Getting rid of systemd and putting sysv back

[Ruben Safir]

Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

ruben
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

[Cristian Rodríguez]

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.

[Ruben Safir]

Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

[S S]

Oh no.. not this debate again.

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
--

[Dirk Gently]

Post by S S
Oh no.. not this debate again.

Well, we're going to keep on having this debate until the idiocy of systemd is fixed..
which, judging by the overall structure, will be right about never.

Sievert and Poeetering's attitude is -- we can do whatever we can get away with and
force on the rest of the community.

If that means kneecaping them to get them to understand that "getting away with it" will
cease, then, I for one, am all for it.

Post by S S

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
--

[Anton Aylward]

Post by Dirk Gently
Sievert and Poeetering's attitude is -- we can do whatever we can get away with and
force on the rest of the community.

Just like UTS did with what we now call 'sysvinit' back at the start of
the 1980s.

UTS did a lot of things that were contrary to the vision of UNIX that
Dennis had.
Semaphores, for example.

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Dirk Gently
Sievert and Poeetering's attitude is -- we can do whatever we can get away with and
force on the rest of the community.

Just like UTS did with what we now call 'sysvinit' back at the start of
the 1980s.

UTS init didn't replace a well-understood mechanism with some unholy horrorshow
forcing administrators to essentially learn entire new languages (look at the
systemd config files... the legal syntax is almost as complex as C, and is
certainly much more complex than any assembly language I've ever programmed in..

And none of the shit is documented.

All UTS did was MODERATELY extend the existing init architecture by adding runlevels.

Post by Anton Aylward
UTS did a lot of things that were contrary to the vision of UNIX that
Dennis had.
Semaphores, for example.

Semaphores aren't in SysVInit...

By the way, SysV-like runlevels were ALSO introduced in contemporary (early 1980's)
versions of BSD, which did NOT have semaphores.

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

I'm thinking of moving to a BSD distribution.

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

[S S]

BSD is dying, and the filesystem (ZFS) runs poorly on a single drive,
it's for RAID environments. Actually just moved a server over from BSD
to debian because vendor software support for our purposes was ending.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

I'm thinking of moving to a BSD distribution.

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

--

[S S]

Pottering never forced anything on anyone, all the distros took up
SystemD and that's that. I don't really see you changing anything,
although you may think that complaining about it is going to change
something. Well, it's not. Too many people are now stuck with SystemD
and it's here to stay.

Post by S S
BSD is dying, and the filesystem (ZFS) runs poorly on a single drive,
it's for RAID environments. Actually just moved a server over from BSD
to debian because vendor software support for our purposes was ending.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

I'm thinking of moving to a BSD distribution.

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

--

[Dirk Gently]

Post by S S
Pottering never forced anything on anyone,

Bullshit. If a deamon writer includes a systemd library call, then
the installation MUST include the systemd libraries...and I have yet
to see ANYONE offer the systemd libraries without all of the other
systemd nonsense.

Post by S S
all the distros took up
SystemD and that's that.

Geee, I wonder why.

They ALL decided that this pile of shit is actually the source of all that is sweet and good?

Buuuuulllllllllllllllllllshit.

There's no other choice. Once a couple critical deamons have systemd library calls,
then the entire systemd load of bullshit has to be installed.

Post by S S
I don't really see you changing anything,

I'm supposed to rewrite dozens of deamons to remove all of the systemd code?

Post by S S
although you may think that complaining about it is going to change
something. Well, it's not. Too many people are now stuck with SystemD
and it's here to stay.

Fuck off with your moronic demands that I have some sort of burden to
personally, all by myself, go back and fix up all of the vandalism and
crap done by these two who are GETTING PAID TO INTRODUCE THIS IDIOTIC,
WINDOWS-LIKE Monolithic startup system.

And don't tell me it's not. Somehow, more and more services that USED
to be independent things (such as time-of-day keeping, xinit,

And thene there's the idiocy of EVERYTHING in /sbin being moved to /usr/sbin
and everyting in /bin moved to /usr/bin...

making it IMPOSSIBLE TO BOOT UP A SYSTEM WITH A SEPARATE /usr

That was blatant "Piss on you and your configuration...because there's
nothing you can do to us for doing so." What am I supposed to do, fly
to Germany to personally beat their heads in with A baseball bat if they
don't UNFUCK everythin that they've fucked up?

Fuck you too, for defending their bullshit.

Post by S S

Post by S S
BSD is dying, and the filesystem (ZFS) runs poorly on a single drive,
it's for RAID environments. Actually just moved a server over from BSD
to debian because vendor software support for our purposes was ending.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

I'm thinking of moving to a BSD distribution.

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

--

[S S]

Funny how comfortable you must be hiding behind your computer monitor
telling people "Fuck You", whereas if you were to say that right to my
face I'd drop you. Seriously go take your meds because you literally
are retarded and nobody cares about your stupid rants under your sock
puppet account. Sorry that you have to live with a tiny penis.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by S S
Pottering never forced anything on anyone,

Bullshit. If a deamon writer includes a systemd library call, then
the installation MUST include the systemd libraries...and I have yet
to see ANYONE offer the systemd libraries without all of the other
systemd nonsense.

Post by S S
all the distros took up
SystemD and that's that.

Geee, I wonder why.
They ALL decided that this pile of shit is actually the source of all that
is sweet and good?
Buuuuulllllllllllllllllllshit.
There's no other choice. Once a couple critical deamons have systemd library calls,
then the entire systemd load of bullshit has to be installed.

Post by S S
I don't really see you changing anything,

I'm supposed to rewrite dozens of deamons to remove all of the systemd code?

Post by S S
although you may think that complaining about it is going to change
something. Well, it's not. Too many people are now stuck with SystemD
and it's here to stay.

Fuck off with your moronic demands that I have some sort of burden to
personally, all by myself, go back and fix up all of the vandalism and
crap done by these two who are GETTING PAID TO INTRODUCE THIS IDIOTIC,
WINDOWS-LIKE Monolithic startup system.
And don't tell me it's not. Somehow, more and more services that USED
to be independent things (such as time-of-day keeping, xinit,
And thene there's the idiocy of EVERYTHING in /sbin being moved to /usr/sbin
and everyting in /bin moved to /usr/bin...
making it IMPOSSIBLE TO BOOT UP A SYSTEM WITH A SEPARATE /usr
That was blatant "Piss on you and your configuration...because there's
nothing you can do to us for doing so." What am I supposed to do, fly
to Germany to personally beat their heads in with A baseball bat if they
don't UNFUCK everythin that they've fucked up?
Fuck you too, for defending their bullshit.

Post by S S

Post by S S
BSD is dying, and the filesystem (ZFS) runs poorly on a single drive,
it's for RAID environments. Actually just moved a server over from BSD
to debian because vendor software support for our purposes was ending.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

I'm thinking of moving to a BSD distribution.

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

--

[S S]

Dirk Gently stroks his micropenis while writing rants about SystemD
that nobody cares about.

Post by S S
Funny how comfortable you must be hiding behind your computer monitor
telling people "Fuck You", whereas if you were to say that right to my
face I'd drop you. Seriously go take your meds because you literally
are retarded and nobody cares about your stupid rants under your sock
puppet account. Sorry that you have to live with a tiny penis.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by S S
Pottering never forced anything on anyone,

Bullshit. If a deamon writer includes a systemd library call, then
the installation MUST include the systemd libraries...and I have yet
to see ANYONE offer the systemd libraries without all of the other
systemd nonsense.

Post by S S
all the distros took up
SystemD and that's that.

Geee, I wonder why.
They ALL decided that this pile of shit is actually the source of all that
is sweet and good?
Buuuuulllllllllllllllllllshit.
There's no other choice. Once a couple critical deamons have systemd library calls,
then the entire systemd load of bullshit has to be installed.

Post by S S
I don't really see you changing anything,

I'm supposed to rewrite dozens of deamons to remove all of the systemd code?

Post by S S
although you may think that complaining about it is going to change
something. Well, it's not. Too many people are now stuck with SystemD
and it's here to stay.

Fuck off with your moronic demands that I have some sort of burden to
personally, all by myself, go back and fix up all of the vandalism and
crap done by these two who are GETTING PAID TO INTRODUCE THIS IDIOTIC,
WINDOWS-LIKE Monolithic startup system.
And don't tell me it's not. Somehow, more and more services that USED
to be independent things (such as time-of-day keeping, xinit,
And thene there's the idiocy of EVERYTHING in /sbin being moved to /usr/sbin
and everyting in /bin moved to /usr/bin...
making it IMPOSSIBLE TO BOOT UP A SYSTEM WITH A SEPARATE /usr
That was blatant "Piss on you and your configuration...because there's
nothing you can do to us for doing so." What am I supposed to do, fly
to Germany to personally beat their heads in with A baseball bat if they
don't UNFUCK everythin that they've fucked up?
Fuck you too, for defending their bullshit.

Post by S S

Post by S S
BSD is dying, and the filesystem (ZFS) runs poorly on a single drive,
it's for RAID environments. Actually just moved a server over from BSD
to debian because vendor software support for our purposes was ending.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

I'm thinking of moving to a BSD distribution.

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

--

[Patrick Shanahan]

Post by S S
Dirk Gently stroks his micropenis while writing rants about SystemD
that nobody cares about.

Ah, appears aaron had assumed another alias, "S S". He is even taking to
talking and answering himself :^(

Making note, "Add another email addr to /dev/null".

[S S]

I'm not Aaron

Post by Patrick Shanahan

Post by S S
Dirk Gently stroks his micropenis while writing rants about SystemD
that nobody cares about.

Ah, appears aaron had assumed another alias, "S S". He is even taking to
talking and answering himself :^(
Making note, "Add another email addr to /dev/null".
--
http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri
http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
--

[Dirk Gently]

Post by S S
Dirk Gently stroks his micropenis while writing rants about SystemD
that nobody cares about.

And here we see the true character of the SystemD supporters and how
they respond when anyone confronts them with how much fucktardary
and asshattery there is in the whole pile of systemd bullshit.

As they say, Shutzstaffel... whatever.

[Dirk Gently]

Post by S S
Funny how comfortable you must be hiding behind your computer monitor
telling people "Fuck You", whereas if you were to say that right to my

Whatever, Shutzstaffel.

Post by S S
face I'd drop you. Seriously go take your meds because you literally
are retarded and nobody cares about your stupid rants under your sock
puppet account. Sorry that you have to live with a tiny penis.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by S S
Pottering never forced anything on anyone,

Bullshit. If a deamon writer includes a systemd library call, then
the installation MUST include the systemd libraries...and I have yet
to see ANYONE offer the systemd libraries without all of the other
systemd nonsense.

Post by S S
all the distros took up
SystemD and that's that.

Geee, I wonder why.
They ALL decided that this pile of shit is actually the source of all that
is sweet and good?
Buuuuulllllllllllllllllllshit.
There's no other choice. Once a couple critical deamons have systemd library calls,
then the entire systemd load of bullshit has to be installed.

Post by S S
I don't really see you changing anything,

I'm supposed to rewrite dozens of deamons to remove all of the systemd code?

Post by S S
although you may think that complaining about it is going to change
something. Well, it's not. Too many people are now stuck with SystemD
and it's here to stay.

Fuck off with your moronic demands that I have some sort of burden to
personally, all by myself, go back and fix up all of the vandalism and
crap done by these two who are GETTING PAID TO INTRODUCE THIS IDIOTIC,
WINDOWS-LIKE Monolithic startup system.
And don't tell me it's not. Somehow, more and more services that USED
to be independent things (such as time-of-day keeping, xinit,
And thene there's the idiocy of EVERYTHING in /sbin being moved to /usr/sbin
and everyting in /bin moved to /usr/bin...
making it IMPOSSIBLE TO BOOT UP A SYSTEM WITH A SEPARATE /usr
That was blatant "Piss on you and your configuration...because there's
nothing you can do to us for doing so." What am I supposed to do, fly
to Germany to personally beat their heads in with A baseball bat if they
don't UNFUCK everythin that they've fucked up?
Fuck you too, for defending their bullshit.

Post by S S

Post by S S
BSD is dying, and the filesystem (ZFS) runs poorly on a single drive,
it's for RAID environments. Actually just moved a server over from BSD
to debian because vendor software support for our purposes was ending.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

I'm thinking of moving to a BSD distribution.

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

--

[Per Jessen]

Guys,

please be kind to everyone and take this elsewhere. No matter what one
might think of systemd and its authors, that train has long left the
platform.


Thanks
Per

[Ruben Safir]

Post by S S
Pottering never forced anything on anyone, all the distros took up
SystemD and that's that. I don't really see you changing anything,
although you may think that complaining about it is going to change
something. Well, it's not. Too many people are now stuck with SystemD
and it's here to stay.

No. At least not yet, I still might have some choices. I'm not found
of BSD but we'll see what is out there.

Ruben

Post by S S

Post by S S
BSD is dying, and the filesystem (ZFS) runs poorly on a single drive,
it's for RAID environments. Actually just moved a server over from BSD
to debian because vendor software support for our purposes was ending.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

I'm thinking of moving to a BSD distribution.

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

--

--

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

[Dirk Gently]

Post by S S
BSD is dying,

SystemD is causing a great many admins to move BACK to BSD

Post by S S
and the filesystem (ZFS) runs poorly on a single drive,

As if ZFS is the only filesystem....

Post by S S
it's for RAID environments. Actually just moved a server over from BSD
to debian because vendor software support for our purposes was ending.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

I'm thinking of moving to a BSD distribution.

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

--

[ianseeks]

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

I'm thinking of moving to a BSD distribution.

You can do that but i'm sure if you are a good admin of your system, you'd be
able to remove "systemd" and restore "sysvinit" or is that the problem for
you?
"sysvinit" is still an installable package in opensuse 13.1 repos.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

[Dirk Gently]

Post by ianseeks

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

I'm thinking of moving to a BSD distribution.

You can do that but i'm sure if you are a good admin of your system, you'd be
able to remove "systemd" and restore "sysvinit" or is that the problem for
you?

I don't have time to play STUPID FUCKING GAMES undoing all of the
malicious sabotage caused by Sievert and Poettering.

Do you have the time to do it?

Post by ianseeks
"sysvinit" is still an installable package in opensuse 13.1 repos.

And it's fucked.

Post by ianseeks

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

No. it is not possible.
--
Cristian
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to
please everybody."
--

[Felix Miata]

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

If you are referring to current and supported releases, this might be it:

Slackware

You can try making your own clicking all the distro links on
http://distrowatch.com/ but it wouldn't surprise me if there were no others
in the top 40.

IIRC, 12.1 gave a default option to not use systemd. Mageia 1 didn't have it.
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

[Ruben Safir]

Post by Felix Miata

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

Slackware

That would be strange to have to go back to slackware, but it that is it
that is it at least until all the small progrms that have been swallowed
up by systemd die of lack of support.

Ruben

Post by Felix Miata
You can try making your own clicking all the distro links on
http://distrowatch.com/ but it wouldn't surprise me if there were no others
in the top 40.
IIRC, 12.1 gave a default option to not use systemd. Mageia 1 didn't have it.
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
--

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Felix Miata

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

Slackware

That would be strange to have to go back to slackware, but it that is it
that is it at least until all the small progrms that have been swallowed
up by systemd die of lack of support.

And that's precisely why SystemD is the wrong way to do it.

It's replacing small, separate programs, (which, although they have
different syntaxes for their configuration files, those syntaxes
are consisted with the needs of those daemons) with one giant
craptastic pile of monolithic Redmondism...with a "uniform" syntax
for configuration files, which is well-suited for absolutely NONE
of the services which are being swallowed up.

The separate deamons WILL survive in BSD... primarily because some
arrogant vandal like Sievert or Poettering won't be allowed to fuck
with things so needlessly.

Post by Ruben Safir
Ruben

Post by Felix Miata
You can try making your own clicking all the distro links on
http://distrowatch.com/ but it wouldn't surprise me if there were no others
in the top 40.
IIRC, 12.1 gave a default option to not use systemd. Mageia 1 didn't have it.
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
--

[Doug]

Post by Felix Miata

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

Slackware
You can try making your own clicking all the distro links on
http://distrowatch.com/ but it wouldn't surprise me if there were no others
in the top 40.
IIRC, 12.1 gave a default option to not use systemd. Mageia 1 didn't have it.

At the moment, PCLinuxOS doesn't use systemd. I don't know how long this will last.

--doug

[David Haller]

Hello,

Post by Felix Miata

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

Slackware

Gentoo, I think. Debian Stable.

-dnh

[Felix Miata]

Post by David Haller

Post by Felix Miata

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

Slackware

Gentoo, I think. Debian Stable.

Debian is committed to systemd. It has 208 (same as 13.2) in testing, 211 in
unstable. Wheezy (Stable) includes 44.

Gentoo since this month has had 215+.

Anyone know any pool for how long Slackware holds out?
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

[David Haller]

Hello,

Post by Felix Miata

Post by David Haller

Post by Felix Miata

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there a list of distros that don't uses systemd ?

Slackware

Gentoo, I think. Debian Stable.

Debian is committed to systemd. It has 208 (same as 13.2) in testing, 211 in
unstable. Wheezy (Stable) includes 44.
Gentoo since this month has had 215+.

==== http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Systemd ====
systemd is a modern sysvinit & RC replacement for Linux systems. It is
supported in Gentoo as an alternate init system.
[..]
This page was last modified on 10 September 2014, at 17:02.
====

See also <https://www.google.com/search?q=systemd+site:gentoo.org>

-dnh

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

Not easily. Sievert and Poettering have sabotaged the deamons, so that if you don't
have systemd installed, then there will be unresolved library calls. Thus, you can't
uninstall systemd.

Personally, i think they should be arrested and charged with vandalism.

And then shot in the kneecaps with a shotgun.

Post by Ruben Safir
ruben

[Felix Miata]

Sievert and Poettering ...
... i think they should be arrested and charged with vandalism.
And then shot in the kneecaps with a shotgun.

Or maybe not. http://ewontfix.com/14/ I understood and agreed with, toned
down from your sentiment, but philsophically the same. I don't think the same
about systemd so much any more after reading a few days ago this:

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294.html
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Felix Miata

Sievert and Poettering ...
... i think they should be arrested and charged with vandalism.
And then shot in the kneecaps with a shotgun.

Or maybe not. http://ewontfix.com/14/ I understood and agreed with, toned
down from your sentiment, but philsophically the same. I don't think the same
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294.html

Wow... let's see...


/etc/inittab replaced by
config files with dozens to hundreds of indecipherable, undocumented lines for even the simplest initializations

some weird mechanism which intercepts


$ /etc/init.d/[someservicename] restart
and somehow maps it to some random-looking "systemd" command....

so the /etc/init.d structure is still there, but nothing there is actually meaningful....
which then just confuses the fuck out of everything


process 1, init, .. an extremely short program, so short that it NEVER
needs to be updated (and also takes exteremely few CPU cycles), is replaced
by systemd, some big huge executable, which is a CPU hog, and sometimes needs
to be replaced.... thereby causing an IMMEDIATE NEED FOR A REBOOT.

The link you gave is some moron trying to handwave away all of the problems
that systemd introduces, while still not providing very good solutions to
the problems that we had with SysVInit.

[Andrei Borzenkov]

Post by Dirk Gently
/etc/inittab replaced by
config files with dozens to hundreds of indecipherable, undocumented lines
for even the simplest initializations

Please, do "rm -rf /etc/init.d" and reboot on any distribution that is
based on sysvinit. By your own word, nothing under /etc/init.d is
needed - only single file /etc/inittab.

Post by Dirk Gently
some weird mechanism which intercepts
$ /etc/init.d/[someservicename] restart

If such mechanism did not exist, you would complaint about
/etc/init.d/[someservicename] restart not working.

Post by Dirk Gently
and somehow maps it to some random-looking "systemd" command....
so the /etc/init.d structure is still there, but nothing there is actually meaningful....
which then just confuses the fuck out of everything

Oh, so /etc/inittab was not enough? You still need /etc/init.d/with
dozens of shell scripts with indecipherable, undocumented lines for
even the simplest initializations?

Post by Dirk Gently
process 1, init, .. an extremely short program, so short that it NEVER
needs to be updated (and also takes exteremely few CPU cycles), is replaced
by systemd, some big huge executable, which is a CPU hog, and sometimes needs
to be replaced.... thereby causing an IMMEDIATE NEED FOR A REBOOT.

Really? I restart systemd routinely. I did not need to reboot. What am
I doing wrong?

[Carlos E. R.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Andrei Borzenkov

Post by Dirk Gently
to be replaced.... thereby causing an IMMEDIATE NEED FOR A
REBOOT.

Really? I restart systemd routinely. I did not need to reboot. What
am I doing wrong?

It is not widely known how... This moment, I don't remember. Last time
I saw systemd in the output of "zypper ps", I rebooted, didn't know
what else to do.


Telcontar:~ # systemctl status systemd
systemd.service
Loaded: not-found (Reason: No such file or directory)
Active: inactive (dead)

Telcontar:~ #



- --
Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlQipw0ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UgkwCfeKVgJxwxBhvM7UDfT5GJjvBf
PXMAn36xpufgzpMsXG587mBkLm9cHDoq
=aUVZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Andrei Borzenkov]

Post by Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Andrei Borzenkov

Post by Dirk Gently
to be replaced.... thereby causing an IMMEDIATE NEED FOR A
REBOOT.

Really? I restart systemd routinely. I did not need to reboot. What
am I doing wrong?

It is not widely known how... This moment, I don't remember. Last time
I saw systemd in the output of "zypper ps", I rebooted, didn't know
what else to do.

systemctl daemon-reexec

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Andrei Borzenkov

Post by Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Andrei Borzenkov

Post by Dirk Gently
to be replaced.... thereby causing an IMMEDIATE NEED FOR A
REBOOT.

Really? I restart systemd routinely. I did not need to reboot. What
am I doing wrong?

It is not widely known how... This moment, I don't remember. Last time
I saw systemd in the output of "zypper ps", I rebooted, didn't know
what else to do.

systemctl daemon-reexec

Eric S. Raymond makes a good point that whatever your process 1 is,
it should NEVER NEED TO BE RESTARTED, and it should be SO SIMPLE
THAT IT NEVER NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.

This is one of MANY fundamental principles which SystemD violates,
because, frankly, Sievert and Poettering are a couple of Narcisstic jerks.

[Andrei Borzenkov]

В Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:25:00 -0400

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Andrei Borzenkov

Post by Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Andrei Borzenkov

Post by Dirk Gently
to be replaced.... thereby causing an IMMEDIATE NEED FOR A REBOOT.

Really? I restart systemd routinely. I did not need to reboot. What
am I doing wrong?

It is not widely known how... This moment, I don't remember. Last time
I saw systemd in the output of "zypper ps", I rebooted, didn't know
what else to do.

systemctl daemon-reexec

Eric S. Raymond makes a good point that whatever your process 1 is,
it should NEVER NEED TO BE RESTARTED, and it should be SO SIMPLE
THAT IT NEVER NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.
This is one of MANY fundamental principles which SystemD violates,

/sbin/init is restarted during some RPM updates. On sysvinit systems.

Post by Dirk Gently
because, frankly, Sievert and Poettering are a couple of Narcisstic jerks.

[ianseeks]

Post by Dirk Gently
Narcisstic jerks.

sounds like pot kettle black to me

[Dirk Gently]

Post by ianseeks

Post by Dirk Gently
Narcisstic jerks.

sounds like pot kettle black to me

Really?

Have I coerced dozens of deamon writers for systems used by millions of people
to buy into my own, private, hare-brained model of computing, without any real
discussion with the wider community about whether this is even a smart thing to do?

Oh, I haven't.

I guess that doesn't make the pot, then, does it, asshole.

[Carlos E. R.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Andrei Borzenkov

Post by Carlos E. R.
It is not widely known how... This moment, I don't remember. Last
time I saw systemd in the output of "zypper ps", I rebooted,
didn't know what else to do.

systemctl daemon-reexec

Thanks. I wrote that on a postit and stuck it to the screen. I hope to
remember and try it next time ;-)

- --
Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlQkSjkACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UtYQCfZ/43ehUNet7AlZooCakMeu6+
WHUAoJSX+bBRTUxCMk174mGOH1hGXBq/
=zgcB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Anton Aylward]

Post by Felix Miata
I don't think the same
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294.html

That's excellent.

Those 17 points sum up 'the UNIX way' very well, much better than the
rants we've seen here, which have mostly been recidivist.

The claims that systemd is undocumented and similar are quite unfounded.
There's a "Big Lie" being carried out by the anti-systemd people; they
seem to think that if they make false claims often enough and loudly
enough they can convince us about something that is quite demonstrably
not the case.

My background is mathematics and engineering and I'm inclined to "look
to the evidence", and the evidence I see is that the claims of the
anti-systemd people are not based on demonstrable facts and evidence, in
fact the evidence contradicts what they say.

And when people like aaron resort to suggesting using tactics normally
practised by terrorists groups such as the IRA of the 1970s on
individuals who are part of the systemd development group, well that
says a lot about them. Perhaps the Homeland Security people should be
advised of this.

Lennart Poettering is just one individual in that group. Assassinating
him, be it by character or by shotgun as the violent-minded aaron
advocates, will not halt systemd development.

Perhaps some people are too inclined to 'code' and don't understand how
to use a declarative language rather than a procedural language.
Perhaps that, too, is indicative of what schools and colleges are
churning out as 'gunfodder' for the IT world these days.

Which is sad. Highly parallel programming, the kind that is going to be
needed to deal with highly parallel programming, will be more concerned
with a 'declarative' model, with triggers and events, than the old
procedural code.

If the "UNIX Way" is limited to the models of "Software Tools" and other
similar books then we are going to be stuck in what amounts to a
stream-processing mode. That means the event-driven style needed to
deal with GUIs as well as many real-time and 'headless' applications at
which *NIX excels such as network processing, banking and finance and
more don't fit any more than systemd fits. So obviously there's more to
it than that. And that is why I think the 17 points in that article sum
up 'The Unix Way" much better.

That the anti-systemd people like aaron feel they have to resort to
using shotguns and physical violence tells me a lot: that they have
failed in any argument based on reason and so must resort to violence.
As one philosopher said: "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent".

[michael norman]

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Felix Miata
I don't think the same
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294.html

That's excellent.
Those 17 points sum up 'the UNIX way' very well, much better than the
rants we've seen here, which have mostly been recidivist.
The claims that systemd is undocumented and similar are quite unfounded.
There's a "Big Lie" being carried out by the anti-systemd people; they
seem to think that if they make false claims often enough and loudly
enough they can convince us about something that is quite demonstrably
not the case.
My background is mathematics and engineering and I'm inclined to "look
to the evidence", and the evidence I see is that the claims of the
anti-systemd people are not based on demonstrable facts and evidence, in
fact the evidence contradicts what they say.
And when people like aaron resort to suggesting using tactics normally
practised by terrorists groups such as the IRA of the 1970s on
individuals who are part of the systemd development group, well that
says a lot about them. Perhaps the Homeland Security people should be
advised of this.
Lennart Poettering is just one individual in that group. Assassinating
him, be it by character or by shotgun as the violent-minded aaron
advocates, will not halt systemd development.
Perhaps some people are too inclined to 'code' and don't understand how
to use a declarative language rather than a procedural language.
Perhaps that, too, is indicative of what schools and colleges are
churning out as 'gunfodder' for the IT world these days.
Which is sad. Highly parallel programming, the kind that is going to be
needed to deal with highly parallel programming, will be more concerned
with a 'declarative' model, with triggers and events, than the old
procedural code.
If the "UNIX Way" is limited to the models of "Software Tools" and other
similar books then we are going to be stuck in what amounts to a
stream-processing mode. That means the event-driven style needed to
deal with GUIs as well as many real-time and 'headless' applications at
which *NIX excels such as network processing, banking and finance and
more don't fit any more than systemd fits. So obviously there's more to
it than that. And that is why I think the 17 points in that article sum
up 'The Unix Way" much better.
That the anti-systemd people like aaron feel they have to resort to
using shotguns and physical violence tells me a lot: that they have
failed in any argument based on reason and so must resort to violence.
As one philosopher said: "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent".

I have no axe to grind about systemd, the "debate" is way over my head.

What I "do" think is if anybody posts to this list implicit threats of
violence (whether meant to be ironic or not) they and anybody else that
behaves like that should be immediately barred from using this list.

I have subscribed here since about 1989 I have never put back anything
like what I have gained, but if it carries on like this I will say
goodbye (without expecting to be missed the way C will be).

M

[Bob Williams]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by michael norman
What I "do" think is if anybody posts to this list implicit threats
of violence (whether meant to be ironic or not) they and anybody
else that behaves like that should be immediately barred from using
this list.
I have subscribed here since about 1989 I have never put back
anything like what I have gained, but if it carries on like this I
will say goodbye (without expecting to be missed the way C will
be).

Dirk Gently is in my killfile. I therefore only see what he has
written when he is quoted by others.

My main reason for killfiling him and those like him is to remove the
temptation to reply. What the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't
grieve about.

Bob
- --
Bob Williams
System: Linux 3.11.10-21-desktop
Distro: openSUSE 13.1 (x86_64) with KDE Development Platform: 4.14.1
Uptime: 06:00am up 5 days 14:55, 4 users, load average: 0.01, 0.04, 0.11
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlQizvUACgkQ0Sr7eZJrmU4ngACeK0ZPP5tMBefoTCaI9BJZ+1+n
4rYAmwTm9SjUhnJFz6XANRlKbDavf4A7
=LRbR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ruben Safir]

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Felix Miata
I don't think the same
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294.html

That's excellent.
And when people like aaron resort to suggesting using tactics normally
practised by terrorists groups such as the IRA of the 1970s on
individuals who are part of the systemd development group, well that
says a lot about them. Perhaps the Homeland Security people should be
advised of this.

You can not trust 'engineers' with the decision making power over your
system because they tend to have fundementally flawed views of what is
and is not acceptable use and design for technology. The use and
implementation of technology is, as a fact, a social and political
question, and not a technological one. Never the less, despite rants to
the contrary, a huge number of individuals didn't wake up on a Tuesday
morning and just decide to "attack" the project of systemd. There is
REAL cause for rejecting systemd. But the number one reason is that,
aside from it being un-unix like, for whatever that is, but it is a huge
POWER GRAB. A large number of well understood and well working tools
have been absorbed in one fell swoop by systemd. Now that might be fine
is say, postwar soviet East Germany, for my GNU system in NYC, I don't
like it and I really don't like needing to needlessly relearn the root
of the system to wrap it around this huge white elephant.

That being said, I didn't ask this question to debate the merits of
systemd, as few as there are. I'm not interested in systemd any more
than I'm interested in Aqua, or Internet Explore and .Net. I've already
made my decision about the merits and lack of merits of the program and
I would like to remove it from my system, if I can.

Ruben

Post by Anton Aylward
Lennart Poettering is just one individual in that group. Assassinating
him, be it by character or by shotgun as the violent-minded aaron
advocates, will not halt systemd development.
Perhaps some people are too inclined to 'code' and don't understand how
to use a declarative language rather than a procedural language.
Perhaps that, too, is indicative of what schools and colleges are
churning out as 'gunfodder' for the IT world these days.
Which is sad. Highly parallel programming, the kind that is going to be
needed to deal with highly parallel programming, will be more concerned
with a 'declarative' model, with triggers and events, than the old
procedural code.
If the "UNIX Way" is limited to the models of "Software Tools" and other
similar books then we are going to be stuck in what amounts to a
stream-processing mode. That means the event-driven style needed to
deal with GUIs as well as many real-time and 'headless' applications at
which *NIX excels such as network processing, banking and finance and
more don't fit any more than systemd fits. So obviously there's more to
it than that. And that is why I think the 17 points in that article sum
up 'The Unix Way" much better.
That the anti-systemd people like aaron feel they have to resort to
using shotguns and physical violence tells me a lot: that they have
failed in any argument based on reason and so must resort to violence.
As one philosopher said: "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent".
--
/"\
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML Mail
/ \
--

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

[Anton Aylward]

Post by Ruben Safir
for whatever that is, but it is a huge
POWER GRAB.

Heck, UNIX was a huge power grab in the first place, so the tradition is
upheld :-)

[Timothy Butterworth]

Some of The BSD Developers have already been talking about porting
systemd over to BSD. With Debian, Red Hat Inc and SUSE migrating to
systemd pretty much all cloned GNU/Linux distros are migrating.

I like a lot of what systemd is doing but there are some things I do
not like. journald is one of my concerns placing logs into a binary
format may be useful to help prevent compromised systems from having
logging entries removed. With text files based logging it is
relatively easy to remove some lines from the log to cover up the
system compromise. Of course using an external log collector and
forwarding copies of all entries to it helps to eliminate this threat.
SystemD does allow for RSyslog or SyslogNG which good as plain text
logs do have the added advantage of easy of use with a massive amount
of GNU utilities to parse the with. I currently am unclear as to
whether journald can even send copies to a remote log collection
server but I am sure the developers have thought of this.

Security vs ease of use is always a sticky situation. The kernel
cgroups tracking feature is a great security enhancement and stability
enhancement so intentionally malicious multi forked PID's can not be
made hidden and used to prevent malicious process from being stopped
or restarted as part of the parent process using sytemvint.

I do not like the HTTP server integration at all and I do not want
this at all journald is optional though.

Gentoo still has not embraced systemd but it is an implemented option
and required for GNOME 3. As long as you do not want to use GNOME 3
(Impossible now without systemd now) you can use Gentoo with a
different choice of DE and systemvinit.

There is at least a commercial book available, Fedora Linux Servers
with systemd, that covers the Fedora 20 implementation of systemd.
Once you understand the syntax it is at least easy to use and
consistent for an OSS moving target development project. Sadly the
authors writing style is that of a Historian and not a technology
enthusiast though.

I really do not care for the idea of integrating DBus into systemd and
PID 1. I have heard some of the concerns being voiced about this and
it sounds like trouble waiting to happen.

Bottom line in the long run I personally think systemd will bring a
lot to Linux even if it does require being forked sometime in the
future to overhaul some aspects of it so its development is not a
waist at all in my opinion. Once the larger community steps in and
possibly forks it and host the fork at The Linux Foundation if
possible I imagine a lot of these debates will end with more folks
actually working on it. The beauty of FLOSS if you do not like a
direction something is taking and your concerns are not adhered to
then stick a fork in it and prove yours is better.

If systemd was a Linux Foundation working group then LSB and other
requirements could be added into this umbrella to create some useful
standardization. One day their will be a Universal Linux Package
format and package manager after someone actually convinces all the
developers of current solutions to work together to produce a new a
new one from scratch!

Some of the arguments against systemd though seem to be being spoon
fed by a GNU/Linux Hater or FUD campaign because they actually attack
both systemvinit and systemd.

[Cristian Rodríguez]

Post by Timothy Butterworth
I do not like the HTTP server integration at all and I do not want
this at all journald is optional though.

WUT? The journal does not have an HTTP server..

Post by Timothy Butterworth
I really do not care for the idea of integrating DBus into systemd and
PID 1. I have heard some of the concerns being voiced about this and
it sounds like trouble waiting to happen.

Dbus is not integrated into systemd, never has and never will be.. where
did you get this idea ? Not everything you read on the internet is true.

Post by Timothy Butterworth
If systemd was a Linux Foundation working group then LSB and other
requirements could be added into this umbrella to create some useful
standardization.

placing a project like this in the hands of a bureaucratic standard
busybody is something that would essentially make it disappear. as
nobody sane will ever continue developing it under that conditions.
Even less if you mention the LSB which is an awful idea that was
horrendously executed.

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Timothy Butterworth
I do not like the HTTP server integration at all and I do not want
this at all journald is optional though.

WUT? The journal does not have an HTTP server..

Post by Timothy Butterworth
I really do not care for the idea of integrating DBus into systemd and
PID 1. I have heard some of the concerns being voiced about this and
it sounds like trouble waiting to happen.

Dbus is not integrated into systemd, never has and never will be.. where
did you get this idea ? Not everything you read on the internet is true.

Post by Timothy Butterworth
If systemd was a Linux Foundation working group then LSB and other
requirements could be added into this umbrella to create some useful
standardization.

placing a project like this in the hands of a bureaucratic standard
busybody is something that would essentially make it disappear. as

And with regards to systemd, that would be a good thing.

Post by Cristian Rodríguez
nobody sane will ever continue developing it under that conditions.
Even less if you mention the LSB which is an awful idea that was
horrendously executed.

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Ruben Safir
for whatever that is, but it is a huge
POWER GRAB.

Heck, UNIX was a huge power grab in the first place,

Wow... you are so ignorant of history.

Unix was a side project originally conceived with ONE purpose -- to play "space war"
because Multics couldn't handle the problem.

Post by Anton Aylward
so the tradition is upheld :-)

[Doug]

/snip/

Post by Ruben Safir
You can not trust 'engineers' with the decision making power over your
system because they tend to have fundementally flawed views of what is
and is not acceptable use and design for technology. The use and
implementation of technology is, as a fact, a social and political
question, and not a technological one. Never the less, despite rants to
the contrary, a huge number of individuals didn't wake up on a Tuesday
morning and just decide to "attack" the project of systemd. There is
REAL cause for rejecting systemd. But the number one reason is that,
aside from it being un-unix like, for whatever that is, but it is a huge
POWER GRAB. A large number of well understood and well working tools
have been absorbed in one fell swoop by systemd. Now that might be fine
is say, postwar soviet East Germany, for my GNU system in NYC, I don't
like it and I really don't like needing to needlessly relearn the root
of the system to wrap it around this huge white elephant.
That being said, I didn't ask this question to debate the merits of
systemd, as few as there are. I'm not interested in systemd any more
than I'm interested in Aqua, or Internet Explore and .Net. I've already
made my decision about the merits and lack of merits of the program and
I would like to remove it from my system, if I can.
Ruben

/snip/

I wonder why more of those who are making a big fuss about "A large number of
well understood and well working tools have been absorbed in one fell swoop
by systemd" are not looking into the proposed uselessd?
I am not a programmer, but I think I understand the line I just quoted, and I
think I understand the general thesis of uselessd, which is to solve that problem,
while keeping such merits as systemd has. It would seem to me to be a
reasonable approach, and a compromise that even the staunchest supporters of
the present systemd might be willing to accept, when it becomes more fully
developed.
I would hope that those reading here who are programmers/developers would
look into uselessd and assist in its finalization.

--doug

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Doug
/snip/

Post by Ruben Safir
You can not trust 'engineers' with the decision making power over your
system because they tend to have fundementally flawed views of what is
and is not acceptable use and design for technology. The use and
implementation of technology is, as a fact, a social and political
question, and not a technological one. Never the less, despite rants to
the contrary, a huge number of individuals didn't wake up on a Tuesday
morning and just decide to "attack" the project of systemd. There is
REAL cause for rejecting systemd. But the number one reason is that,
aside from it being un-unix like, for whatever that is, but it is a huge
POWER GRAB. A large number of well understood and well working tools
have been absorbed in one fell swoop by systemd. Now that might be fine
is say, postwar soviet East Germany, for my GNU system in NYC, I don't
like it and I really don't like needing to needlessly relearn the root
of the system to wrap it around this huge white elephant.
That being said, I didn't ask this question to debate the merits of
systemd, as few as there are. I'm not interested in systemd any more
than I'm interested in Aqua, or Internet Explore and .Net. I've already
made my decision about the merits and lack of merits of the program and
I would like to remove it from my system, if I can.
Ruben

/snip/
I wonder why more of those who are making a big fuss about "A large number of
well understood and well working tools have been absorbed in one fell swoop
by systemd" are not looking into the proposed uselessd?

Personally ... for me, I never heard of uselessd before today.

From what I've read so far, it's not perfect, but it's a FAR better
solution than full-blown systemD.

My biggest problem with systemd is NOT that it replaces init... but that
it replaces init AND absorbs dozens of other deamons.

Why the fuck is MOUNT not run at startup, but instead, by some some code inside systemD?
there is absolutely NOTHING about mount that was broken...bot Sievert & Poettering
think that systemd needs to mount fileysstems with THEIR CODE, not the existing mount command.

Biggest case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome I've ever fucking seen...

And wherever you find NIH syndrome, you find out-of-control Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Talk about fails at playing well with others...that's SystemD.

Post by Doug
I am not a programmer, but I think I understand the line I just quoted, and I
think I understand the general thesis of uselessd, which is to solve that problem,
while keeping such merits as systemd has. It would seem to me to be a

SystemD doesn't have nearly as many merits as advertised.

read these pages:
http://ewontfix.com/14
http://ewontfix.com/15

Post by Doug
reasonable approach, and a compromise that even the staunchest supporters of
the present systemd might be willing to accept, when it becomes more fully
developed.

If Uselessd is adopted, then "more fully developed" systemd will never be needed,
which is why systemd supporters will yell and scream about it, and fight it
tooth and nail.

Post by Doug
I would hope that those reading here who are programmers/developers would
look into uselessd and assist in its finalization.
--doug

[Ruben Safir]

Post by Doug
/snip/
I wonder why more of those who are making a big fuss about "A large number of
well understood and well working tools have been absorbed in one fell swoop
by systemd" are not looking into the proposed uselessd?
I am not a programmer, but I think I understand the line I just quoted, and I
think I understand the general thesis of uselessd, which is to solve that problem,
while keeping such merits as systemd has. It would seem to me to be a
reasonable approach, and a compromise that even the staunchest supporters of
the present systemd might be willing to accept, when it becomes more fully
developed.
I would hope that those reading here who are programmers/developers would
look into uselessd and assist in its finalization.

Not interested. I just want to go back to init and the /etc/rc.d
directory of services.


Am I to understand that the cores from my programs no longer go on the
file system? How the hell did systemd get that deep into my computing
environemt?

Ruben

Post by Doug
--doug
--

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Doug
/snip/
I wonder why more of those who are making a big fuss about "A large number of
well understood and well working tools have been absorbed in one fell swoop
by systemd" are not looking into the proposed uselessd?
I am not a programmer, but I think I understand the line I just quoted, and I
think I understand the general thesis of uselessd, which is to solve that problem,
while keeping such merits as systemd has. It would seem to me to be a
reasonable approach, and a compromise that even the staunchest supporters of
the present systemd might be willing to accept, when it becomes more fully
developed.
I would hope that those reading here who are programmers/developers would
look into uselessd and assist in its finalization.

Not interested. I just want to go back to init and the /etc/rc.d
directory of services.
Am I to understand that the cores from my programs no longer go on the
file system? How the hell did systemd get that deep into my computing
environemt?

Sievert and Poettering are Narcissistic powermongers.

It really is that simple -- because, narcissists believe that ANY opinion
that differs from their own is illegitimate, they have no qualms with
replacing something like init with a new system that CANNOT BE SWAPPED
OUT for some other init system.

Post by Ruben Safir
Ruben

Post by Doug
--doug
--

[ianseeks]

Post by Dirk Gently
It really is that simple -- because, narcissists believe that ANY opinion
that differs from their own is illegitimate,

see i was correct, pot kettle black

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Felix Miata
I don't think the same
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294.html

That's excellent.
Those 17 points sum up 'the UNIX way' very well, much better than the
rants we've seen here, which have mostly been recidivist.
The claims that systemd is undocumented and similar are quite unfounded.

If it's not in the man pages, it's not documented.

If I can't bring up my system to full GUI status, no amount of online webpages are worth a single shit.

[ianseeks]

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Felix Miata
I don't think the same
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294
.html>

That's excellent.
Those 17 points sum up 'the UNIX way' very well, much better than the
rants we've seen here, which have mostly been recidivist.
The claims that systemd is undocumented and similar are quite unfounded.

If it's not in the man pages, it's not documented.

man systemd - works for me

NAME
systemd, init - systemd system and service manager

SYNOPSIS
systemd [OPTIONS...]

init [OPTIONS...] {COMMAND}

DESCRIPTION
systemd is a system and service manager for Linux operating systems.
When run as first process on boot (as PID 1), it acts as init system that
brings up and maintains userspace services.

For compatibility with SysV, if systemd is called as init and a PID
that is not 1, it will execute telinit and pass all command line arguments
unmodified. That means init and telinit are mostly
equivalent when invoked from normal login sessions. See telinit(8) for
more information.

When run as system instance, systemd interprets the configuration file
system.conf, otherwise user.conf. See systemd-system.conf(5) for more
information.

OPTIONS
The following options are understood:

-h, --help
Prints a short help text and exits.

Post by Dirk Gently
If I can't bring up my system to full GUI status, no amount of online
webpages are worth a single shit.

[Anton Aylward]

Post by ianseeks

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Felix Miata
I don't think the same
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294
.html>

That's excellent.
Those 17 points sum up 'the UNIX way' very well, much better than the
rants we've seen here, which have mostly been recidivist.
The claims that systemd is undocumented and similar are quite unfounded.

If it's not in the man pages, it's not documented.

man systemd - works for me

Not only that!

$ apropos systemd| wc -l
130

aaron-as-dirk's complaint about getting the GUI to work is frivolous.
The post-systemd problems I've had with Xorg have been the same ones I
had before systemd and have nothing to do with systemd and everything to
do with Xorg, the drivers and kernel modules. I expect to have similar
problems whenever I change my graphics hardware.

Attributing these problems to systemd is just part of the Big Lie that
people such as aaron-as-dirk engage in.

If you look to history and see example of major players who practised
the Big Lie technique of persuading people, you'll realise that such
people do not have your best interests at heart, nor, if history is to
be a judge, the best interests of society at large. Hopefully you will
more sensitive to the Big Lie techniques that masses have been in the
past and not be persuaded.

[michael norman]

Post by Anton Aylward
If you look to history and see example of major players who practised
the Big Lie technique of persuading people, you'll realise that such
people do not have your best interests at heart, nor, if history is to
be a judge, the best interests of society at large. Hopefully you will
more sensitive to the Big Lie techniques that masses have been in the
past and not be persuaded.

Goebbels.

OT but the technique still works.

[Anton Aylward]

Post by michael norman
Goebbels.

Among quite a few other from about that time.
Yes, it was a time of ranting mad-men who held great political power,
the world over.

Post by michael norman
OT but the technique still works.

Sad but true. Despite better informed and more sceptical media, despite
the Internet and and despite debunkers, there are still, at all levels
of society, throughout the world, those espousing nonsense and those who
would rather believe than than approach things rationally.

I recall in the 1960/70s there was Eric von Daniken and the cloud of
belief in "Ancient Spacemen" to explain away the pyramids and other
great historic works. How insulting this was to our ancestors. But
while it's easy to speculate, disproving such takes work, and that work
*has* been done. Palaeolithic re-enactors have raised menhirs and
archaeology have uncovered the living quarters and quartermasters
records of the workers who built the pyramids. It takes no budget to
write unfounded fiction, but a lot of time, effort and hence budget to
do serious, documented, methodical archaeological work.

But just as with systemd, there are those who refuse to face evidence
and deny those who have put the time and effort into design, coding
testing, re-design, metricating AND DOCUMENTING each stage of that.
That such nay-sayers and denigraters have nothing else of comparative
details and quality to offer and also espouse violence puts them in much
the same class as the practitioners of the Big Lie approach to
management of the political leaders and their hence-men that I, and
michael, were referring to.
--
For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and
women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant
religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith.
The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the
known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to
prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to
misery hereafter. The few have said "Think" The many have said "Believe!"
--Robert Ingersoll (Gods)

[Ruben Safir]

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by michael norman
Goebbels.

Among quite a few other from about that time.
Yes, it was a time of ranting mad-men who held great political power,
the world over.

Post by michael norman
OT but the technique still works.

Sad but true. Despite better informed and more sceptical media, despite
the Internet and and despite debunkers, there are still, at all levels
of society, throughout the world, those espousing nonsense and those who
would rather believe than than approach things rationally.
I recall in the 1960/70s there was Eric von Daniken and the cloud of
belief in "Ancient Spacemen" to explain away the pyramids and other
great historic works. How insulting this was to our ancestors. But
while it's easy to speculate, disproving such takes work, and that work
*has* been done. Palaeolithic re-enactors have raised menhirs and
archaeology have uncovered the living quarters and quartermasters
records of the workers who built the pyramids. It takes no budget to
write unfounded fiction, but a lot of time, effort and hence budget to
do serious, documented, methodical archaeological work.

Really, that is quite a rant having zero to do with any topic.

Post by Anton Aylward
But just as with systemd, there are those who refuse to face evidence

No, that is not a rational resposonse. The problems with systemd are
deep and multiple and have beeen discusseded and can be rehashed. But
it is not a "fiction" that systemd has absorbed a large number of
segments of the gnu system and has broken compatability with said
systems as well.

The fiction is that there is a need to replace the init system at all,
and it can take all day and all night to go through the rationality for
even needed to replace it at all, let alone allow monolithic behemoth
take over everything from getty processes, login programs, serial port
emulators, logging systems, fs system mounting, device recognition and
kernel module loading, X11 startup and logging, initiation of databases,
webserver, programming environemts including cores...and this might just
be the tip of the iceberg. It is a damn nightmare, really. Then on top
of that, it is evidently written like such pure crap that Linus had to
run its developers off the kernal mailing list.

Its not a refusal to face 'evidence'. It is being dead set against ONE
PROGRAM being resonsible for so many different aspects of the systems
operation, and making the system so damn hard to understand, alter and
to use.

I couldn't give a damn if this systemd was laced with pure gold and
blessed by Barrack Obama himself. I don't WANT this thing running my
computer, which is what it does and which is a LONG WAY from an
innovation or a replacement for sysVinit. Taking the vast majority of
system controls and cludging them all together as a single monolithic
program is not "New" or "innovative". It just SUCKS and it is why I
dumped other OSs previously.

I want a simple, easy to access computer system that I can bend to my
will. I want files that I can read and understand. I want
configuration and initiation of services and program to be according to
the design of the developers of those programs, according to their
manuals. There is no argument you can make in favor of this peice of
garbage other than to get rid of it. It's design is a power grab over
the OS.

Post by Anton Aylward
and deny those who have put the time and effort into design, coding
testing, re-design, metricating AND DOCUMENTING each stage of that.

Don't do then because I don't like the jail you built. BTW - this is
not a great morality play between fair minded systemd authors and the
ignorant superstitous masses. This is a plain old fashion power grab.
There is no logical reason for this design other than to centralize
control of the future design of the GNU based OSs of the future by
reducing the numbers of contributors to the system and making them
comply with the developers of systemd.

This is a HUMAN problem. Not a technological one.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

[Cristian Rodríguez]

Post by Ruben Safir
No, that is not a rational resposonse. The problems with systemd are
deep and multiple and have beeen discusseded and can be rehashed.

I have a question.. are you trolling or are really this ignorant ?
because everything you said above is not true in any detail whatsoever.

You are talking about something you clearly have no clue about and
making a fool of yourself in the process.

[Ruben Safir]

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
No, that is not a rational resposonse. The problems with systemd are
deep and multiple and have beeen discusseded and can be rehashed.

I have a question.. are you trolling or are really this ignorant ?
because everything you said above is not true in any detail whatsoever.
You are talking about something you clearly have no clue about and
making a fool of yourself in the process.

And that is why it is not worth discussing. This is a brain dead
response and I'm not sure if you are intentially lieing, or just over
the top brainwashed. But either way, none of this will be solved in this
venue. But not everyone lives in that alternate reality.

Ruben

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir
No, that is not a rational resposonse. The problems with systemd are
deep and multiple and have beeen discusseded and can be rehashed.

I have a question.. are you trolling or are really this ignorant ?
because everything you said above is not true in any detail whatsoever.

Hey, Cristian, if that's all you can come up with in response to his
rational argument based on the facts on the ground, how about you just
bend over and blow it out your ass.

Post by Cristian Rodríguez
You are talking about something you clearly have no clue about and
making a fool of yourself in the process.

Moron.


See? I can make trite, meaningless arguments too.

[Anton Aylward]

Ruben: since I subscribe to the list there is no point in cc'ing me as well.

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by michael norman
Goebbels.

Among quite a few other from about that time.
Yes, it was a time of ranting mad-men who held great political power,
the world over.

Really, that is quite a rant having zero to do with any topic.

YMMV.
Some do well with analogies in the real, the physical world and with
examples out of history. Those who can't learn from history, as one
philosopher said, are doomed to repeat it.

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Anton Aylward
But just as with systemd, there are those who refuse to face evidence

No, that is not a rational resposonse. The problems with systemd are
deep and multiple and have beeen discusseded and can be rehashed.

And fixed.
Just like Linux has ALWAYS been, its "in development" because its FOSS.
While commercial software can afford a testing period "in house" before
release (though Apple's recent retraction after just one day of an
update that quite obviously wasn't adequately tested) the development
cycles we have rely more on 'suck it an see' by the community. People
often forget this, as was the case with KDE4 as well. Too many people
adopted 4.0 and found it, quite understandably and quite rationally,
buggy and deficient and incomplete. Well what did you expect? Now at
4.12 we have an excellent product. Yes there are still KDE3-naysayers
criticising it, but many of the criticisms are about design principle
differences, which were clearly stated up front. KDE4 was not meant to
be an evolution of KDE3; perhaps calling it "KDE" was the mistake.
Starting off with a new name might have made people less inclined to
adopt it so early.

But the flip side of that is that all those early adopters gave feedback
to the developers.

At least 'systemd' doesn't have the naming problem.

But it does have a problem with many people doing what you are doing,
Ruben and attributing shortcomings that are part of the development
process to the latest product.

"Yes it used to be, but we changed all that".

Google is being forced in EU to "forget" entries about certain people.
Perhaps we need a "forget" for the issues to do with systemd that no
longer apply.

Post by Ruben Safir
But
it is not a "fiction" that systemd has absorbed a large number of
segments of the gnu system and has broken compatability with said
systems as well.

More "Big Lie". Sorry.
Sometimes I think of a cartoon I saw about a small boy pulling at the
loose thread on his woolly jumper. The last frame of the cartoon has
him with a big ball of wool and no jumper. In eliminating the shell
scripts of sysvinit the 'tread' leads to other things, and the API and
'declarative programming' model of systemd means other system admin
functions can make use of the API.

But as Michael Norman (I think it was) pointed out, the new generation
of Linux being used by commercial interests and to effectively use
virtual machines and chroot jails relies heavily on cgroups and the like
for resource management, then 'systemctl' is a reasonable way to manage
them and the process groups.

Post by Ruben Safir
The fiction is that there is a need to replace the init system at all,

That is not a fiction.

Post by Ruben Safir
let alone allow monolithic behemoth
take over everything from getty processes, login programs, serial port
emulators, logging systems, fs system mounting, device recognition and
kernel module loading, X11 startup and logging, initiation of databases,
webserver, programming environemts including cores...and this might just
be the tip of the iceberg. It is a damn nightmare, really. Then on top
of that, it is evidently written like such pure crap that Linus had to
run its developers off the kernal mailing list.

Another Big Lie. As has been shown a number of times, systemd is far
from monolithic. Much of what you bemoan is actually a more rational
way of starting, stopping and restarting functions that was present or
even available with sysvinit. The 'declarative' mechanism of the
'units' makes each item well contained and makes the dependency three
vry clear and easy to understand, something that simply is not possible
with the programmatic nature of sysvinit. That helps in debugging as
well. BTDT.

And you are wrong to say that it 'takes over'.

There are many example of this way of working in UNIX and Linux. The
big difference is that (a) the units are seperate files rather than
lines in a file, as with, for example, inetd; and (b) dependencies are
made explcit.

That latter case is interesting.
In my /etc/fstab I have to mount /home, then /home/anton, then (among
others) /home/anton/media, and once "media" is mounted only then can I
mount "music" and "photographs".

With /etc/fstab this is a matter of the lines being in the correct
order; mature users know that :-) "Mature" meaning "experienced".
"Experienced" meaning "having made a mistake and learnt from it".

Right now, one of the auxiliary programs of the systemd suite scans the
/etc/fstab and converts it to unit files with explicit dependency. I
could have simply set up the unit file myself.

See SYSTEMD.MOUNT(5)

<quote>
Mount units may either be configured via unit files, or via /etc/fstab
(see fstab(5) for details). Mounts listed in /etc/fstab will be
converted into native units dynamically at boot and when the
configuration of the system manager is reloaded. See
systemd-fstab-generator(8) for details about the conversion.
</quote>

The 'generator' is an open specification.
There is no reason someone can't write a generator to statically or
dynamically generate units, perhaps from a table.

Lets face it, there are UNIX/Linux systems out there where the
configuration is NOT in the tables in /etc/ which we are used to but in
an LDAP database. That includes such things as the user accounts and
passwords. Nothing new here; Berkeley was using databases for user
accounts back in the 1980s since even binary sorted /etc/password took
too long to parse. Eventually this became NIS/YP or on some systems LDAP.

Post by Ruben Safir
Its not a refusal to face 'evidence'. It is being dead set against ONE
PROGRAM being resonsible for so many different aspects of the systems
operation, and making the system so damn hard to understand, alter and
to use.

Big Lie at work again.
The sysvinit setup was programmatic and the ONE PROGRAM that was
responsible for so many aspects of system operation was the shell.
To alter how things worked under sysinit you not only needed to be a
programmer, but you had to manually figure out code paths and side
effect. With systemd the init process is all declarative and very clear.

Lets face it; both the shell scripts of sysvinit and the unit files of
systemd make use of other programs. Despite the Big Lie inmplied and
often stated by the anti-systemd crowd, systemd does NOT mount file
systems, start the GUI, initiate databases or web servers. Just like
the shell code in sysvinit it makes use of axillary programs. It makes
use of 'mount' and 'unmount; of /sbin/agetty; of /usr/sbin/cron;
of /usr/sbin/avahi-daemon; of /usr/sbin/start_apache2

... and more. All that is clear simply by inspecting a running system.

Post by Ruben Safir
Taking the vast majority of
system controls and cludging them all together as a single monolithic
program is not "New" or "innovative".

Indeed, but that's NOT what systemd is doing. Saying it is doing that
is a Big Lie. The evidence is to the contrary.

Post by Ruben Safir
I want a simple, easy to access computer system that I can bend to my
will. I want files that I can read and understand.

Unit files are that; they are well documented; each thing addresses one
thing and one thing only; they all follow the same syntax and rules.
Sadly many scripts have been accumulated from different sources and
often don't have the same syntax and style.

Post by Ruben Safir
This is a plain old fashion power grab.

UNIX always was a power grab.

Post by Ruben Safir
This is a HUMAN problem. Not a technological one.

All problems are human problems.
It's humans, not turtles, all the way down.

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Anton Aylward
See SYSTEMD.MOUNT(5)
<quote>
Mount units may either be configured via unit files, or via /etc/fstab
(see fstab(5) for details). Mounts listed in /etc/fstab will be
converted into native units dynamically at boot and when the
configuration of the system manager is reloaded. See
systemd-fstab-generator(8) for details about the conversion.
</quote>

Which violates the computing principle of ONE SOURCE for each piece of data.

Having both /etc/fstab and "mounting units" (whatever the FUCK that means),
is deliberately taking things back to the 1950's, when, frankly, we didn't
understand principles of sound programming practices nearly as well as we
do today.

Seriously, the whole systemd thing look like 2 refugees from the 1950's
(or East Germany, take you pick) suddenly decided to "improve" the most
advanced operating system in the world with pie-in-the-sky ideas which
conveniently forget to include DECADES of accumulated computing wisdom.

If you want your computer controlled by a monolithic, incomprehensible
monstrosity, Microsoft has an operating system for YOU.

Now, please leave Linux alone, and take your SystemD with you.

[Sam M.]

Dirk you should probably take your Seroquel before writing to this
list; you not only come across as a complete out of touch with reality
moron but as somebody who's in great need of psychiatric care.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Anton Aylward
See SYSTEMD.MOUNT(5)
<quote>
Mount units may either be configured via unit files, or via /etc/fstab
(see fstab(5) for details). Mounts listed in /etc/fstab will be
converted into native units dynamically at boot and when the
configuration of the system manager is reloaded. See
systemd-fstab-generator(8) for details about the conversion.
</quote>

Which violates the computing principle of ONE SOURCE for each piece of data.
Having both /etc/fstab and "mounting units" (whatever the FUCK that means),
is deliberately taking things back to the 1950's, when, frankly, we didn't
understand principles of sound programming practices nearly as well as we
do today.
Seriously, the whole systemd thing look like 2 refugees from the 1950's
(or East Germany, take you pick) suddenly decided to "improve" the most
advanced operating system in the world with pie-in-the-sky ideas which
conveniently forget to include DECADES of accumulated computing wisdom.
If you want your computer controlled by a monolithic, incomprehensible
monstrosity, Microsoft has an operating system for YOU.
Now, please leave Linux alone, and take your SystemD with you.
--

[Ruben Safir]

Post by Sam M.
Dirk you should probably take your Seroquel before writing to this
list; you not only come across as a complete out of touch with reality
moron but as somebody who's in great need of psychiatric care.

Explain why mount is able to mount files systems without some retarded
other database, but systemd is too stupid to just call for mount?

I'm seriously interested in the twisted thinking that would construct
this. The answer seems to be that they don't want mount or /etc/fstab
files and just decided to throw the ole unix guys a bone.

I wonder if you can rip up systemd and use it for Windows. They don't
have a clearly readable, easy to understand /etc/fstab file either. and
when windows mounts things all screwed up and backwards, I have no idea
how to fix it and neither does MS.

Just stuff everything into regedit and hope it works.

I'm not sure what is sadder, that this was adopted and written with Red
Hats blessing, that it has been widely implimented, OR that you have
supposed 'engineers' and free software people defending this.

Post by Sam M.

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Anton Aylward
See SYSTEMD.MOUNT(5)
<quote>
Mount units may either be configured via unit files, or via /etc/fstab
(see fstab(5) for details). Mounts listed in /etc/fstab will be
converted into native units dynamically at boot and when the
configuration of the system manager is reloaded. See
systemd-fstab-generator(8) for details about the conversion.
</quote>

Which violates the computing principle of ONE SOURCE for each piece of data.
Having both /etc/fstab and "mounting units" (whatever the FUCK that means),
is deliberately taking things back to the 1950's, when, frankly, we didn't
understand principles of sound programming practices nearly as well as we
do today.

[Cristian Rodríguez]

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Sam M.
Dirk you should probably take your Seroquel before writing to this
list; you not only come across as a complete out of touch with reality
moron but as somebody who's in great need of psychiatric care.

Explain why mount is able to mount files systems without some retarded
other database, but systemd is too stupid to just call for mount?

It calls mount.. but that's not the point..

There is no database, only mount units..in the case of fstab the are
used only internally be systemd ..why? because it has to know in what
order to umount them and interact properly with either system or user
provided service units that need certain mount points available, or
start after, before, etc they are available.

[Ruben Safir]

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Sam M.
Dirk you should probably take your Seroquel before writing to this
list; you not only come across as a complete out of touch with reality
moron but as somebody who's in great need of psychiatric care.

Explain why mount is able to mount files systems without some retarded
other database, but systemd is too stupid to just call for mount?

It calls mount.. but that's not the point..
There is no database, only mount units..in the case of fstab the are
used only internally be systemd ..why?

Does this sentence make sence to you? What are you saying? It clearly
says that the entries in fstab are used to make 'mount units' and that
is only if there is an fstab.


In the case of fstab they are used...?

fstab is a text file. It doesn't use ANYTHING. It is read by init and
mount in order to control their behavior.

Post by Cristian Rodríguez
because it has to know in
what order to umount them

init systems don't need to unmount anything but the boot image
sometimes.

Post by Cristian Rodríguez
and interact properly with either system
or user provided service units that need certain mount points
available, or start after, before, etc they are available.

That is NOT the role of an initiation system.


Now, it is a database it created. It is a database of mount points with further
instructions and other crap. If this in binary so that it is 'secure'?

Guess what. fstab also has an order. and no, it doesn't need to know
if users need mounts and when they need mounts or for what purpose.

It just needs to to store information so that the machine can BOOT
and then mount all mount pointed listed in fstab, low and behold in
the order they are listed.

It does not need to 'interact'. If just needs to do what I tell it to do. It doesn't need
to guess. It doesn't need to prioritize. It certainly doesn't have to
guess wrong. It doesn't need to start NFS or SAMBA or even mail or cron.

It just needs to mount the partitions that I list in fstab. It doesn't
need to think for me. It just has to do what I tell it to.

As it is, you guys have destroyed the mount command with the same kind of
chatter that ticked off Linus when he was discussing kernel debugging.

Look at all this crap in the output now:

***@workstation:~> mount
devtmpfs on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,relatime,size=943908k,nr_inodes=235977,mode=755)
tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,relatime)
tmpfs on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000)
/dev/sda2 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
proc on /proc type proc (rw,relatime)
sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw,relatime)
securityfs on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
tmpfs on /sys/fs/cgroup type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=755)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd type cgroup
(rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,xattr,release_agent=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-cgroups-agent,name=systemd)
pstore on /sys/fs/pstore type pstore (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpuset)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu,cpuacct type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpuacct,cpu)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/memory type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,memory)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/devices type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,devices)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/freezer type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,freezer)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/net_cls type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,net_cls)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,blkio)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/perf_event type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,perf_event)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/hugetlb type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,hugetlb)
systemd-1 on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type autofs (rw,relatime,fd=27,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct)
hugetlbfs on /dev/hugepages type hugetlbfs (rw,relatime)
mqueue on /dev/mqueue type mqueue (rw,relatime)
tmpfs on /var/lock type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755)
debugfs on /sys/kernel/debug type debugfs (rw,relatime)
tmpfs on /var/run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755)
/dev/sda4 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
fusectl on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl (rw,relatime)
gvfsd-fuse on /run/user/1000/gvfs type fuse.gvfsd-fuse (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100)
gvfsd-fuse on /var/run/user/1000/gvfs type fuse.gvfsd-fuse (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100)
stat11:/home/ruben/ on /home/ruben/laptop type fuse.sshfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100)


What are you NUTS? This is my little workstation. It should just say
this:

/dev/sda2 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
/dev/sda4 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
stat11:/home/ruben/ on /home/ruben/laptop type fuse.sshfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100)



These coders have completely lost their marbles.

I have no CLUE why anything is being mounted any longer or where it is
being mounted. It is a run away frieght train.

Post by Cristian Rodríguez
--

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

[lynn]

Post by Cristian Rodríguez

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Sam M.
Dirk you should probably take your Seroquel before writing to this
list; you not only come across as a complete out of touch with reality
moron but as somebody who's in great need of psychiatric care.

Explain why mount is able to mount files systems without some retarded
other database, but systemd is too stupid to just call for mount?

It calls mount.. but that's not the point..
There is no database, only mount units..in the case of fstab the are
used only internally be systemd ..why? because it has to know in what
order to umount them and interact properly with either system or user
provided service units that need certain mount points available, or
start after, before, etc they are available.

With kerberized mounts it doesn't even gat that far because the
directory into which the systemd ticket has not been created at the time
that the mount needs to be made. . That is like saying that root has to
login (with a password!) on all 13.1 AD domain clients.

Post by Cristian Rodríguez
e

[lynn]

Post by Sam M.
Dirk you should probably take your Seroquel before writing to this
list; you not only come across as a complete out of touch with reality
moron but as somebody who's in great need of psychiatric care.

No. On the contrary, he's given me an opportunity to plug a bugzilla
I've been working around for the past year:)

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by michael norman
Goebbels.

Among quite a few other from about that time.
Yes, it was a time of ranting mad-men who held great political power,
the world over.

Post by michael norman
OT but the technique still works.

Sad but true. Despite better informed and more sceptical media, despite
the Internet and and despite debunkers, there are still, at all levels
of society, throughout the world, those espousing nonsense and those who
would rather believe than than approach things rationally.
I recall in the 1960/70s there was Eric von Daniken and the cloud of
belief in "Ancient Spacemen" to explain away the pyramids and other
great historic works. How insulting this was to our ancestors. But
while it's easy to speculate, disproving such takes work, and that work
*has* been done. Palaeolithic re-enactors have raised menhirs and
archaeology have uncovered the living quarters and quartermasters
records of the workers who built the pyramids. It takes no budget to
write unfounded fiction, but a lot of time, effort and hence budget to
do serious, documented, methodical archaeological work.

Really, that is quite a rant having zero to do with any topic.

Post by Anton Aylward
But just as with systemd, there are those who refuse to face evidence

No, that is not a rational resposonse. The problems with systemd are
deep and multiple and have beeen discusseded and can be rehashed. But
it is not a "fiction" that systemd has absorbed a large number of
segments of the gnu system and has broken compatability with said
systems as well.
The fiction is that there is a need to replace the init system at all,
and it can take all day and all night to go through the rationality for
even needed to replace it at all, let alone allow monolithic behemoth
take over everything from getty processes, login programs, serial port
emulators, logging systems, fs system mounting, device recognition and
kernel module loading, X11 startup and logging, initiation of databases,
webserver, programming environemts including cores...and this might just
be the tip of the iceberg. It is a damn nightmare, really. Then on top
of that, it is evidently written like such pure crap that Linus had to
run its developers off the kernal mailing list.
Its not a refusal to face 'evidence'. It is being dead set against ONE
PROGRAM being resonsible for so many different aspects of the systems
operation, and making the system so damn hard to understand, alter and
to use.
I couldn't give a damn if this systemd was laced with pure gold and
blessed by Barrack Obama himself. I don't WANT this thing running my
computer, which is what it does and which is a LONG WAY from an
innovation or a replacement for sysVinit. Taking the vast majority of
system controls and cludging them all together as a single monolithic
program is not "New" or "innovative". It just SUCKS and it is why I
dumped other OSs previously.

And on top of all of that, ever since systemd was introduced, the
performance of my laptop dropped like a rock, and has never recovered.

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by ianseeks

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Felix Miata
I don't think the same
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294
.html>

That's excellent.
Those 17 points sum up 'the UNIX way' very well, much better than the
rants we've seen here, which have mostly been recidivist.
The claims that systemd is undocumented and similar are quite unfounded.

If it's not in the man pages, it's not documented.

man systemd - works for me

Not only that!
$ apropos systemd| wc -l
130
aaron-as-dirk's complaint about getting the GUI to work is frivolous.
The post-systemd problems I've had with Xorg have been the same ones I

And if SystemD FAILS before your GUI comes up (i.e. unrelated to the GUI),
then what, Mr. Not-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are?

Post by Anton Aylward
had before systemd and have nothing to do with systemd and everything to
do with Xorg, the drivers and kernel modules. I expect to have similar
problems whenever I change my graphics hardware.

Again, what happens if you have a boot-up problem BEFORE THE GUI COMES UP?

Post by Anton Aylward
Attributing these problems to systemd is just part of the Big Lie that
people such as aaron-as-dirk engage in.

Nice straw man you've got there. Now try addressing my actual argument.

Post by Anton Aylward
If you look to history and see example of major players who practised
the Big Lie technique of persuading people, you'll realise that such
people do not have your best interests at heart, nor, if history is to
be a judge, the best interests of society at large. Hopefully you will
more sensitive to the Big Lie techniques that masses have been in the
past and not be persuaded.

[lynn]

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by ianseeks

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Felix Miata
I don't think the same
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294
.html>

That's excellent.
Those 17 points sum up 'the UNIX way' very well, much better than the
rants we've seen here, which have mostly been recidivist.
The claims that systemd is undocumented and similar are quite unfounded.

If it's not in the man pages, it's not documented.

man systemd - works for me

Not only that!
$ apropos systemd| wc -l
130
aaron-as-dirk's complaint about getting the GUI to work is frivolous.
The post-systemd problems I've had with Xorg have been the same ones I

And if SystemD FAILS before your GUI comes up (i.e. unrelated to the GUI),
then what, Mr. Not-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are?

OK. I'll take my opportunity whilst it lasts.

It does fail e.g. /run/user/0 is not created for the Kerberos root cache
so nothing is mounted from AD. The problem is, no one at either SUSE nor
openSUSE understand the problem. The bugs never get fixed (or read even)
because no one either at SUSE nor openSUSE has the resources or
understanding to fix them. This is a pure systemd error which has
knocked out working with SLES or openSUSE after systemd in a domain
completely. The only solution is a workaround. 844198 has been open for
almost a year. No one has addressed the issue. And let's face it, if
Fedora have problems with the same issue, what chance do we stand?
L x

[Andrei Borzenkov]

В Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:21:54 +0200

Post by lynn

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by ianseeks

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Felix Miata
I don't think the same
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294
.html>

That's excellent.
Those 17 points sum up 'the UNIX way' very well, much better than the
rants we've seen here, which have mostly been recidivist.
The claims that systemd is undocumented and similar are quite unfounded.

If it's not in the man pages, it's not documented.

man systemd - works for me

Not only that!
$ apropos systemd| wc -l
130
aaron-as-dirk's complaint about getting the GUI to work is frivolous.
The post-systemd problems I've had with Xorg have been the same ones I

And if SystemD FAILS before your GUI comes up (i.e. unrelated to the GUI),
then what, Mr. Not-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are?

OK. I'll take my opportunity whilst it lasts.
It does fail e.g. /run/user/0 is not created for the Kerberos root cache
so nothing is mounted from AD. The problem is, no one at either SUSE nor
openSUSE understand the problem. The bugs never get fixed (or read even)

There were at least two suggestions how to workaround it; and you
yourself have confirmed that at least one of them works. So it is not
that a) nobody reads them and b) it is something that is broken beyond
repair.

The real underlying problem is that having filesystem as common cache
for unrelated process is fundamentally incompatible with idea of name
spaces. The only fault of systemd here is that it makes use of name
spaces more streamlined. But there is no way to ensure that /tmp/krb5cc
created by one process will be accessible by another process.

Post by lynn
because no one either at SUSE nor openSUSE has the resources or
understanding to fix them. This is a pure systemd error which has
knocked out working with SLES or openSUSE after systemd in a domain
completely. The only solution is a workaround. 844198 has been open for
almost a year. No one has addressed the issue.

<quote>
Major changes in 1.12 (2013-12-10)

Add collection support to the KEYRING credential cache type on Linux, and add support for persistent user keyrings and larger credentials on systems which support them.
</quote>

Factory (13.2) has 1.12.2. Did you look whether problem still exists
there? If yes, did you test whether using kernel keyring solves it?

Post by lynn
And let's face it, if
Fedora have problems with the same issue, what chance do we stand?
L x

[Anton Aylward]

Post by Dirk Gently
And if SystemD FAILS before your GUI comes up (i.e. unrelated to the GUI),
then what, Mr. Not-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are?

The same could be said for init, shell, any program.
That's a pointless argument and of no value.

What if you hardware fails?

Demonstrably that's more likely than systemd or init failing.


Its clear that you're now grasping ant improbable straws, aaron.

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Dirk Gently
And if SystemD FAILS before your GUI comes up (i.e. unrelated to the GUI),
then what, Mr. Not-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are?

The same could be said for init, shell, any program.
That's a pointless argument and of no value.

With init, at least we know WHAT the hell is going on because as long as
we at least get a working terminal, we can read the scripts in /etc/init.d

Post by Anton Aylward
What if you hardware fails?

I'm talking about the case where the hardware is good, but the boot-up is hosed.

Post by Anton Aylward
Demonstrably that's more likely than systemd or init failing.
Its clear that you're now grasping ant improbable straws, aaron.

You're handwaving to distract from the problem.

[Anton Aylward]

Post by Dirk Gently
Nice straw man you've got there. Now try addressing my actual argument.

You don't have an argument, just smoke and noise, the Big lie.

[Ruben Safir]

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

Not easily. Sievert and Poettering have sabotaged the deamons, so that if you don't
have systemd installed, then there will be unresolved library calls. Thus, you can't
uninstall systemd.
Personally, i think they should be arrested and charged with vandalism.
And then shot in the kneecaps with a shotgun.

What does slackware do then?

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
ruben

--

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

[Darin Perusich]

Post by Ruben Safir

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts

Not easily. Sievert and Poettering have sabotaged the deamons, so that if you don't
have systemd installed, then there will be unresolved library calls. Thus, you can't
uninstall systemd.
Personally, i think they should be arrested and charged with vandalism.
And then shot in the kneecaps with a shotgun.

What does slackware do then?

Post by Dirk Gently

Post by Ruben Safir
ruben

--

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
--

This may be of interest to some of you...

http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/

[ianseeks]

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts
ruben

Try this link, not sure if it still a valid process. opensuse details how to
go back to sysvinit

https://doc.opensuse.org/release-notes/x86_64/openSUSE/12.1/#16

[ellanios82]

Post by ianseeks
Try this link, not sure if it still a valid process. opensuse details how to
go back to sysvinit
https://doc.opensuse.org/release-notes/x86_64/openSUSE/12.1/#16
--

.....................

- in Tumbleweed : Yast shows installable package :


sysvinit-init

....................

regards

[Ruben Safir]

Post by ianseeks

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts
ruben

Try this link, not sure if it still a valid process. opensuse details how to
go back to sysvinit
https://doc.opensuse.org/release-notes/x86_64/openSUSE/12.1/#16

Thank you

Post by ianseeks
--

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

[Bruce Ferrell]

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts
ruben

Ruben

I hesitate to put this out there only because once I do, I fear the technique will be "patched out".

What I found is that there is a sourced, common function that checks for systemctl. If it exists, transfers the init script function to systemctl/systemd to manage the service.

What I do for things I don't want systemd to mess with, before the start block of the init script, I rename systemctl to make it so that function can't see it and notmal script
function isn't modified. I still have to chase down original init scripts and insert my die-systemd function, but I can minimize the impact it has on my system. YMMV.

Here's what truly fascinates me; The systemd test functions were placed into /etc/rc.status. It's ONLY function originally was to do the nice colored status read-outs for the
init scripts

It just FEELS like spaghetti coding, but it does make it easy.

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Bruce Ferrell

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts
ruben

Ruben
I hesitate to put this out there only because once I do, I fear the technique will be "patched out".
What I found is that there is a sourced, common function that checks for systemctl. If it exists, transfers the init
script function to systemctl/systemd to manage the service.
What I do for things I don't want systemd to mess with, before the start block of the init script, I rename systemctl to
make it so that function can't see it and notmal script function isn't modified. I still have to chase down original
init scripts and insert my die-systemd function, but I can minimize the impact it has on my system. YMMV.
Here's what truly fascinates me; The systemd test functions were placed into /etc/rc.status. It's ONLY function
originally was to do the nice colored status read-outs for the init scripts
It just FEELS like spaghetti coding, but it does make it easy.

Everything about SystemD reminds me of speghetti code...

[David C. Rankin]

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts
ruben

Technically - yes, in the real-world - no. Regardless of the learning-curve,
you just have to bite the bullet and make friends with systemd. Did I want to do
it - NO. Did it suck a bit - Yes. After paying the price am I satisfied that
systemd is the right way to go - Yes. With freedesktop.org behind it, it is the
way of the future, like it or not. So, here it's a "can't beat em', so join em'
deal".

What made it less painful were several aliases that cut down on the damn
repetitive typing of 'systemctl long novel of opts' or 'journalctl same long
stuff', so I cheated:

I have the following saved as '~/cnf/bashrc-systemd.inc':

## systemd aliases

## list systemd services & enabled services
alias lsd='ls -1 /usr/lib/systemd/system/'
alias lsde='ls -1 l1 /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/'

if test "$UID" -eq 0 ; then
alias sc='systemctl' # cut down typing
alias scn='systemctl --no-pager'
alias scdr='systemctl daemon-reload'
alias jc='journalctl'
alias jcn='journalctl --no-pager'
alias jcnl='journalctl --no-pager --full'
alias jcnlf='journalctl --no-pager --full -f'
else
alias sc='sudo systemctl' # cut down typing
alias scn='sudo systemctl --no-pager'
alias scdr='sudo systemctl daemon-reload'
alias jc='sudo journalctl'
alias jcn='sudo journalctl --no-pager'
alias jcnl='sudo journalctl --no-pager --full'
alias jcnlf='sudo journalctl --no-pager --full -f'
fi

I just source it in my ~/.bashrc as follows

[ -r "/home/david/cnf/bashrc-systemd.inc" ] && \
. /home/david/cnf/bashrc-systemd.inc

Cutting down the typing really helped focus the learning on systemd rather
the frustration of typing the lengthy commands over and over.

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts
ruben

Technically - yes, in the real-world - no. Regardless of the learning-curve, you just have to bite the bullet and
make friends with systemd. Did I want to do it - NO. Did it suck a bit - Yes. After paying the price am I satisfied that
systemd is the right way to go - Yes. With freedesktop.org behind it, it is the way of the future, like it or not. So,
here it's a "can't beat em', so join em' deal".
What made it less painful were several aliases that cut down on the damn repetitive typing of 'systemctl long novel
## systemd aliases
## list systemd services & enabled services
alias lsd='ls -1 /usr/lib/systemd/system/'
alias lsde='ls -1 l1 /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/'
if test "$UID" -eq 0 ; then
alias sc='systemctl' # cut down typing
alias scn='systemctl --no-pager'
alias scdr='systemctl daemon-reload'
alias jc='journalctl'
alias jcn='journalctl --no-pager'
alias jcnl='journalctl --no-pager --full'
alias jcnlf='journalctl --no-pager --full -f'
else
alias sc='sudo systemctl' # cut down typing
alias scn='sudo systemctl --no-pager'
alias scdr='sudo systemctl daemon-reload'
alias jc='sudo journalctl'
alias jcn='sudo journalctl --no-pager'
alias jcnl='sudo journalctl --no-pager --full'
alias jcnlf='sudo journalctl --no-pager --full -f'
fi
I just source it in my ~/.bashrc as follows
[ -r "/home/david/cnf/bashrc-systemd.inc" ] && \
. /home/david/cnf/bashrc-systemd.inc
Cutting down the typing really helped focus the learning on systemd rather the frustration of typing the lengthy
commands over and over.

lengthy commands.... just to do basic stuff... should have been an indicator right off
to these guys that their vision of how this should be ordered up lacking.

If I have, say, 18 different functions, all of which start with typing "systemctl" command,
then perhaps the systemctl program should be broken up into 18 functional units.


My biggest problems with Sievert and Poettering is that they seem to not
really understand ANY of the concepts which made Unix so successful in the
first place.... such as ... 18-faced programs, rather than 18 different
programs, each of which does their own little thing extremely well, and
which modifying one doesn't impact any of the others.

[Eliezer Croitoru]

Hey Ruben,

What is the issue?
If you have a specific issue we can maybe understand how to help you.
Note that sysV scripts are supported by systemd.

Eliezer

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts
ruben

[Anton Aylward]

Post by Eliezer Croitoru
What is the issue?
If you have a specific issue we can maybe understand how to help you.
Note that sysV scripts are supported by systemd.

The issue is not about the technology, technique or implementation, it
is purely emotional.
That is why people like aaron-as-dirk are using abusive language and
threatening the kind of violence we associate with terrorists.

People who have a rational basis for their argument argue from that
basis. People that resort to violence have given up on rational argument.

At one time there was, as with Linux itself, those of us in the days
before releases with numbers greater than zero the the left of the
decimal point might recall, systemd, like KDE4 and like KDE3 before it
and like just about every other major, non-trivial piece of software,
underwent development pangs. What differentiates FOSS from commercial
software is that commercial software can pay for aggressive testing
before its exposed to public scrutiny. Even so, mistakes happen, as we
have just seen with Apple iOS.

The thing is that while Apple iOS 8.0.1 was bungled
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/26/apple-incs-bungled-ios-8-update-linked-to-same-manager-behind-flawed-maps-debut/?__lsa=5408-d51d
people are going to forget about it in a while despite this seeming to
be a systemic problem with Apple software. And like Microsoft, Apple
isn't interested in supporting or allowing people to make use of earlier
revisions:
http://venturebeat.com/2014/09/27/after-ios-8s-shakey-start-apple-blocks-the-road-back-to-ios-7/

FOSS, though, depends on the user community much more than commercial
software. Microsoft and Apple and others may release Alpha and Beta
version to a select community, but it is a select community that they
have control over, and not every gung-ho enthusiast who wants to show
off breaking things.

This is good and bad; any review of formal testing procedures will make
that clear. The FOSS approach is less formal, less methodological and
can omit many use-cases, but then again it may also deal with some oddities.

The main problem with the FOSS approach to this kind of development and
testing, the 'release early, release often', is that the Internet
Doesn't Forget. So every blog that complains about problems with the
0.05 revision stays around even though the current is >2.x. It takes a
flood of later comments to percolate to the top of the Google search
list to drown that out.

So yes, there is a lot of "Yes It Used To Be, But We Changed All That"
about FOSS development. The complaints about systemd, KDE4 and so much
more were all valid once. But to keep harping on about stuff that has
long been addressed in an effort to denigrate the present is pathetic
and shows how ill informed and emotional the critics are.

Especially when ther are always new and interesting bugs to be discussed :-)

So, on the one hand we have aaron-as-dirk who has nothing to offer
except foaming at the mouth and advocating a terrorist strike on some of
the programmers involved with systemd, and on the other we have ms Walsh
who runs a heavily non-standard system way out there on the fringe
use-case whose complaints are often ignored because her setup is so
non-standard. We do the Linux community a great dis-service if we
ignore her.

[Eliezer Croitoru]

Well Anton,

Indeed I do understand them both and the other sides.
It can be very frustrating to build a system based on software which was
not tested very deeply.
It's kind of living on the edge between working and not-working and
still offer services.

I can just imagine to myself the carpenter going to the near store
looking for a hammer and then he finds out a comment near the shelf
which states: "These hammers was not tested and might not satisfy your
needs or anyone else needs."

This is one angle which many open-source projects need to deal with by
choice or not.

This is one of the reasons that SUSE, REDHAT and couple others invest so
much in an enterprise level products.

Sometimes in my past I have found myself in mid-air looking for a way to
deal with an issue(not only open-source) which no-one, not the
developer, vendor or anyone else wanted to help with.
And I'm not just talking about funding issues but just the plain will to
not get into the old code.
Others were just happy with their product and didn't care about the bugs.

I am still young and can learn but while I can try my bests to learn and
understand new things it's unreal to let a 40+ years old man\women in
the IT field to learn everything from 0 every couple years.

This is why standards are written and why a change should consider all
sort of things.

Even now that I am learning to some exam I found myself looking at real
questions which used to have the right answer in 2013 but now (2014)
another answer would be right.
So learning a few month based on current knowledge led to the point
which I cannot be sure about the true answer.
It's frustrating and it seems that the exam is using the valid answer
for 2013 and not 2014, how weird is it?

For now the only thing I can offer is to try and help those in a need if
I can while one issue for me is funding which I cannot offer.

Specifically regarding systemd:
I do not like to be forced to first learn for 5-8 years how to manage
systems, write scripts and then in a very fast transit to just move into
another way of handling things.
The employees and the world should consider that like in many areas
there is a need for a transit\change period to embed the new ideas.
Writing a wiki or a man page will not help with the issue for everybody
and not just because of the language.
As we all know there is a method of learning that is individually right
for each and every user\admin.

For some a chat will help in the process even if the wiki is describing
everything that is needed.
Guidance is one of the things that can help the individual.

There are issues about funding all the options and it's much simpler to
write a wiki or a man page and redirect every user\admin to it.

Again I cannot offer too much about it since I need to eat and sleep
under a rooftop which forces me to the realities of life in the humans
world on earth.

For example I have released in the past couple very complex scripts but
got nothing for it..
If I would have gotten even couple cents every time I helped someone
with open-source software I am pretty sure it would cover couple month
paychecks.

So ignoring from some email might be a good idea!

All The Bests,
Eliezer

Post by Anton Aylward

Post by Eliezer Croitoru
What is the issue?
If you have a specific issue we can maybe understand how to help you.
Note that sysV scripts are supported by systemd.

The issue is not about the technology, technique or implementation, it
is purely emotional.
That is why people like aaron-as-dirk are using abusive language and
threatening the kind of violence we associate with terrorists.
People who have a rational basis for their argument argue from that
basis. People that resort to violence have given up on rational argument.
At one time there was, as with Linux itself, those of us in the days
before releases with numbers greater than zero the the left of the
decimal point might recall, systemd, like KDE4 and like KDE3 before it
and like just about every other major, non-trivial piece of software,
underwent development pangs. What differentiates FOSS from commercial
software is that commercial software can pay for aggressive testing
before its exposed to public scrutiny. Even so, mistakes happen, as we
have just seen with Apple iOS.
The thing is that while Apple iOS 8.0.1 was bungled
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/26/apple-incs-bungled-ios-8-update-linked-to-same-manager-behind-flawed-maps-debut/?__lsa=5408-d51d
people are going to forget about it in a while despite this seeming to
be a systemic problem with Apple software. And like Microsoft, Apple
isn't interested in supporting or allowing people to make use of earlier
http://venturebeat.com/2014/09/27/after-ios-8s-shakey-start-apple-blocks-the-road-back-to-ios-7/
FOSS, though, depends on the user community much more than commercial
software. Microsoft and Apple and others may release Alpha and Beta
version to a select community, but it is a select community that they
have control over, and not every gung-ho enthusiast who wants to show
off breaking things.
This is good and bad; any review of formal testing procedures will make
that clear. The FOSS approach is less formal, less methodological and
can omit many use-cases, but then again it may also deal with some oddities.
The main problem with the FOSS approach to this kind of development and
testing, the 'release early, release often', is that the Internet
Doesn't Forget. So every blog that complains about problems with the
0.05 revision stays around even though the current is >2.x. It takes a
flood of later comments to percolate to the top of the Google search
list to drown that out.
So yes, there is a lot of "Yes It Used To Be, But We Changed All That"
about FOSS development. The complaints about systemd, KDE4 and so much
more were all valid once. But to keep harping on about stuff that has
long been addressed in an effort to denigrate the present is pathetic
and shows how ill informed and emotional the critics are.
Especially when ther are always new and interesting bugs to be discussed :-)
So, on the one hand we have aaron-as-dirk who has nothing to offer
except foaming at the mouth and advocating a terrorist strike on some of
the programmers involved with systemd, and on the other we have ms Walsh
who runs a heavily non-standard system way out there on the fringe
use-case whose complaints are often ignored because her setup is so
non-standard. We do the Linux community a great dis-service if we
ignore her.

[lynn]

Post by Eliezer Croitoru
So ignoring from some email might be a good idea!

+1. Generalisations and reminiscences from those who no longer work in
this most noble of professions being among them.

[Anton Aylward]

Post by Eliezer Croitoru
I do not like to be forced to first learn for 5-8 years how to manage
systems, write scripts and then in a very fast transit to just move into
another way of handling things.

It depends on HOW you learn.
The controversy which this article touches on
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/murphy/why-many-mcses-wont-learn-linux/1137
is apropos here.

I grew up with old UNIX and am in my 60s[1] and not the least bit
intimidated by having to learn, learn and learn anew every couple of
years. The alternative, as I see it, is atrophy and Altzheimers.

<quote>
Basically, to learn Unix you learn to understand and apply a small set
of key ideas and achieve expertise by expanding both the set of ideas
and your ability to apply them - but you learn Windows by working with
the functionality available in a specific release.

Put a Solaris guy who's never used Linux in front of SuSe 10 with a list
of complex tasks and he'll complain bitterly about missing pieces,
primitive storage management tools, idiosyncratic patching, misplaced or
missing command syntax, and a host of other annoyances - but he won't be
either intimidated or deterred; and the job will get done because he
knows how the tools he needs should work, and trusts that SuSe's
versions do in fact work.
</quote>

At various times I've considered V6, V7, BSD2.8, BSD4.1, BSD4.2 SUNOS,
Solaris, AIX, SCO UNIX, Mandrake, Fedora ... whatever, my baseline
reference from which all others deviate. These days its openSuse.
And yes, put me in front to a strange system, and its been oddities like
HP/UX and DG/UX along the way, and I cope. I may prefer Postfix but I
can cope with Sendmail.

Some recruiters once asked me how many languages I knew; the answer at
that time was well over a dozen, but the point was that I understood how
languages worked and had written a couple of interpreters and a
compiler. Once you understand how the patterns work, you apply the
patterns and principles. Or at least you do if you've been brought up
that way.

Recently I read a book on the controversy between Creationism and
Evolution. To understand Evolution you need to accept Deep Time, but
once you understand evolution you can see the application of change and
adaptation driven by environmental forces in many settings even over
much shorter periods of time. The pattern is there.

Science, mathematics, is based on the idea of a few basic principles,
patterns if you will, that are replicated and repeated and scale up to
build complex systems.

The alternative is a "sui generis", each instance on its own, view of
things. That means you have to learn each instance by itself. There
are no rules, no patterns. Each one is unique. Learning about one does
not tell you anything useful about any of the others.

Perhaps that is why, with each release of Windows, of MS-Office, there
are new training courses for users. It seems crazy to me; but then I
look for patterns and I have a reasonable idea of what's going on "under
the hood" so have an idea of what capabilities the GUI should offer.

My reality is that apart from the Value Added features each
vendor/supplier offers as differentiators, such as installation and
patch/revision management and packaging, Linux is a lot more
standardized than Windows.



[1] And no Lynn, I haven't retired; I'm in QA and Audit these days and
still have to write test code and spend my days pouring over logs and
error reports.

[lynn]

On 28/09/14 16:40, Anton Aylward wrote:
these days and

Post by Anton Aylward
still have to write test code and spend my days pouring over logs and
error reports.

Well, you have our sympathy. But please don't take it out on us.
Thank you.

[Anton Aylward]

Post by Anton Aylward
these days and

Post by Anton Aylward
still have to write test code and spend my days pouring over logs and
error reports.

Well, you have our sympathy. But please don't take it out on us.
Thank you.

:-)
You're just jealous that I've got a job that will keep me indoors in the
warm when the weather turns cold :-)

[lynn]

Post by Eliezer Croitoru
Hey Ruben,
What is the issue?

Brilliant. I get to have another plug;)

Please read the thread. There have been specific references made to
issues. At least one has a year standing unresolved bug report.

[Eliezer Croitoru]

Post by lynn
Please read the thread. There have been specific references made to
issues. At least one has a year standing unresolved bug report.

Reference me...
I was reading the whole thread until some depth but didn't noticed a
specific bug or any specific case which it affects.
The only one I have seen is having different /usr mount which is a
violation of FHS if I'm not wrong.

This is indeed an issue which was talked about since long ago and indeed
this is something the systemd forces on the system.

It's not really a bug but a violation of a specific standard which many
do not care about for some reason.

Eliezer

[lynn]

Post by Eliezer Croitoru
didn't noticed a
specific bug or any specific case which it affects.
The only one I have seen is having different /usr mount which is a
violation of FHS if I'm not wrong.

The bug is about systemd and Kerberos, so I doubt whether anyone on this
list will have the foggiest.

[Carlos E. R.]

Post by lynn
The bug is about systemd and Kerberos, so I doubt whether anyone on this
list will have the foggiest.

It it related to this?

https://www.suse.com/releasenotes/i386/openSUSE/13.1/RELEASE-NOTES.en.html#idp315834436

5.3. Samba Version 4.1

Samba version 4.1 shipped with openSUSE 13.1 does not include support to
operate as an Active Directory style domain controller. This
functionality is currently disabled, as it lacks integration with
system-wide MIT Kerberos.

[Dirk Gently]

Post by Eliezer Croitoru
Hey Ruben,
What is the issue?
If you have a specific issue we can maybe understand how to help you.
Note that sysV scripts are supported by systemd.

How about, an init system should not require 200 pages of documentation.

Post by Eliezer Croitoru
Eliezer

Post by Ruben Safir
Is there any way of ditching systemd and putting sysv back into
the system scripts
ruben

[Eliezer Croitoru]

Post by Dirk Gently
How about, an init system should not require 200 pages of documentation.

+1..

Just take in account that it's not just a init system.