want to; they want to own it all.  Such greed in and of
itself is a different matter.  Heck, if you wanted to reverse engineer
Oracle product to help fix it's security problems, their license
doesn't allow you to do so without risk of litigation.  So, they can
keep their own bad code where it exists and be damned because those
that could help make it better are disallowed from doing so.  Sadly
too, JAVA has stood in time to represent "Just Another Vulnerability
Announcement".... I was hoping (in vain) that Oracle would fix that
problem.  But I suspect Java will become abandon ware like Adobe Flash
Player will be soon.  Might I add that the sooner Java and Flash are
finished, the better for everyone.

>> The JAVA fiasco that Oracle hope to profit from royally from
>> Google is another box of pox.
> 
> So called 'JAVA fiasco' had its share of hype, but that's it. If
> you're looking for real fiascoes (sp?), search for HP vs Oracle
> case.

Maybe, but the main point from my view is that Oracle isn't a player
whom plays nicely with our community and we should avoid giving them
further market share of anything and everything when we can reasonably
do so with alternative software.

>>>> and there are great alternative implementations now;
>>> 
>>> You mean, ZFS-on-Linux? It's a fork of OpenSolaris' ZFS 
>>> implementation, not something that's written from scratch.
>> 
>> Maybe so, but it isn't limited to Sun (or now Oracle systems). 
>> And it isn't limited to Linux as opposed to BSD variants or
>> Luminos variants.
> 
> And here lies the irony. FreeBSD, OpenIndiana, Illumos - they all
> now consider ZFS-on-Linux as upstream. And, as Solaris 11.4 shows
> us, Oracle too can consider borrowing a feature or two from
> ZFS-on-Linux.
> 
> The main problem is - ZFS is not native for Linux. It was (as still
> - see Solaris porting layer kernel module - spl) written with
> Solaris kernel facilities at mind.

Yes, but again, this is tangential to the issues of systemd.  Still, I
have considerably more confidence in ZFS (sans Oracle) than with
btrfs.  There are real options for multiple OS implementations here,
heck, Apple even toyed with ZFS, but for some reason they quit it
(possibly due to Oracle one way or another).  If you get fully caught
up in the systemd world, then you are limited to Linux variants only.

Cheers
A.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQTJAoMHtC6YydLfjUOoFmvLt+/i+wUCXGBt6wAKCRCoFmvLt+/i
+5faAQCQ7tudwfBmRYbH9SEZeA2q5SOB0RXU4RJx0na/ZtG6rgD/bGPcvp8SnqDQ
0EhlpDXCk+fu4y96z7aLPj70MrTVo4I=
=gIMO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#205172 — Re: System d files on a Raspberry Pi

On Mon 11 Feb 2019 at 05:31:18 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:

[Total snipping in the interests of sanity]

The post which started this thread had a quote from Jun 22, 2015. The
pillock who started it has disappeared and will, no doubt, never been
seen again. How anyone could see this as meriting a reply is beyond me.

Hooks are dangled. They do not have to be taken.

-- 
Brian.

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

#205174 — Re: System d files on a Raspberry Pi

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

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019, 15:39 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon 11 Feb 2019 at 05:31:18 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>
> [Total snipping in the interests of sanity]
>
> The post which started this thread had a quote from Jun 22, 2015. The
> pillock who started it has disappeared and will, no doubt, never been
> seen again. How anyone could see this as meriting a reply is beyond me.
>
> Hooks are dangled. They do not have to be taken.
>
> --
> Brian.
>
>
>
>
>

"Today, the init. Tomorrow, the world!"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web