Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

[Jayesh Badwaik]

Hi,

Another flame may start here, but I would like to present the following
as a pure news, no opinions[1].

Of course, after reading all the discussions on the mailing lists, my
feeling after reading the link? Mwuhahahaha.

Important quotes from the link ( which I hope do not alter the context
of the post):

"Well, we intent to continue to make it possible to run udevd outside of
systemd. But that's about it. We will not polish that, or add new
features to that or anything.

OTOH we do polish behaviour of udev when used *within* systemd however,
and that's our primary focus.

And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform integration
into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for non-systemd systems.

(Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
that support entirely.)"

[Joakim Hernberg]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530

Post by Jayesh Badwaik
(Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case
you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we
can drop that support entirely.)"

Lennart in topform again...:( Well if that's the official stance, then
it seems pretty clear that udev is going to be gone some day. Too bad,
we are either going to have to fork or look for an alternative to udev.
Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we
want to or not :( I suspect that this has been the game plan all the
time though. OK, flames away I guess :)

---

Joakim

[Rodrigo Rivas]

Too bad, we are either going to have to fork or look for an alternative to
udev.

When upstream udev fails to live up to some distributions (see, Ubuntu, for
example) it *will* be forked.

Hopefully, udev-systemd and udev-ng (or whatever it is called) will not get
too different, so we have to learn how to write udev rules twice. I find it
difficult enough as it is now.

[Gour]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 +0200

Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we want
to or not :( I suspect that this has been the game plan all the time
though. OK, flames away I guess :)

Nobody to blame when we do not listen BSD folks and have jumped into
Linux's change-all-the-time game.


Sincerely,
Gour

[Baho Utot]

Post by Gour
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 +0200

Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we want
to or not :( I suspect that this has been the game plan all the time
though. OK, flames away I guess :)

Nobody to blame when we do not listen BSD folks and have jumped into
Linux's change-all-the-time game.
Sincerely,
Gour

Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by Baho Utot
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD

I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports. Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.

I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to fruition.

Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of Arch that I hope do not dwindle.

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Baho Utot
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD

I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that
my notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have
in ports. Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's.
With all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that
proximity to fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of
Arch that I hope do not dwindle.

I suspect that BSD for artist that draw can be used, but for audio not.
Am I mistaken?

Regards,
Ralf

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by Ralf Mardorf
I suspect that BSD for artist that draw can be used, but for audio not.
Am I mistaken?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

There's a lot of audio software in FreeBSD. Whether any of it suits your purposes, I can not say.

http://www.freebsd.org/ports/

Arch certainly has great stuff in this department. The AUR's full of decent packages. But I'm not really an "artist" interested in "audio" so I can't say how any of it compares.

[gt]

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Ralf Mardorf
I suspect that BSD for artist that draw can be used, but for audio not.
Am I mistaken?

I'm not sure I understand the question.
There's a lot of audio software in FreeBSD. Whether any of it suits your purposes, I can not say.
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/
Arch certainly has great stuff in this department. The AUR's full of decent packages. But I'm not really an "artist" interested in "audio" so I can't say how any of it compares.

Offtopic: Your system clock seems to be way off.

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by gt
Offtopic: Your system clock seems to be way off.

So it is! Thanks for the heads up.

[Baho Utot]

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Baho Utot
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD

I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports. Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of Arch that I hope do not dwindle.

I think Arch was good back in the day.

Now not so good.

I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS.
It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and
using pacman for the package manager.

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by Baho Utot
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS.
It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and
using pacman for the package manager.

Oooh! Link?

[Baho Utot]

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Baho Utot
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS.
It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and
using pacman for the package manager.

Oooh! Link?

I will have it posted on github when I am done.

I have one small issue with transfering from the build tool chain to the
chroot system under build then I can commit it to github.
It has to do with the pacman db being stored in the build tool chain. I
will fix that when I get the time (soon).

Other than that it works!

What I have now on githut is an older way, it works but is not so good
for building updated version.

I am looking to wrap it up after LFS-7.2 which is due out beginning of
Sept. This year ;)

[Paul Gideon Dann]

Post by Baho Utot
I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.

This sounds a bit inflammatory and over-generalised. Presumably what you don't
like about Arch now is the fact that it will potentially change its default
init system sometime in the not-too-distant future? I'd be interested to hear
if there's anything else that has made you switch.

Post by Baho Utot
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS.
It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and
using pacman for the package manager.

I'm genuinely curious about this: if you're using pacman as the package
manager, are you building your own packages and hosting your own package
repository, or are you using the standard Arch repositories? If it's the
latter, it sounds like you'd end up with an Arch system that happened to be
bootstrapped using LFS...

Paul

[Baho Utot]

Post by Paul Gideon Dann

Post by Baho Utot
I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.

This sounds a bit inflammatory and over-generalised. Presumably what you don't
like about Arch now is the fact that it will potentially change its default
init system sometime in the not-too-distant future? I'd be interested to hear
if there's anything else that has made you switch.

I have not liked what arch has turned into for some time now, approx
2-3 years.
It is not meant as "This sounds a bit inflammatory and
over-generalised" arch just doesn't fit my needs now and I don't care
for the direction...That's all.
I starting switching well before this systemd the change started.

Post by Paul Gideon Dann

Post by Baho Utot
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS.
It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and
using pacman for the package manager.

I'm genuinely curious about this: if you're using pacman as the package
manager, are you building your own packages and hosting your own package
repository, or are you using the standard Arch repositories? If it's the
latter, it sounds like you'd end up with an Arch system that happened to be
bootstrapped using LFS...
Paul

I started by using arch PKGBUILDS but that did not give me what I needed
or wanted, so....

I host my own repo on my own network.
I build my own packages, creating my own PKGBUILDS using nothing from
arch but based on LFS.
I will not end up with an arch system boot strapped by LFS but a scratch
built system base on my needs.
It is very different from the file system directory structure up with
sysvinit init system.

The process that I used was to take LFS-6.8 and create a build system
(scripts) that follow the book but using the pacman package manager.
I will update this to LFS-7.2 after it becomes available in Sept. After
words I will use BLFS to create a desktop system and serves packages.

[Kevin Chadwick]

We should all be getting tired of this now. Please read the multiple
threads before posting things that have already been posted. Actually
don't as we will never hear from you again ;-)

Who said we are going to be forced to use systemd again. I believe the
systemd design spec also said he hopes to remove all scripts, that
hasn't and won't happen. There will always be alternatives, if arch is
one we will find out. This trolling of forcing users has brought other
wrong statements. Pulse and Gnome on the other hand has forced a problem
on ralf and I hope the highly regarded kernel developer in charge of
udev will help sort out systemd to linus way of thinking (break nothing
unless you must and then IF it's optional that's ok) and not the
other way around.

I've found udev is not a requirement for linux at all, you don't even
need devtmpfs. In fact devtree is gaining support for embedded devices.

It's not about sysVinit vs systemd. I'm not a fan of sysvinit either
but I don't mind it. It's about pid 1 being an init binary that does
just one job well and assumes nothing allowing limitless customisation
and applying to all systems including toasters and even ipv6 and cgroup
(necessary evils according to linus) free devices and init should let
you run systemd without problem?

I still don't know why systemd is pid 1. I know it wants to use kmod
early on to determine ordering for later but I don't see that as a
reason to be pid 1. I guess to reduce the chances of something running
that systemd has no idea about or systemd being started too late.

Ralf, OpenBSD has a real nice sndio daemon with parts in kernel for
great latency and certainly worth looking at however it does not support
24bit and the devs said they have no interest in spending the time on
adding that and I don't fancy your chances in getting a sound card with
a low noise dac working but could be very wrong as I've only had partial
functionality on Linux before from an off the shelf product without
paying a huge price.

There will be a learning curve to move to BSD when upgrading packages
though dependencies won't be as much of a problem on OpenBSD and I know
you said you have a long to do list so I would wait and see and wouldn't
base any decision on systemd but would look at sndio in any case.

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=sndio&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=134376444701682&w=2

I can't help with freeBSD but it may well be useful as I refuse to waste
time and energy on building just for local user systems and wasn't too
impressed with PCBSD.

Please CC me in any future audio discussions.

Baho you may like how easy this init system is to follow.

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=init&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Kevin Chadwick
Please CC me in any future audio discussions.

Flagged!

Regards,
ralf

[Denis A. Altoé Falqueto]

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Baho Utot
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD

I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my
notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports.
Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With
all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to
fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of
Arch that I hope do not dwindle.

I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It
is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using
pacman for the package manager.

Does that means you'll stop trolling this mailing list? I, for one,
thank you for that!

[Calvin Morrison]

On 14 August 2012 09:52, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto

Post by Denis A. Altoé Falqueto

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Baho Utot
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD

I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my
notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports.
Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With
all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to
fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of
Arch that I hope do not dwindle.

I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It
is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using
pacman for the package manager.

Does that means you'll stop trolling this mailing list? I, for one,
thank you for that!
--
A: Because it obfuscates the reading.
Q: Why is top posting so bad?
For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html
-------------------------------------------
Denis A. Altoe Falqueto
Linux user #524555
-------------------------------------------

When did offering an opposing opinion to what ever is popular become
tolling? what is this? /r/politics?

I frankly have seen arguments both ways for systemd and initscripts,
and the fact that many users do not want to switch is enough for me to
say "ok then let's not switch".

the GNU/Linux community seems to have this jump ship mentality which
is really annoying.

[Baho Utot]

On 08/14/2012 09:58 AM, Calvin Morrison wrote:

[putolin]

Post by Calvin Morrison
When did offering an opposing opinion to what ever is popular become
tolling? what is this? /r/politics? I frankly have seen arguments both
ways for systemd and initscripts, and the fact that many users do not
want to switch is enough for me to say "ok then let's not switch". the
GNU/Linux community seems to have this jump ship mentality which is
really annoying.

Thank you

[Paul Dann]

Are you talking about the willingness of the Linux community in general to go through tough technical transitions for the sake of progress? If so, I'd say that's one of the big things that makes Linux so successful, and Windows so slow to improve. There are always the distros with LTS releases for those that can't risk breakage.
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.

Baho Utot <baho-***@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

On 08/14/2012 09:58 AM, Calvin Morrison wrote:

[putolin]

Post by Calvin Morrison
When did offering an opposing opinion to what ever is popular become
tolling? what is this? /r/politics? I frankly have seen arguments both
ways for systemd and initscripts, and the fact that many users do not
want to switch is enough for me to say "ok then let's not switch". the
GNU/Linux community seems to have this jump ship mentality which is
really annoying.

Thank you

[Brandon Watkins]

Post by Paul Dann
Are you talking about the willingness of the Linux community in general to
go through tough technical transitions for the sake of progress? If so, I'd
say that's one of the big things that makes Linux so successful, and
Windows so slow to improve. There are always the distros with LTS releases
for those that can't risk breakage.
Agreed, and this is also one of the things arch embodies. It puzzles me

how users of a distro that is known for being "bleeding edge" and upstream
friendly are so surprised that this is happening and so afraid of
change...This is what arch linux is.

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Paul Dann
Are you talking about the willingness of the Linux community in
general to go through tough technical transitions for the sake of
progress? If so, I'd say that's one of the big things that makes Linux
so successful, and Windows so slow to improve. There are always the
distros with LTS releases for those that can't risk breakage.

+1

I've got several Linux installed, but I only maintain Ubuntu Studio LTS
(I'm not willing to maintain any Ubuntu Studio non-LTS) and Arch Linux,
until now a very good rolling release, just a briefly look into my
crystal ball does show an ugly future. Well, I'm an artist, I don't
spend much time in polishing and dusting the crystal ball, hence my view
might be a look into a opal glassed crystal ball.

Regards,
Ralf

[Denis A. Altoé Falqueto]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Calvin Morrison

Post by Calvin Morrison
On 14 August 2012 09:52, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto

Post by Denis A. Altoé Falqueto

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Baho Utot
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD

I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my
notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports.
Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With
all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to
fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of
Arch that I hope do not dwindle.

I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It
is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using
pacman for the package manager.

Does that means you'll stop trolling this mailing list? I, for one,
thank you for that!
--
A: Because it obfuscates the reading.
Q: Why is top posting so bad?
For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html
-------------------------------------------
Denis A. Altoe Falqueto
Linux user #524555
-------------------------------------------

When did offering an opposing opinion to what ever is popular become
tolling? what is this? /r/politics?
I frankly have seen arguments both ways for systemd and initscripts,
and the fact that many users do not want to switch is enough for me to
say "ok then let's not switch".
the GNU/Linux community seems to have this jump ship mentality which
is really annoying.

There are lots of levels of discussions. I don't remember him giving
one only usefull and high level post. Just pure bashing and spitting
his opinion, that is important for him, sure, but not necessarily for
others. And I even thanked him for going in the direction he really
wants. If all nay sayers did that, we could be a very healthier list.

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Calvin Morrison

Post by Calvin Morrison
On 14 August 2012 09:52, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto

Post by Denis A. Altoé Falqueto

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Baho Utot
Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD

I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my
notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports.
Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.
I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With
all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to
fruition.
Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of
Arch that I hope do not dwindle.

I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS. It
is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and using
pacman for the package manager.

Does that means you'll stop trolling this mailing list? I, for one,
thank you for that!
--
A: Because it obfuscates the reading.
Q: Why is top posting so bad?
For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html
-------------------------------------------
Denis A. Altoe Falqueto
Linux user #524555
-------------------------------------------

When did offering an opposing opinion to what ever is popular become
tolling? what is this? /r/politics?
I frankly have seen arguments both ways for systemd and initscripts,
and the fact that many users do not want to switch is enough for me to
say "ok then let's not switch".
the GNU/Linux community seems to have this jump ship mentality which
is really annoying.

There are lots of levels of discussions. I don't remember him giving
one only usefull and high level post. Just pure bashing and spitting
his opinion, that is important for him, sure, but not necessarily for
others. And I even thanked him for going in the direction he really
wants. If all nay sayers did that, we could be a very healthier list.

That's the first really unsocial, aka flame, I read on this list :(.
Note, even a personality disorder, a troll or what ever in your mind is
bad, is part of the human community. "healthier list" to me sounds like
"eugenics" and similar stupid and evil nonsense.

Keep the list pure practice eugenics :(?!

I hope I misunderstood your words so that my statement is overdone.

Regards,
Ralf

[Paul Gideon Dann]

Post by Joakim Hernberg
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530
Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we
want to or not :( I suspect that this has been the game plan all the
time though. OK, flames away I guess :)

Wow, this sounds so much like a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the
people who write the code inevitably dictate which software is maintained,
based on their interests and convictions, and they're pretty much unanimous
that systemd is a better solution to the problem of booting and maintaining
daemons than the solution we currently have.

So yeah, I guess that's been the game plan all along: make booting and daemon
control more consistent, faster, and easier for most users to maintain.

Paul

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.

"CheersRalf"

[Jelle van der Waa]

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"

Tell me what's hard about systemd?


Ah well as soon as RHEL switches to systemd, more and more distro's will
switch, so soon you might have to use it ;) (So better learn it now :p )

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Jelle van der Waa
So better learn it now :p

That might be true, since I don't think I have a choice, e.g. switching
to BSD seems no alternative for my needs.

I should install a second Arch with full Poettering code ... take some
drugs, e.g. Diazepam ... and then learn.

I'm still waiting for some Russian spam, that offers similar drugs.

Regards,
Ralf

[Alexander]

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Jelle van der Waa
So better learn it now :p

That might be true, since I don't think I have a choice, e.g. switching
to BSD seems no alternative for my needs.
I should install a second Arch with full Poettering code ... take some
drugs, e.g. Diazepam ... and then learn.
I'm still waiting for some Russian spam, that offers similar drugs.
Regards,
Ralf
.

All drugs was bought by administration. It is necessary for us for man
systemd; man systemctr. Expecting the following party.
-Russian need-some-drugs-for-man's robot.
xD

[Baho Utot]

Post by Jelle van der Waa

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"

Tell me what's hard about systemd?
Ah well as soon as RHEL switches to systemd, more and more distro's will
switch, so soon you might have to use it ;) (So better learn it now :p )

Or switch to something else.

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by Jelle van der Waa
Tell me what's hard about systemd?

I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard irrespectively of what you're switching to.

That's my inference anyway.

[Jelle van der Waa]

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard irrespectively of what you're switching to.

Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?

It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by Jelle van der Waa

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is hard irrespectively of what you're switching to.

Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?

I'm just trying to clarify his actual argument so you can address
that rather than slaying the straw man.

You have to admit that the dev work does forebode the potential to
make it the default in the distro. Doesn't make it certain but I
don't think the certainty is what scares people.

Post by Jelle van der Waa
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.

No, you'll never force me to do anything. As I said in this thread
already, I'm not using arch on my workhorse. I'm not worried about
it like some people are. I'm just trying to elevate the level of
discourse here.

[Brandon Watkins]

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is

hard irrespectively of what you're switching to.
Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
--
Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and

after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to
deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so
much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also
portable and can be included in upstream packages.

This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep
seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to
systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving
plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the
event that that ever happened.

Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you
want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what
happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be
"forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use
sysvinit...

[Baho Utot]

Post by Brandon Watkins

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is

hard irrespectively of what you're switching to.
Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
--
Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and

after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to
deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so
much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also
portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep
seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to
systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving
plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the
event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you
want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what
happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be
"forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use
sysvinit...

I don't think you fully understand the issue.

If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it
is now....
Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init
systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init
methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you
great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing
becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well
with udev and everyone else be damned.

Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as
part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system
that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the
highway...which indeed is the problem.

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Brandon Watkins

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is

hard irrespectively of what you're switching to.
Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
--
Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and

after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to
deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so
much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also
portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep
seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to
systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving
plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the
event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you
want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what
happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be
"forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use
sysvinit...

I don't think you fully understand the issue.
If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it
is now....
Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init
systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init
methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you
great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing
becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well
with udev and everyone else be damned.
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as
part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system
that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the
highway...which indeed is the problem.

Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes
about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than
about anything else.

Why is it like that?

There are many "things" we are in disagreement, but only Lennart's
software at the moment cause nasty discussions.

[Denis A. Altoé Falqueto]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Ralf Mardorf

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Brandon Watkins

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is

hard irrespectively of what you're switching to.
Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
--
Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and

after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to
deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so
much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also
portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep
seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to
systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving
plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the
event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you
want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what
happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be
"forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use
sysvinit...

I don't think you fully understand the issue.
If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it
is now....
Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init
systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init
methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you
great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing
becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well
with udev and everyone else be damned.
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as
part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system
that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the
highway...which indeed is the problem.

Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes
about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than
about anything else.
Why is it like that?
There are many "things" we are in disagreement, but only Lennart's
software at the moment cause nasty discussions.

The answer is very simple: he is doing something. Others are just
perpetuating things just for the sake of it. Maybe everything is not
the best solution always, but at least he is trying. Better than just
talking.

[Mateusz Loskot]

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Baho Utot
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as
part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system
that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the
highway...which indeed is the problem.

Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes
about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than
about anything else.
Why is it like that?

Because the whole subject has been accumulating emotions for months.
Check this year-old review by Juliusz Chroboczek [1] followed
by Lennart's response [2] and bumped and summarised by (e.g. [3])

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/453004/
[2] http://lwn.net/Articles/453016/
[3] http://lwn.net/Articles/452865/

Best regards,

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by Ralf Mardorf
Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes
about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than
about anything else.
Why is it like that?

Probably because he has all the arrogance of DJB but none of the skill.

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Ralf Mardorf
Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes
about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than
about anything else.
Why is it like that?

Probably because he has all the arrogance of DJB but none of the skill.

I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before. I
suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein?
If so, he seemingly isn't as half as arrogant as LP.

Btw. my Arch Linux is absolutely stable, excepted of one change. I
tested Network Manager, this software is not that good. However, IIUC
switching back to netcfg which always was stable on my machine might
cause issues, when not using systemd?!

Sorry, I'm not an expert.

Regards,
Ralf

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by Ralf Mardorf
I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before. I
suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein?

Yes.

Post by Ralf Mardorf
If so, he seemingly isn't as half as arrogant as LP.

Spend a week lurking a crypto mailing list and you may
change your mind. :P

[David Benfell]

Post by Ralf Mardorf
I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before.
I suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein?

Yes.

Post by Ralf Mardorf
If so, he seemingly isn't as half as arrogant as LP.

Spend a week lurking a crypto mailing list and you may change your
mind. :P

I'd add that djb has started several projects that have been, I think,
very, very good, but then dropped them. It is harder to justify using
his stuff when development is largely limited to one man's attention span.

- --
David Benfell
***@parts-unknown.org

[Jorge Almeida]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, David Benfell

Post by David Benfell
I'd add that djb has started several projects that have been, I think,
very, very good, but then dropped them. It is harder to justify using
his stuff when development is largely limited to one man's attention span.

To be fair, he doesn't drop them in a half-baked state, he just considers them
complete. I've been using daemontools and ucspi-tcp for years and they never
failed me. They are not updated, but they aren't buggy either. There are more
recent alternatives with more features; this site has a list of links:
http://thedjbway.b0llix.net/friends.html

Regards

Jorge Almeida

[Brandon Watkins]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Ralf Mardorf

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Ralf Mardorf
Mailman archives! IIRC Heiko mentioned that there are more disputes
about Lennart Poettering and his software on ALL mailing lists, than
about anything else.
Why is it like that?

Probably because he has all the arrogance of DJB but none of the skill.

I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before. I
suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein?
If so, he seemingly isn't as half as arrogant as LP.
Btw. my Arch Linux is absolutely stable, excepted of one change. I
tested Network Manager, this software is not that good. However, IIUC
switching back to netcfg which always was stable on my machine might
cause issues, when not using systemd?!
Sorry, I'm not an expert.
Regards,
Ralf
Netcfg works fine without systemd, if you are referring to the recent news

item that said "netcfg is dropping initscripts compatibility", thats just
poorly titled, netcfg simply no longer supports having its config option in
rc.conf.

[Fons Adriaensen]

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Brandon Watkins
after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to
deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so
much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also
portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep
seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to
systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving
plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the
event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you
want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what
happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be
"forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use
sysvinit...

I don't think you fully understand the issue.
If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as
it is now....
Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other
init systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the
system init methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames
it works for you great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand
when this thing becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only
one that works well with udev and everyone else be damned.
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev
as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init
system that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way
or the highway...which indeed is the problem.

I agree. It's not systemd being 'hard' that scares most people
who object to it - that is a misrepresantatio. In fact I'm pretty
sure systemd is easier to use and configure than initscripts.

BTW has anyone looked at upstart ? The current AUR package is
out of date (and I'm looking at some deadlines so this is not
the time for experiments), but it has excellent documentation
<http://upstart.ubuntu.com/cookbook/>, much better than anything
I've seem for systemd so far, and after spending some time
reading the above reference I must say I like it. At least
it doesn't have that ugly and infantile syntax and it looks
like was designed by programmers instead of by a kid.

Ciao,

[Calvin Morrison]

Post by Fons Adriaensen

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Brandon Watkins
after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to
deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so
much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also
portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep
seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to
systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving
plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the
event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you
want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what
happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be
"forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use
sysvinit...

I don't think you fully understand the issue.
If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as
it is now....
Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other
init systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the
system init methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames
it works for you great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand
when this thing becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only
one that works well with udev and everyone else be damned.
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev
as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init
system that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way
or the highway...which indeed is the problem.

I agree. It's not systemd being 'hard' that scares most people
who object to it - that is a misrepresantatio. In fact I'm pretty
sure systemd is easier to use and configure than initscripts.
BTW has anyone looked at upstart ? The current AUR package is
out of date (and I'm looking at some deadlines so this is not
the time for experiments), but it has excellent documentation
<http://upstart.ubuntu.com/cookbook/>, much better than anything
I've seem for systemd so far, and after spending some time
reading the above reference I must say I like it. At least
it doesn't have that ugly and infantile syntax and it looks
like was designed by programmers instead of by a kid.

That is because it was. It was designed and planned before writing, it
is backwards compatible, it has very good documentation and unit
testing. I approve of upstart as a project even though I do not use
it.

[Brandon Watkins]

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Brandon Watkins

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is

hard irrespectively of what you're switching to.
Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
--
Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and

after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to
deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so
much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also
portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep
seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to
systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving
plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the
event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you
want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what
happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be
"forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use
sysvinit...

I don't think you fully understand the issue.
If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it is
now....
Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init
systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init
methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you
great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing becomes
fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well with udev
and everyone else be damned.
Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as
part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system that
would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the
highway...which indeed is the problem.
Poettering didn't kidnap the udev developers and force them to merge with

systemd. And yes I am aware of his comments regarding udev, I saw a comment
elsewhere that I think explains what he meant pretty well:

"What he's saying is "non-systemd systems are dead in our eyes because no
one is maintaining them; we will maintain udev without systemd as promised,
but don't ask us to spend our time making it pretty; if you want that pay
someone to do that for you".

I don't see what's unclear here."


Lets take a hypothetical situation: If udev someday only works well with
systemd (which is wild speculation...) then if there is enough interest, an
alternative would appear for people who don't use systemd. If there isn't
enough interest in other init systems and an alternative then you could
suck it up and switch.


Also, I will state once again that I think people are
highly exaggerating the "difficulty" of transitioning an arch install to
systemd, its quite simple. If arch were to one day switch to systemd and
not support initscripts, it would not be the end of the world (and again
this is wild speculation/FUD in the first place...)

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by Brandon Watkins
Also, I will state once again that I think people are
highly exaggerating the "difficulty" of transitioning an arch install to
systemd, its quite simple.

It sounds like you're trying to turn peoples' subjective preferences
into an objective discussion.

Most of the complaints I see are "I've used it. I hate it. I don't
want to use it again."

You disagree. That's great. Discussion is healthy. It's also important
to know that there are a lot of people in this community with a lot at
stake. The were attracted to arch for a reason and, however annoying the
bitching may get, they are making it clear what those reasons were.

Not saying you should care. Just saying their behavior is inevitable and
you might find a little more joy in life if you understood these
complaints for what they are.

[Paul Dann]

If there's a developer anywhere that agrees with you, and I expect there will be at some point, udev will be forked, or something else will be developed to rival systemd. Right now, that's not even necessary.
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.

Post by Brandon Watkins

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
I think what he was saying wasn't that systemd is hard but switching is

hard irrespectively of what you're switching to.
Because the devs made systemd being able to use rc.conf?
It takes less then a day to use systemd, but I am not forcing you to use it.
--
Jelle van der Waa
Yeah, I found systemd very easy to learn. The wiki page is great, and

after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to
deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so
much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also
portable and can be included in upstream packages.
This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep
seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to
systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving
plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the
event that that ever happened.
Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you
want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what
happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be
"forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use
sysvinit...

I don't think you fully understand the issue.

If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as it
is now....
Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other init
systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the system init
methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames it works for you
great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand when this thing
becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only one that works well
with udev and everyone else be damned.

Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev as
part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init system
that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way or the
highway...which indeed is the problem.

[David Benfell]

Post by Brandon Watkins

Post by Brandon Watkins
For example I find systemd's .service files so

much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are
also portable and can be included in upstream packages.

This part is true, and the fact that the system comes up *lightning
fast* is a bonus. I'm not satisfied with the documentation, however,
as it seems to be scattered across several man pages, the Arch wiki
only covers some of it, and as to upstream documentation, if there is
any, I couldn't find it.

The only other nitpick I have is that some packages refuse to log to
stdout/stderr, which means that old syslog-ng (it isn't new anymore)
continues to be necessary.

What I think is unfortunate about the discussion of systemd here has
been that it has been conflated with the discussion of pulseaudio. I
think it is possible to like one and not the other.

- --
David Benfell
***@parts-unknown.org

[Baho Utot]

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

Post by Brandon Watkins

Post by Brandon Watkins
For example I find systemd's .service files so

much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are
also portable and can be included in upstream packages.

This part is true, and the fact that the system comes up *lightning
fast* is a bonus. I'm not satisfied with the documentation, however,
as it seems to be scattered across several man pages, the Arch wiki
only covers some of it, and as to upstream documentation, if there is
any, I couldn't find it.
The only other nitpick I have is that some packages refuse to log to
stdout/stderr, which means that old syslog-ng (it isn't new anymore)
continues to be necessary.
What I think is unfortunate about the discussion of systemd here has
been that it has been conflated with the discussion of pulseaudio. I
think it is possible to like one and not the other.
- --
David Benfell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=XFn3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Can you do a mount and post the result here
I am curious if you see the same thing as I do when systemd is running
I have full systemd running under fedora 15/17 and it has some bizarre
mount points.
I would like to know if this is a systemd thing or a fedora thing.

[David Benfell]

Can you do a mount and post the result here I am curious if you see
the same thing as I do when systemd is running I have full systemd
running under fedora 15/17 and it has some bizarre mount points. I
would like to know if this is a systemd thing or a fedora thing.

I think I see what you mean--there's a whole bunch of cgroup stuff,
and no, I have no idea what it is:

proc on /proc type proc (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
dev on /dev type devtmpfs
(rw,nosuid,relatime,size=2893412k,nr_inodes=723353,mode=755)
run on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755)
/dev/sda3 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
securityfs on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs
(rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts
(rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000)
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,release_agent=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-cgroups-agent,name=systemd)
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)
systemd-1 on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type autofs
(rw,relatime,fd=28,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct)
mqueue on /dev/mqueue type mqueue (rw,relatime)
hugetlbfs on /dev/hugepages type hugetlbfs (rw,relatime)
debugfs on /sys/kernel/debug type debugfs (rw,relatime)
binfmt_misc on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw,relatime)
tmpfs on /tmp type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime)
/dev/sda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw,relatime)
/dev/sdb3 on /storage/atlanta type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
/dev/sda4 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
/dev/sdb2 on /storage/graton type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
/dev/sdb1 on /storage/n4rky type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
fusectl on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl (rw,relatime)
gvfs-fuse-daemon on /run/user/1000/gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon
(rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100)


- --
David Benfell
***@parts-unknown.org

[Baho Utot]

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

Can you do a mount and post the result here I am curious if you see
the same thing as I do when systemd is running I have full systemd
running under fedora 15/17 and it has some bizarre mount points. I
would like to know if this is a systemd thing or a fedora thing.

I think I see what you mean--there's a whole bunch of cgroup stuff,
proc on /proc type proc (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
dev on /dev type devtmpfs
(rw,nosuid,relatime,size=2893412k,nr_inodes=723353,mode=755)
run on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755)
/dev/sda3 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
securityfs on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs
(rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts
(rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000)
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,release_agent=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-cgroups-agent,name=systemd)
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)
systemd-1 on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type autofs
(rw,relatime,fd=28,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct)
mqueue on /dev/mqueue type mqueue (rw,relatime)
hugetlbfs on /dev/hugepages type hugetlbfs (rw,relatime)
debugfs on /sys/kernel/debug type debugfs (rw,relatime)
binfmt_misc on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw,relatime)
tmpfs on /tmp type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime)
/dev/sda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw,relatime)
/dev/sdb3 on /storage/atlanta type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
/dev/sda4 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
/dev/sdb2 on /storage/graton type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
/dev/sdb1 on /storage/n4rky type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
fusectl on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl (rw,relatime)
gvfs-fuse-daemon on /run/user/1000/gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon
(rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100)
/proc on /proc type proc (rw,relatime)

Have a look at this and notice the /dev/sda2 lines

/proc on /proc type proc (rw,relatime)
/sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,relatime)
udev on /dev type devtmpfs
(rw,nosuid,relatime,size=958204k,nr_inodes=213261,mode=755)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000)
tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,relatime)
tmpfs on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,mode=755)
/dev/sda2 on / type ext4 (rw,noatime,barrier=1,data=writeback)
tmpfs on /sys/fs/cgroup type tmpfs
(rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,mode=755)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd type cgroup
(rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,release_agent=/lib/systemd/systemd-cgroups-agent,name=systemd)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset type cgroup
(rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpuset)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/ns type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,ns)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu type cgroup
(rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpu)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuacct type cgroup
(rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,cpuacct)
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)
systemd-1 on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type autofs
(rw,relatime,fd=31,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct)
systemd-1 on /sys/kernel/security type autofs
(rw,relatime,fd=32,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct)
systemd-1 on /dev/hugepages type autofs
(rw,relatime,fd=33,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct)
systemd-1 on /sys/kernel/debug type autofs
(rw,relatime,fd=34,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct)
systemd-1 on /dev/mqueue type autofs
(rw,relatime,fd=36,pgrp=1,timeout=300,minproto=5,maxproto=5,direct)
tmpfs on /media type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,mode=755)
hugetlbfs on /dev/hugepages type hugetlbfs (rw,relatime)
mqueue on /dev/mqueue type mqueue (rw,relatime)
/dev/sda1 on /boot type ext4 (rw,noatime,barrier=1,data=writeback)
/dev/sda2 on /tmp type ext4 (rw,noatime,barrier=1,data=writeback)
/dev/sda2 on /var/tmp type ext4 (rw,noatime,barrier=1,data=writeback)
/dev/sda2 on /home type ext4 (rw,noatime,barrier=1,data=writeback)
sunrpc on /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs type rpc_pipefs (rw,relatime)

[Tom Gundersen]

Post by Baho Utot
Have a look at this and notice the /dev/sda2 lines

Never seen anything like this, so I'd be tempted to say this is not
systemd related. findmnt is usually a better source of this info
rather than mount.

That said, we seem to stray off-topic again (not that the original
topic had any merit).

-t

[Baho Utot]

Post by Tom Gundersen

Post by Baho Utot
Have a look at this and notice the /dev/sda2 lines

Never seen anything like this, so I'd be tempted to say this is not
systemd related. findmnt is usually a better source of this info
rather than mount.

If it is not systemd related care to hazzard a guess?

Should not systemd control the mount points?

I initial reaction was how can /dev/sda2 be mounted like that and the
filesystem under tree, ls, etc show it correct and not a giant mess.

Post by Tom Gundersen
That said, we seem to stray off-topic again (not that the original
topic had any merit).
-t

Hey it happens ;)

[Tom Gundersen]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:35 AM, David Benfell

Post by David Benfell
This part is true, and the fact that the system comes up *lightning
fast* is a bonus. I'm not satisfied with the documentation, however,
as it seems to be scattered across several man pages, the Arch wiki
only covers some of it, and as to upstream documentation, if there is
any, I couldn't find it.

The upstream documentation is just the manpages:
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/

I'd suggest starting with section 7: bootup(7), daemon(7),
kernel-command-line(7); and then possibly systemd(1), systemctl(1) and
possibly systemd.special, systemd.service and systemd.exec. That
should make you an expert.

Post by David Benfell
The only other nitpick I have is that some packages refuse to log to
stdout/stderr, which means that old syslog-ng (it isn't new anymore)
continues to be necessary.

The journal should pick up anything logged with syslog(), so syslog-ng
should only be needed in case you want the text files in /var/log or
if you want to use the network protocol.

-t

[Norbert Zeh]

Post by David Benfell
What I think is unfortunate about the discussion of systemd here has
been that it has been conflated with the discussion of pulseaudio. I
think it is possible to like one and not the other.

Indeed. The heated discussion about systemd actually had the effect that I gave
it a whirl to find out for myself what the fuss is all about, and I must say
that I quite like it so far, while I find pulseaudio is an abysmal piece of
software. So I think your point is a good one.

On the other hand, in my mind, pulseaudio has quite some bearing on the
discussion about systemd. There have been endless complaints about this and
that piece of hardware not working well with pulseaudio, and I myself never got
my mic to work properly with pulseaudio and recently started to experience
serious audio delays when playing sound through pulseaudio. Yet, Poettering's
response to these kinds of complaints are usually completely dismissive: it's
ALSA's fault, your hardware isn't working properly, etc, in spite of everything
working flawlessly when pulseaudio doesn't get in the way. So, to me the
problem with systemd is not so much that I am afraid of changing to a new init
system - I am not - it's the author. What if somewhere down the road things
start to go wrong with systemd? Is Poettering's response going to be again that
systemd is perfect and it's some other part of my system that's causing systemd
to misbehave? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Cheers,
Norbert

[Brandon Watkins]

Post by Norbert Zeh

Post by David Benfell
What I think is unfortunate about the discussion of systemd here has
been that it has been conflated with the discussion of pulseaudio. I
think it is possible to like one and not the other.

Indeed. The heated discussion about systemd actually had the effect that I gave
it a whirl to find out for myself what the fuss is all about, and I must say
that I quite like it so far, while I find pulseaudio is an abysmal piece of
software. So I think your point is a good one.
On the other hand, in my mind, pulseaudio has quite some bearing on the
discussion about systemd. There have been endless complaints about this and
that piece of hardware not working well with pulseaudio, and I myself never got
my mic to work properly with pulseaudio and recently started to experience
serious audio delays when playing sound through pulseaudio. Yet, Poettering's
response to these kinds of complaints are usually completely dismissive: it's
ALSA's fault, your hardware isn't working properly, etc, in spite of everything
working flawlessly when pulseaudio doesn't get in the way. So, to me the
problem with systemd is not so much that I am afraid of changing to a new init
system - I am not - it's the author. What if somewhere down the road things
start to go wrong with systemd? Is Poettering's response going to be again that
systemd is perfect and it's some other part of my system that's causing systemd
to misbehave? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Cheers,
Norbert

This is due to the fact that pulseaudio utilizes the audio drivers in
different ways than straight alsa, exposing previously unknown or ignored
driver bugs. there is only so much pulseaudio can do to work around buggy
drivers.

[Baho Utot]

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"

Aye yes pascal, learned a lot from that language I did.

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"

Aye yes pascal, learned a lot from that language I did.

WritingPascalSavesAlotOf"Space"ButTheCodeTendsToBecomeUnreadable.
OkPascalCaseIsnTtheOnlyIssueWithPascalItEgAlsoTeachedUsToDoTheWorkTheCompilerShouldDoRegardingToEgVariables.
ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64AndDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead.
RegardsRalf

[Baho Utot]

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"

Aye yes pascal, learned a lot from that language I did.

WritingPascalSavesAlotOf"Space"ButTheCodeTendsToBecomeUnreadable.
OkPascalCaseIsnTtheOnlyIssueWithPascalItEgAlsoTeachedUsToDoTheWorkTheCompilerShouldDoRegardingToEgVariables.
ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64AndDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead.
RegardsRalf

What no turbo pascal?

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Baho Utot
What no turbo pascal?

No. Some time later I switched to the Atari ST with a 80286 hardware
emulator and tested Turbo C++ on DR DOS.

Today I'm just a user, I don't wish to learn how to program nowadays
computers, I simply wish to use the computer as multi-tool for my needs.

I'm able to write naive shell scripts that do what I want them to do.
I'm even not willing to learn how to write good shell scripts, I only
want to use the computer.

Poettering isn't a help, he's a PITA regarding to my needs.

Regards,
Ralf

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.
Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
"CheersRalf"

Aye yes pascal, learned a lot from that language I did.

WritingPascalSavesAlotOf"Space"ButTheCodeTendsToBecomeUnreadable.
OkPascalCaseIsnTtheOnlyIssueWithPascalItEgAlsoTeachedUsToDoTheWorkTheCompilerShouldDoRegardingToEgVariables.
ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64AndDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead.
RegardsRalf

PS: To be fair, IIRC for the C64's Pascal everything was uppercase,
hence it was much more fun.

[Geoff]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:23:28 +0200
Ralf Mardorf <***@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
<snip>

ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64AndDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead

OT, but if the above is true, was that Oxford Pascal, and did you then switch
to the MIKRO Assembler cartridge (as I did) ? Well to be accurate I switched
to it after first using an assembler program written in BASIC, typed in
from a book.

Geoff

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Geoff
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:23:28 +0200
<snip>
ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64AndDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead
OT, but if the above is true, was that Oxford Pascal, and did you then switch
to the MIKRO Assembler cartridge (as I did) ? Well to be accurate I switched
to it after first using an assembler program written in BASIC, typed in
from a book.
Geoff

The C64 Pascal was from "Markt&Technik" 1986 ISBN 3-89090-222-7
*chuckle* my flat is a museum.

Regarding to 65xx, e.g. 6502, 6510 Assembler I started with "directly"
programming (sorry my English is broken). There was no chance to insert
a command, later I used Assembler software that could be used like an
editor. It was possible to insert commands, to handle modules
comfortably (code that used branches instead of jumps and that could be
placed at any point of the RAM).

I never programmed by using op-code directly, excepted of some skip
tricks, programs that did different things when jumping to the even or
odd address. At that time (pre mov commands, still load and store) it
was possible to jump at any address (pardon, as you know ;).

I don't know the name "MIKRO Assembler cartridge". Perhaps I used it to,
perhaps not.

Regards,
Ralf

[Bjoern Franke]

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Oh no, not again the discussion "arch will be usable for experts only
due to systemd".

[Paul Gideon Dann]

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work
with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's
intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you
really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint
Debian Edition is also rolling-release?

Paul

[Jelle van der Waa]

Post by Paul Gideon Dann

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work
with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's
intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you
really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint
Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul

SuSe has systemd plans too ;)

[phani]

Post by Jelle van der Waa
SuSe has systemd plans too

in openSUSE's upcoming version, 12.2, systemd is default. for the moment
though both init systems are being maintained. this lead to very similar
discussions on the mailing lists over there, with exactly the same
opinions i find here.

while this is definitely tiring after a while, i find a mail client that
allows to "ignore thread" very helpful.

[Paul Dann]

Yes, but it strives to hide those sorts of transitions from the user. I believe the issue in question is the pain of change.
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.

Post by Paul Gideon Dann

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work
with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's
intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you
really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint
Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul

SuSe has systemd plans too ;)

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Paul Gideon Dann

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work
with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's
intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you
really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint
Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul

I'm from Germany, so I started with Suse and I still have an outdated
Suse installed. Suse doesn't fit to my needs. I tested Mint and Mint
doesn't fit to my needs. Arch did and still does fit to my needs. I just
fear that soon Arch won't fit to my needs. I'm not objective, I just
care about my needs. This is selfish, I'm aware of this. However, why
shouldn't I take care of my needs? I also work on a voluntary basis. I
fight for the rights of others, but I also fight for satisfying my
needs. That's all.

Regards,
Ralf

[Jelle van der Waa]

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work
with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's
intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you
really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint
Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul

I'm from Germany, so I started with Suse and I still have an outdated
Suse installed. Suse doesn't fit to my needs. I tested Mint and Mint
doesn't fit to my needs. Arch did and still does fit to my needs. I just
fear that soon Arch won't fit to my needs. I'm not objective, I just
care about my needs. This is selfish, I'm aware of this. However, why
shouldn't I take care of my needs? I also work on a voluntary basis. I
fight for the rights of others, but I also fight for satisfying my
needs. That's all.
Regards,
Ralf

Then maintain/improve the current initscripts...

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Jelle van der Waa

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work
with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's
intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you
really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint
Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul

I'm from Germany, so I started with Suse and I still have an outdated
Suse installed. Suse doesn't fit to my needs. I tested Mint and Mint
doesn't fit to my needs. Arch did and still does fit to my needs. I just
fear that soon Arch won't fit to my needs. I'm not objective, I just
care about my needs. This is selfish, I'm aware of this. However, why
shouldn't I take care of my needs? I also work on a voluntary basis. I
fight for the rights of others, but I also fight for satisfying my
needs. That's all.
Regards,
Ralf

Then maintain/improve the current initscripts...

I don't have the ability to do this. I don't have time to learn this,
since I work on a voluntary basis in other areas. And who knows, even if
I would have the time to learn, perhaps I'm not able to do it.

So again, is "self-responsibility" = "spend all your live time with
setting up Linux only"? Isn't the philosophy of a community that people
have different abilities and that they take care of each other?

Regards,
Ralf

[Paul Dann]

Sometimes the most loving thing to do is let someone go through a short, sharp pain in order to avoid a long, drawn out one. Systemd is not evil. You may not like the idea of changing, but it probably will be the best thing for you to do to avoid more pain down the line. No rush, but I reckon the anticipation is accually worse than the switch.
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.

Post by Jelle van der Waa

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work
with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's
intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you
really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint
Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul

I'm from Germany, so I started with Suse and I still have an outdated
Suse installed. Suse doesn't fit to my needs. I tested Mint and Mint
doesn't fit to my needs. Arch did and still does fit to my needs. I just
fear that soon Arch won't fit to my needs. I'm not objective, I just
care about my needs. This is selfish, I'm aware of this. However, why
shouldn't I take care of my needs? I also work on a voluntary basis. I
fight for the rights of others, but I also fight for satisfying my
needs. That's all.
Regards,
Ralf

Then maintain/improve the current initscripts...

I don't have the ability to do this. I don't have time to learn this,
since I work on a voluntary basis in other areas. And who knows, even if
I would have the time to learn, perhaps I'm not able to do it.

So again, is "self-responsibility" = "spend all your live time with
setting up Linux only"? Isn't the philosophy of a community that people
have different abilities and that they take care of each other?

Regards,
Ralf

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by Paul Dann
Sometimes the most loving thing to do is let someone go through a short, sharp pain in order to avoid a long, drawn out one. Systemd is not evil. You may not like the idea of changing, but it probably will be the best thing for you to do to avoid more pain down the line. No rush, but I reckon the anticipation is accually worse than the switch.

Well said.

I know that nobody in arch has declared the switch is inevitable
but the way it looks, with upstream being eager enough to do so,
it seems incredibly likely unless we train everyone to use DJB's
daemontools instead. :P http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[Denis A. Altoé Falqueto]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia

Post by Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
I know that nobody in arch has declared the switch is inevitable
but the way it looks, with upstream being eager enough to do so,
it seems incredibly likely unless we train everyone to use DJB's
daemontools instead. :P http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html

You should check arch-dev-public :)

It's a funny thread

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-August/023389.html

[Geoff]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:24:49 -0300

Post by Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
You should check arch-dev-public :)
It's a funny thread
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-August/023389.html

Mostly I just read arch-general and try to understand arguments. I do,
however, find this contribution the thread to which you refer very saddening.
It is not the way I interpret the vast majority of contributions here.

"Let's do it. It's about time we lose these ML trolls.

[Brandon Watkins]

Post by Geoff
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:24:49 -0300

Post by Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
You should check arch-dev-public :)
It's a funny thread

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-August/023389.html
Mostly I just read arch-general and try to understand arguments. I do,
however, find this contribution the thread to which you refer very saddening.
It is not the way I interpret the vast majority of contributions here.
"Let's do it. It's about time we lose these ML trolls.
--
Gaetan"
Perhaps we should all just shut up and do as we are told.
Geoff

To be fair, people on this mailing list did turn a thread asking to help
test a polkit patch into a giant flamewar about pulseaudio and lennart, so
can you blame them for calling our "trolls"?

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Paul Dann
Sometimes the most loving thing to do is let someone go through a
short, sharp pain in order to avoid a long, drawn out one. Systemd is
not evil. You may not like the idea of changing, but it probably will
be the best thing for you to do to avoid more pain down the line. No
rush, but I reckon the anticipation is accually worse than the switch.

Ok, I could install a backup of my Arch to another partition and than
switch for this install to systemd. I don't like to do it, but perhaps
it simply would cause less pain and time. We've got vacations here, so I
can spend time to annoy the mailing list, but I also can install a
backup of my current Arch. However, I've got less enthusiasm to do this.

;)
Ralf

[Paul Dann]

That sounds like a perfectly fair attitude to have. Although the change may require a little thought, I really think SystemD will not suddenly make Arch difficult to use, though. Is that what you're worried about?
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.

Post by Paul Gideon Dann

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Cool, so once you're set up with systemd, you should find it easier to work
with. As for change, I'm afraid that's inevitable in ArchLinux, because it's
intended to be a cutting-edge distro. If you don't like the change, you
really need to consider switching to something less hands-on. I hear that
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a viable rolling-release option. And I think Mint
Debian Edition is also rolling-release?
Paul

I'm from Germany, so I started with Suse and I still have an outdated
Suse installed. Suse doesn't fit to my needs. I tested Mint and Mint
doesn't fit to my needs. Arch did and still does fit to my needs. I just
fear that soon Arch won't fit to my needs. I'm not objective, I just
care about my needs. This is selfish, I'm aware of this. However, why
shouldn't I take care of my needs? I also work on a voluntary basis. I
fight for the rights of others, but I also fight for satisfying my
needs. That's all.

Regards,
Ralf

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Paul Dann
Is that what you're worried about?

Yes ;D. I switched to Arch to get rid of fear. No I'm very scary.

- Ralf

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Ralf Mardorf

Post by Paul Dann
Is that what you're worried about?

Yes ;D. I switched to Arch to get rid of fear. No I'm very scary.
^^^ Now
- Ralf

[Baho Utot]

Post by Paul Gideon Dann

Post by Joakim Hernberg
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530
Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we
want to or not :( I suspect that this has been the game plan all the
time though. OK, flames away I guess :)

Wow, this sounds so much like a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the
people who write the code inevitably dictate which software is maintained,
based on their interests and convictions, and they're pretty much unanimous
that systemd is a better solution to the problem of booting and maintaining
daemons than the solution we currently have.
So yeah, I guess that's been the game plan all along: make booting and daemon
control more consistent, faster, and easier for most users to maintain.
Paul

I don't understand your point....

What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?

I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I
need and has not failed me.

So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers
tell me I must?

As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the
beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why
take away sysvint?

You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and
not be forced down the systemd path.

Isn't this what open source software freedom is all about or did I miss
something....I have use linux from the redhat 5.2 (no I am not talking
the enterprise version) days.

[Thomas Bächler]

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
Wow, this sounds so much like a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the
people who write the code inevitably dictate which software is maintained,
based on their interests and convictions, and they're pretty much unanimous
that systemd is a better solution to the problem of booting and maintaining
daemons than the solution we currently have.
So yeah, I guess that's been the game plan all along: make booting and daemon
control more consistent, faster, and easier for most users to maintain.
Paul

I don't understand your point....
What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?
I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I
need and has not failed me.

And you don't want systemd because you are sure it won't do what
sysvinit can, even though you didn't try it.

Post by Baho Utot
So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers
tell me I must?

You need to move because the rest of the Linux ecosystem will require
systemd at some point, just like it now requires udev. If you don't like
it, then stop annoying us and start maintaining code that makes sure
YOUR way will keep working.

It's like that: Whoever contributes code makes the decisions.

Post by Baho Utot
As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the
beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why
take away sysvint?

I could repeat what I said above.

Post by Baho Utot
You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and
not be forced down the systemd path.

So, you are annoying the whole mailing list because you don't like that
you _might_ be forced to switch to a superior booting scheme which is
unlikely to affect you negatively in any way.

Arch's policy on systemd vs. initscripts has not even been discussed
among Arch developers yet, and nothing has been decided. Yet, you guys
are acting like someone's going to eat your childrn.

I can't stand this anymore. I want to just add replaces=('initscripts')
to the systemd package just to make this fucking "discussion" stop. If
you don't have anything _technical_ to discuss, and don't have any
problem that you want help solving, then move this bullshit somewhere I
don't have to see it.

I wonder if there is a way to lock a thread in mailman.

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by Thomas Bächler
And you don't want systemd because you are sure it won't do what
sysvinit can, even though you didn't try it.

I think the complaint here is that the switch itself is a problem.

I think he made it rather clear that he's not criticizing systemd
itself but the notion of forcing a switch.

I've been bellowing to local linux user groups and friends that
sysvinit needs to go for years but I understand the general
resistance: Every change -- even the especially good and worthy
ones -- requires effort. For some, that's too much.

Post by Thomas Bächler
Arch's policy on systemd vs. initscripts has not even been discussed
among Arch developers yet...

This is really all that needed to be said.

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Thomas Bächler
So, you are annoying the whole mailing list

You are speaking for the "WHOLE" mailing list? I read this from others a
thousand times before. YOU AREN'T SPEAKING AT LEAST FOR ME!

Call me a troll, I'm anyway member of this list and YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR
ME!

Thank you,
Ralf

[Baho Utot]

Post by Thomas Bächler

Post by Baho Utot

Post by Paul Gideon Dann
Wow, this sounds so much like a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the
people who write the code inevitably dictate which software is maintained,
based on their interests and convictions, and they're pretty much unanimous
that systemd is a better solution to the problem of booting and maintaining
daemons than the solution we currently have.
So yeah, I guess that's been the game plan all along: make booting and daemon
control more consistent, faster, and easier for most users to maintain.
Paul

I don't understand your point....
What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?
I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I
need and has not failed me.

And you don't want systemd because you are sure it won't do what
sysvinit can, even though you didn't try it.

Dude I have 5 fedora systems from 15 to 17 and they use the full
systemd, Hence my dis-stain for it.

Post by Thomas Bächler

Post by Baho Utot
So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers
tell me I must?

You need to move because the rest of the Linux ecosystem will require
systemd at some point, just like it now requires udev. If you don't like
it, then stop annoying us and start maintaining code that makes sure
YOUR way will keep working.
It's like that: Whoever contributes code makes the decisions.

Why I am creating my own distro from scratch

Post by Thomas Bächler

Post by Baho Utot
As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the
beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why
take away sysvint?

I could repeat what I said above.

Post by Baho Utot
You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and
not be forced down the systemd path.

So, you are annoying the whole mailing list because you don't like that
you _might_ be forced to switch to a superior booting scheme which is
unlikely to affect you negatively in any way.

It has not been established that systemd is superior. You take facts not
in evidence

Post by Thomas Bächler
Arch's policy on systemd vs. initscripts has not even been discussed
among Arch developers yet, and nothing has been decided. Yet, you guys
are acting like someone's going to eat your childrn.
I can't stand this anymore. I want to just add replaces=('initscripts')
to the systemd package just to make this fucking "discussion" stop. If
you don't have anything _technical_ to discuss, and don't have any
problem that you want help solving, then move this bullshit somewhere I
don't have to see it.
I wonder if there is a way to lock a thread in mailman.

Go ahead, take your bad attitude and change it.

BTW learn how to use filters in your email program.

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Baho Utot
BTW learn how to use filters in your email program.

I'm not using Thunderbird anymore as he does, but I remember it was easy
to do. However, I hope he won't ban anybody. His help is useful.
Regarding to this discussion I don't like his opinion.

Regards,
Ralf

[Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia]

Post by Baho Utot
What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?

As a critic of systemd, perhaps I can help.

Init scripts tend to wreck the determinism beacuse they can inherit
your env. pid files are a problem waiting to happen. There really
is nothing preventing them from getting trampled or deleted and
then you've gotta go kill daemon processes by hand.

Having to start daemons in a certain order is obnoxious.

The more shell script you have to write in order to get daemons up
(or shut 'em down) just means more opportunity for little annoying
bugs.

Startup speed is therefore affected. This doesn't matter if you
don't reboot often but if you're doing lots of systems dev, it can
be said that every minute spent waiting for the system to boot is
one less minute spent improving your software.

Post by Baho Utot
I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I
need and has not failed me.

Indeed, this is a values judgment. The argument for abandoning
init scripts could be made in the department of "Code
Correctness" as it is defined in the Arch Way...

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way

There is no doubt that the community-tested traditions have
found their way into effectiveness.

Post by Baho Utot
As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the
beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why
take away sysvint?

I'm still experimenting with daemontools under sysvinit as I
described here:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=141831

The transition seems less brutal, the ability to start things
in parallel is there, supervision is there, but there is no
process grouping (which I consider unimportant) as with systemd.

Post by Baho Utot
You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and
not be forced down the systemd path.

As explained in this and other threads, it may not be a decision
we, in the Arch world, get to make. Too much of upstream may
actually be dictated by what a comercially-backed distro does.

[Baho Utot]

On 08/09/2012 04:23 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:

[putolin]

As explained in this and other threads, it may not be a decision we,
in the Arch world, get to make. Too much of upstream may actually be
dictated by what a comercially-backed distro does.

That is why I just may end up using BSD.

[Sander Jansen]

Post by Baho Utot
[putolin]

As explained in this and other threads, it may not be a decision we, in
the Arch world, get to make. Too much of upstream may actually be dictated
by what a comercially-backed distro does.

That is why I just may end up using BSD.

Good luck with that! I'm sure they have a openbsd-general mailinglist
where you continue your discussion.

[Paul Gideon Dann]

Post by Baho Utot
I don't understand your point....
What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?
I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I
need and has not failed me.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it, just like there was nothing
inherently wrong with pen and paper before computers came along. Many people
would argue that pen and paper does everything they need, but that doesn't
change the fact that most people find computers more flexible. Those wanting to
stick to pen and paper find themselves increasingly frustrated that they can't
get by without a computer. It's not that they're not *entitled* to their
opinion, it's just that everyone else has moved on. It's not a conspiracy;
things simply change. Maybe you don't see the advantage, but other people do.

Post by Baho Utot
So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers
tell me I must?

My point is that you need to move to systemd because if you don't, you'll be
using a system that noone is willing to maintain.

Post by Baho Utot
As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the
beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why
take away sysvint?

Sysvinit will not be taken away. However, as is the way of software, if
sysvinit is not actively maintained, it will simply stop working in a matter
of years.

Post by Baho Utot
You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and
not be forced down the systemd path.

Unwanted change is not nice. In fact, I haven't switched to systemd yet
because I'm worried about the switch (even though I've heard it's pretty
easy), and sysvinit works OK for me right now. However, I'm also interested
in discovering what all this new stuff is that everyone promises systemd can
deliver, so I'm happy with the idea that I'll switch at some point.

Post by Baho Utot
Isn't this what open source software freedom is all about or did I miss
something....I have use linux from the redhat 5.2 (no I am not talking
the enterprise version) days.

No, open source software is not about giving you whatever software you want.
It's about producing whatever software you want, and letting anyone use it.
If you're willing to maintain Sysvinit, you're absolutely free to do that. It
may well be that someone *will* be willing to do that when the time comes. In
the meantime, I'm afraid your only choice is to use the software that is
maintained.

Paul

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by Paul Gideon Dann

Post by Baho Utot
I don't understand your point....
What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?
I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I
need and has not failed me.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it, just like there was nothing
inherently wrong with pen and paper before computers came along. Many people
would argue that pen and paper does everything they need, but that doesn't
change the fact that most people find computers more flexible. Those wanting to
stick to pen and paper find themselves increasingly frustrated that they can't
get by without a computer. It's not that they're not *entitled* to their
opinion, it's just that everyone else has moved on. It's not a conspiracy;
things simply change. Maybe you don't see the advantage, but other people do.

Post by Baho Utot
So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers
tell me I must?

My point is that you need to move to systemd because if you don't, you'll be
using a system that noone is willing to maintain.

Post by Baho Utot
As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the
beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why
take away sysvint?

Sysvinit will not be taken away. However, as is the way of software, if
sysvinit is not actively maintained, it will simply stop working in a matter
of years.

Post by Baho Utot
You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and
not be forced down the systemd path.

Unwanted change is not nice. In fact, I haven't switched to systemd yet
because I'm worried about the switch (even though I've heard it's pretty
easy), and sysvinit works OK for me right now. However, I'm also interested
in discovering what all this new stuff is that everyone promises systemd can
deliver, so I'm happy with the idea that I'll switch at some point.

Post by Baho Utot
Isn't this what open source software freedom is all about or did I miss
something....I have use linux from the redhat 5.2 (no I am not talking
the enterprise version) days.

No, open source software is not about giving you whatever software you want.
It's about producing whatever software you want, and letting anyone use it.
If you're willing to maintain Sysvinit, you're absolutely free to do that. It
may well be that someone *will* be willing to do that when the time comes. In
the meantime, I'm afraid your only choice is to use the software that is
maintained.
Paul

Not what I want to hear, but a good, objective statement!

Respect,
Ralf

[gt]

Post by Jayesh Badwaik
Hi,
Another flame may start here, but I would like to present the following
as a pure news, no opinions[1].
Of course, after reading all the discussions on the mailing lists, my
feeling after reading the link? Mwuhahahaha.
Important quotes from the link ( which I hope do not alter the context
"Well, we intent to continue to make it possible to run udevd outside of
systemd. But that's about it. We will not polish that, or add new
features to that or anything.
OTOH we do polish behaviour of udev when used *within* systemd however,
and that's our primary focus.
And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform integration
into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for non-systemd systems.
(Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
that support entirely.)"
[1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-
August/006066.html

Lennart Poettering wants to control GNU/Linux, period. And, he has been
quite effective in furthering his goals through his "great" ideas.

I see that linus torvalds will have competition pretty soon on who gets
to be the overlord. Or maybe they can coexist, one in kernel land and
the other in userspace land ;)

[Ralf Mardorf]

Post by gt

Post by Jayesh Badwaik
Hi,
Another flame may start here, but I would like to present the following
as a pure news, no opinions[1].
Of course, after reading all the discussions on the mailing lists, my
feeling after reading the link? Mwuhahahaha.
Important quotes from the link ( which I hope do not alter the context
"Well, we intent to continue to make it possible to run udevd outside of
systemd. But that's about it. We will not polish that, or add new
features to that or anything.
OTOH we do polish behaviour of udev when used *within* systemd however,
and that's our primary focus.
And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform integration
into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for non-systemd systems.
(Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
that support entirely.)"
[1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-
August/006066.html

Lennart Poettering wants to control GNU/Linux, period. And, he has been
quite effective in furthering his goals through his "great" ideas.
I see that linus torvalds will have competition pretty soon on who gets
to be the overlord. Or maybe they can coexist, one in kernel land and
the other in userspace land ;)

Some time ago I called "Linux" "Lennux".

[Kevin Chadwick]

Post by gt
I see that linus torvalds will have competition pretty soon on who gets
to be the overlord. Or maybe they can coexist, one in kernel land and
the other in userspace land ;)

linus used to run binaries from his earliest days just to make sure
that they still worked and constantly iterates that anything new should
not break or remove features from userland (atleast until the screams
aren't so noisy). Pulse brought new (the driver likely being playing
music whilst playing games without apps being setup to use plugs could
have been fixed in alsa) but removed/broke stuff too. It's surely wrong
to get personal however and Pulse does fix a problem for many atleast
but he would have to be much more subtle to make it in kernel land.

It's said a fundamental problem with user space development is
that often new projects are started because feature X is easier when
starting from scratch and so your swapping rather than developing. Is
that the case here or was there a difficult problem in getting alsa to
work with multiple input sources at once by default or more likely was
the difficulty integrating audio distribution which very few actually
care about.

[Oon-Ee Ng]

Post by Kevin Chadwick
It's said a fundamental problem with user space development is
that often new projects are started because feature X is easier when
starting from scratch and so your swapping rather than developing. Is
that the case here or was there a difficult problem in getting alsa to
work with multiple input sources at once by default or more likely was
the difficulty integrating audio distribution which very few actually
care about.

Pulseaudio was never meant to replace ALSA, it requires ALSA drivers
to run at all.... if anything it was a replacement for ESD et. al.

[Øyvind Heggstad]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530

Hi,
*wall of text*

I, for one, welcome our new red hatted underlings.

[Jameson]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Jayesh Badwaik

Post by Jayesh Badwaik
Another flame may start here, but I would like to present the following
as a pure news, no opinions[1].

You're free to post this, but don't for one second pretend that it is
anything, but flame bait.

=-Jameson