Jayesh Badwaik | 13 Aug 12:20 2012
X-Face
Picon

Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

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.)"

--

-- 
Cheers and Regards
Jayesh Badwaik
stop html mail      | always bottom-post
www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
(Continue reading)

Joakim Hernberg | 13 Aug 12:34 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530
Jayesh Badwaik <jayesh.badwaik90 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> (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 | 13 Aug 13:06 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Joakim Hernberg <jbh <at> alchemy.lu> wrote:

> 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.

--

-- 
Rodrigo

Gour | 13 Aug 13:50 2012
X-Face
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 +0200
Joakim Hernberg <jbh <at> alchemy.lu> wrote:

> 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

--

-- 
A person is said to be established in self-realization and is called a
yogī [or mystic] when he is fully satisfied by virtue of acquired
knowledge and realization. Such a person is situated in transcendence
and is self-controlled. He sees everything — whether it be pebbles,
stones or gold — as the same.

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
Baho Utot | 13 Aug 14:58 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/13/2012 07:50 AM, Gour wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 +0200
> Joakim Hernberg <jbh <at> alchemy.lu> wrote:
>
>> 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

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 14:37 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 13:13 -0600, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> > 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

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 02:37:54PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 15:50 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 02:05:10PM -0600, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 02:37:54PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > 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.

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:20:29PM +0530, gt wrote:
> Offtopic: Your system clock seems to be way off.

So it is!  Thanks for the heads up.

Baho Utot | 14 Aug 15:12 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/09/2012 03:13 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>> 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.

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:12:30AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 15:33 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/09/2012 04:02 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:12:30AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>> 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 | 14 Aug 15:25 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 09:12:30 Baho Utot wrote:
> 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 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 | 14 Aug 15:49 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/2012 09:25 AM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 09:12:30 Baho Utot wrote:
>> 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.

>
>> 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 
(Continue reading)

Kevin Chadwick | 14 Aug 17:27 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

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
(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 17:38 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 16:27 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> Please CC me in any future audio discussions.

Flagged!

Regards,
ralf

Denis A. Altoé Falqueto | 14 Aug 15:52 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot <at> columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 03:13 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>>>
>>> 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!

(Continue reading)

Calvin Morrison | 14 Aug 15:58 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 14 August 2012 09:52, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
<denisfalqueto <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot <at> columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 08/09/2012 03:13 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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,
(Continue reading)

Baho Utot | 14 Aug 16:05 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

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

[putolin]

> 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 | 14 Aug 17:59 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


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-utot <at> columbus.rr.com> wrote:

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

[putolin]

> 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 | 14 Aug 18:04 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Paul Dann <pdgiddie <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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 | 14 Aug 18:11 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 16:59 +0100, Paul Dann wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 16:12 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Calvin Morrison
<mutantturkey <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 09:52, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
> <denisfalqueto <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot <at> columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/09/2012 03:13 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 16:31 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 11:12 -0300, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Calvin Morrison
> <mutantturkey <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 14 August 2012 09:52, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
> > <denisfalqueto <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot <at> columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> >>> On 08/09/2012 03:13 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
(Continue reading)

Paul Gideon Dann | 14 Aug 14:45 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Monday 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 Joakim Hernberg wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 14:59 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 15:05 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/12 14:59, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>> 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 )

--

-- 
Jelle van der Waa

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 15:13 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 15:05 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> 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 | 15 Aug 01:27 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

14.08.2012 17:13, Ralf Mardorf пишет:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 15:05 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
>> 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 | 14 Aug 15:14 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/2012 09:05 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 08/14/12 14:59, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>>> 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.

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:05:02PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 15:28 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> 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

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:28:17PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> > 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.

> 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 | 14 Aug 16:32 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle <at> vdwaa.nl> wrote:

> On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> > 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...
(Continue reading)

Baho Utot | 14 Aug 16:55 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/2012 10:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle <at> vdwaa.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
>>> 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
(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 17:05 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 10:55 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 10:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle <at> vdwaa.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> >>> 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
(Continue reading)

Denis A. Altoé Falqueto | 14 Aug 17:09 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf <at> alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 10:55 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>> On 08/14/2012 10:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle <at> vdwaa.nl> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
>> >>> 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
(Continue reading)

Mateusz Loskot | 14 Aug 17:24 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 14 August 2012 16:05, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf <at> alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 10:55 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>>
>> 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,
--

-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:05:14PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 18:00 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:46 -0600, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:05:14PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > 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

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 06:00:25PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before. I
> suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein?

Yes.

> 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 | 15 Aug 00:53 2012

DJB vs LP, was Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


On 08/14/2012 09:04 AM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 06:00:25PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> I had to google, I never heard about Daniel J. Bernstein before.
>> I suspect DJB is for Daniel J. Bernstein?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> 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
benfell <at> parts-unknown.org
Jorge Almeida | 15 Aug 01:34 2012
Picon

Re: DJB vs LP, was Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, David Benfell
<benfell <at> parts-unknown.org> wrote:
>>
> 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

Picon

Re: DJB vs LP, was Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:53:10PM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> 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.

I really don't understand the lust for novelty people have.

If the solution is correct, there really isn't much need for
additional work. 

Code changes are not the same as improvements.

David Benfell | 15 Aug 04:18 2012

Re: DJB vs LP, was Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


On 08/14/2012 06:44 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:53:10PM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I really don't understand the lust for novelty people have.
> 
> If the solution is correct, there really isn't much need for 
> additional work.
> 
> Code changes are not the same as improvements.
> 
Have you looked at qmail lately?

--

-- 
David Benfell
benfell <at> parts-unknown.org
Kevin Chadwick | 15 Aug 12:16 2012
Picon

Re: DJB vs LP, was Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

> Have you looked at qmail lately?

What do you mean. Qmail is one of the best mailers out there. You do
need patches and in fact some huge patches bring it up to speed in one
go?

--

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
_______________________________________________________________________

David Benfell | 15 Aug 20:29 2012

Re: DJB vs LP, was Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


On 08/15/2012 03:16 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> Have you looked at qmail lately?
> 
> What do you mean. Qmail is one of the best mailers out there. You
> do need patches and in fact some huge patches bring it up to speed
> in one go?
> 
A few years ago, I would emphatically have agreed with you. Now,
getting those patches to provide services that are now taken for
granted with MTAs to play nice with each other is a serious
undertaking. If Dan (or someone else) was actually maintaining the
project and producing a coherent source, I might still agree with you. ;-)

--

-- 
David Benfell
benfell <at> parts-unknown.org
Kevin Chadwick | 15 Aug 21:47 2012
Picon

Re: DJB vs LP, was Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

> A few years ago, I would emphatically have agreed with you. Now,
> getting those patches to provide services that are now taken for
> granted with MTAs to play nice with each other is a serious
> undertaking. If Dan (or someone else) was actually maintaining the
> project and producing a coherent source, I might still agree with you. ;-)

What service do you have in mind. Dan hasn't maintained for decades or
atleast published his qmail2 if he finished it. If it had been
released with the license it has now it would probably be part of
OpenBSD, now they are working on their own smtpd. If you check the
cr.yp.to mailing list you will find atleast a couple of complete and
modernising patches. Maybe search for "released"

--

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
_______________________________________________________________________

Picon

Re: DJB vs LP, was Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:18:10PM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> Have you looked at qmail lately?

Yup.  Installed it just a couple weeks ago.  Use it every day. 

Pointed a coverity analysis at it the other week. 

Brandon Watkins | 14 Aug 18:06 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf <at> alice-dsl.net>wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:46 -0600, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:05:14PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > 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
(Continue reading)

Paul Gideon Dann | 15 Aug 11:10 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 18:00:25 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> 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?!

I've been using Wicd on my laptop for ages.  I'd highly recommend it: it's 
straight-forward and has never failed me.  I'd only use it on a laptop, 
though.  For fixed computers it's probably best to stick to netcfg.

Paul

Fons Adriaensen | 14 Aug 17:07 2012

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:55:02AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:

> >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.
> 
(Continue reading)

Calvin Morrison | 14 Aug 17:12 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 14 August 2012 11:07, Fons Adriaensen <fons <at> linuxaudio.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:55:02AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>
>> >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.
(Continue reading)

Brandon Watkins | 14 Aug 17:30 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot <at> columbus.rr.com>wrote:

> On 08/14/2012 10:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle <at> vdwaa.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
(Continue reading)

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:30:50AM -0400, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 18:17 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


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.

Baho Utot <baho-utot <at> columbus.rr.com> wrote:

On 08/14/2012 10:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle <at> vdwaa.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 08/09/12 22:00, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:
>>> 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
(Continue reading)

Kevin Chadwick | 15 Aug 12:19 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

> 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.

Little need but may well be.

http://blog.stuart.shelton.me/archives/891

--

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
_______________________________________________________________________

David Benfell | 15 Aug 00:35 2012

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


On 08/14/2012 07:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:

>> 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
benfell <at> parts-unknown.org
Baho Utot | 15 Aug 00:46 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/2012 06:35 PM, David Benfell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/14/2012 07:32 AM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
>
>>> 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
> benfell <at> parts-unknown.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
(Continue reading)

David Benfell | 15 Aug 00:56 2012

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


On 08/14/2012 03:46 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
> 
> 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
(Continue reading)

Baho Utot | 15 Aug 01:11 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/2012 06:56 PM, David Benfell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/14/2012 03:46 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
>> 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
(Continue reading)

Tom Gundersen | 15 Aug 01:17 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot <at> columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 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 | 15 Aug 01:24 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/2012 07:17 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot <at> columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>> 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.

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

Hey it happens ;)

David Benfell | 15 Aug 01:55 2012

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


On 08/14/2012 04:17 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Baho Utot
> <baho-utot <at> columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
These lines are indeed different from anything I've seen. I guess I
should ask the stupid question: Does systemd not use the standard
mount program and follow /etc/fstab? I'm thinking it must because my
non-standard mounts are present.

--

-- 
David Benfell
benfell <at> parts-unknown.org
Tom Gundersen | 15 Aug 02:13 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 AM, David Benfell
<benfell <at> parts-unknown.org> wrote:
> Does systemd not use the standard
> mount program and follow /etc/fstab?

It does. Though it does not use "mount -a", but rather mounts each fs
separately.

> It's the
> classic technical support problem with multiple moving pieces with
> each vendor pointing at the other one. And it seems that Poettering's
> attitude is particularly unhelpful here, which means that *when* (I'm
> not going to be so naive as to say *if*) such problems arise, we may
> well need another way to deal with them. Perhaps that's what we should
> be discussing here.

The systemd devs do have the attitude of not working around bugs, but
fixing them where they are (which I agree with). However, not to the
extent that it causes problems that we in turn have to work around
downstream. Overall, I am *very* satisfied with the level of support
upstream provides to the distros.

Quote from IRC today:

#systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: ah, arch switches for good?
#systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: that's great news
#systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: if you need any upstream support for
this, just ping

(where mezcalero is Lennart and falconindy is Dave).
(Continue reading)

Jayesh Badwaik | 15 Aug 15:02 2012
X-Face
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Wednesday 15 Aug 2012 02:13:26 Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Quote from IRC today:
> 
> #systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: ah, arch switches for good?
> #systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: that's great news
> #systemd: mezcalero » falconindy: if you need any upstream support for
> this, just ping
> 
> (where mezcalero is Lennart and falconindy is Dave).
> 
> Really, I don't think this is something we need to worry about.
> 

+1

--

-- 
Cheers and Regards
Jayesh Badwaik
stop html mail      | always bottom-post
www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Tom Gundersen | 15 Aug 00:57 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:35 AM, David Benfell
<benfell <at> parts-unknown.org> wrote:
> 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.

> 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 | 15 Aug 01:03 2012
Picon
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

David Benfell [2012.08.14 1535 -0700]:
> 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 | 15 Aug 01:08 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Norbert Zeh <nzeh <at> cs.dal.ca> wrote:

> David Benfell [2012.08.14 1535 -0700]:
> > 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
(Continue reading)

David Benfell | 15 Aug 02:01 2012

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


On 08/14/2012 04:08 PM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Norbert Zeh <nzeh <at> cs.dal.ca>
> wrote:
> 
>> David Benfell [2012.08.14 1535 -0700]:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> <snip> 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.
>> 
> 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.
> 
I think Brandon's point, in its own way, supports Norbert's. It's the
classic technical support problem with multiple moving pieces with
each vendor pointing at the other one. And it seems that Poettering's
(Continue reading)

Baho Utot | 14 Aug 15:13 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/2012 08:59 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>> 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 | 14 Aug 15:23 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:13 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 08:59 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> >> 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 | 14 Aug 15:26 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/2012 09:23 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:13 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>> On 08/14/2012 08:59 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>>>> 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?

(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 15:44 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:26 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 15:27 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 15:23 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:13 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> > On 08/14/2012 08:59 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> > >> 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.

(Continue reading)

Geoff | 14 Aug 17:03 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:23:28 +0200
Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf <at> 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 | 14 Aug 17:23 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 16:03 +0100, Geoff wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:23:28 +0200
> Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf <at> 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

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,
(Continue reading)

Bjoern Franke | 14 Aug 15:30 2012

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

Am Dienstag, den 14.08.2012, 14:59 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> > 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".

--

-- 
xmpp: bjo <at> schafweide.org
bjo.nord-west.org | nord-west.org | freifunk-ol.de

Paul Gideon Dann | 14 Aug 15:51 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> > 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 | 14 Aug 16:03 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/12 15:51, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>>> 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 ;)

--

-- 
Jelle van der Waa

phani | 14 Aug 16:14 2012

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:33:41 +0530, Jelle van der Waa <jelle <at> vdwaa.nl>  
wrote:

> 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.

--

-- 
phani.

Paul Dann | 14 Aug 17:50 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


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.

Jelle van der Waa <jelle <at> vdwaa.nl> wrote:

On 08/14/12 15:51, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>>> 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 ;)

(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 16:06 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:51 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> > > 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
(Continue reading)

Jelle van der Waa | 14 Aug 16:23 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/12 16:06, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:51 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>>>> 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,
(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 16:44 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 16:23 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 08/14/12 16:06, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:51 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> > 
(Continue reading)

Paul Dann | 14 Aug 18:13 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


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.

Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf <at> alice-dsl.net> wrote:

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 16:23 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 08/14/12 16:06, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:51 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> >>>> 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?
> >>
(Continue reading)

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Paul Dann wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 18:24 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
<archlinux <at> ishpeck.net> wrote:
> 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

--

-- 
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
-------------------------------------------

Geoff | 14 Aug 19:00 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:24:49 -0300
Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

Brandon Watkins | 14 Aug 19:12 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Geoff <capsthorne <at> yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:24:49 -0300
> Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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"?

(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 20:07 2012
Picon

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:12 -0400, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Geoff <capsthorne <at> yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:24:49 -0300
> > Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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"?

(Continue reading)

Chris Cannam | 14 Aug 23:26 2012

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 14 August 2012 19:07, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@...> wrote:
> I guess on most mailing lists a subject
> "Lennart Poettering" with an empty mail would cause reactions, you won't
> get if the subject would include any other name.

Perhaps Ralf Mardorf.

What's wrong with systemd? I haven't tested it yet, but the principles
seem sound. And I'm not interested in arguments based on extrapolation
from its author's other oeuvres.

Chris
Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 23:32 2012
Picon

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 22:26 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 19:07, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@...> wrote:
> > I guess on most mailing lists a subject
> > "Lennart Poettering" with an empty mail would cause reactions, you won't
> > get if the subject would include any other name.
> 
> Perhaps Ralf Mardorf.

Yes, many people don't like me, but I'm not important to them. We only
would get some mails mentioning that I'm an asshole, but there wouldn't
be several threads about me, since I'm just annoying, but I don't break
Linux :p.
Ralf Mardorf | 15 Aug 00:09 2012
Picon

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 23:32 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 22:26 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > On 14 August 2012 19:07, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@...> wrote:
> > > I guess on most mailing lists a subject
> > > "Lennart Poettering" with an empty mail would cause reactions, you won't
> > > get if the subject would include any other name.
> > 
> > Perhaps Ralf Mardorf.
> 
> Yes, many people don't like me, but I'm not important to them. We only
> would get some mails mentioning that I'm an asshole, but there wouldn't
> be several threads about me, since I'm just annoying, but I don't break
> Linux :p.

PS: On most mailing list even nobody knows who I'm, I'm neither
annoying, nor important and I don't do public relations about me or my
work. At LAU, I didn't start anything bad at Arch general. The
discussions about LP where started by others, in the first place I just
contributed by testing a patch, that I do not need.

While I understand Chris's joke, it anyway is a serious issue and I'm
not guilty of starting the discussions about LP at Arch.

To avoid a defamation Chris might tell the whole story!
Chris Cannam | 15 Aug 12:18 2012

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 14 August 2012 23:09, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@...> wrote:
> While I understand Chris's joke, it anyway is a serious issue and I'm
> not guilty of starting the discussions about LP at Arch.

I apologise -- I hadn't intended to be hurtful.

I was interested though (not having been involved in the Arch thread,
though I am an Arch user) in what it was that readers of this list
might be expected to have concerns about.

Chris
Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas | 15 Aug 10:37 2012
Picon

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 19:07, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@...> wrote:
> > I guess on most mailing lists a subject
> > "Lennart Poettering" with an empty mail would cause reactions, you
> > won't get if the subject would include any other name.
> 
> Perhaps Ralf Mardorf.

"there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and 
that is not being talked about" (Oscar Wilde)

Regards,
Pedro
Chris Bannister | 15 Aug 12:42 2012
Picon

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:37:32AM +0200, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > On 14 August 2012 19:07, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@...> wrote:
> > > I guess on most mailing lists a subject
> > > "Lennart Poettering" with an empty mail would cause reactions, you
> > > won't get if the subject would include any other name.
> > 
> > Perhaps Ralf Mardorf.
> 
> "there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and 
> that is not being talked about" (Oscar Wilde)

Monty Python, wasn't it? 

--

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas | 15 Aug 13:25 2012
Picon

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Wednesday 15 August 2012, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:37:32AM +0200, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> > "there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
> > and that is not being talked about" (Oscar Wilde)
> 
> Monty Python, wasn't it?

Yep, second handed: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXW6tfl2Y0

Original:
"What odd chaps you painters are! You do anything in the world to gain a 
reputation. As soon as you have one, you seem to want to throw it away. It 
is silly of you, for there is only one thing in the world worse than being 
talked about, and that is not being talked about. A portrait like this would 
set you far above all the young men in England, and make the old men quite 
jealous, if old men are ever capable of any emotion."
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/174

Regards,
Pedro
Gabriel M. Beddingfield | 17 Aug 13:57 2012
Picon

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/2012 01:07 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>> 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.
[snip]

Sure, systemd sucks.

...But so does sysvinit.  That's why every distro has their own 
non-standard, customized init script wrappers that you're not ever 
supposed to invoke directly.

Have you ever actually tried to get SysV Init scripts to work out the 
dependencies among themselves?  Even if you get the non-standardized 
syntax right... most SysV implementations don't even support it (e.g. 
Debian).

systemd offers solutions to this that result in faster boot-time, a more 
reliable boot (fewer race conditions), and (eventually) less system 
init-script maintenance time.

(Continue reading)

Chris Bannister | 18 Aug 00:22 2012
Picon

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 06:57:19AM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> Have you ever actually tried to get SysV Init scripts to work out
> the dependencies among themselves?  Even if you get the
> non-standardized syntax right... most SysV implementations don't
> even support it (e.g. Debian).
> 
> systemd offers solutions to this that result in faster boot-time, a
> more reliable boot (fewer race conditions), and (eventually) less
> system init-script maintenance time.
> 
> SysV only offers that "after all the countless hours of hand
> crafting these damn scripts and hand-sorting them into the right
> order -- if you don't touch them then they won't break."
> 
> At some point you have to turn a deaf ear to nay-sayers and move on.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/08/msg00393.html

In particular:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00751.html

openrc is being looked at as a possible alternative.

--

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Len Ovens | 18 Aug 01:51 2012
Picon

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


On Fri, August 17, 2012 3:22 pm, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 06:57:19AM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
>> Have you ever actually tried to get SysV Init scripts to work out
>> the dependencies among themselves?  Even if you get the
>> non-standardized syntax right... most SysV implementations don't
>> even support it (e.g. Debian).
>>
>> systemd offers solutions to this that result in faster boot-time, a
>> more reliable boot (fewer race conditions), and (eventually) less
>> system init-script maintenance time.
>>
>> SysV only offers that "after all the countless hours of hand
>> crafting these damn scripts and hand-sorting them into the right
>> order -- if you don't touch them then they won't break."
>>
>> At some point you have to turn a deaf ear to nay-sayers and move on.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/08/msg00393.html
>
> In particular:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00751.html
>
> openrc is being looked at as a possible alternative.

As a musician... One of the fundamental problems I have is that a computer
set up for desktop use is less than optimal for music. As the sole bread
winner in a family I must be able to use My computer as a desktop machine
as well as for music. The best way would be to have a computer(s) just for
music and remove a lot of the un-needed junk. It used to be that one tool
(Continue reading)

Karl Hammar | 18 Aug 03:01 2012
Picon

Re: [LAU] [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

Len Ovens:
...
> As a musician... One of the fundamental problems I have is that a computer
> set up for desktop use is less than optimal for music. As the sole bread
> winner in a family I must be able to use My computer as a desktop machine
> as well as for music. The best way would be to have a computer(s) just for
> music and remove a lot of the un-needed junk. It used to be that one tool
> could decide what services would run in what run level and simply by
> changing run levels I could have a quiet machine (most services turned
> off).
...

You might want to look into file-rc:

$ apt-cache show file-rc
Package: file-rc
...
Description-en: Alternative boot mechanism using a single configuration file
 This package provides an alternative mechanism to boot the system, to
 shut it down and to change runlevels.  The /etc/rc?.d/* links will be
 converted into one single configuration file /etc/runlevel.conf
 instead, which is easier to administrate than symlinks, and is also
 more flexible.
 .
 The package will automatically convert your existing symlinks into
 the file method on installation, and convert the file back into
 symlinks on removal. Both mechanisms are compatible through
 /etc/init.d/rc, /etc/init.d/rcS, /usr/sbin/update-rc.d, and
 /usr/sbin/invoke-rc.d scripts.
Tag: admin::boot, admin::configuring, implemented-in::shell, interface::daemon, role::program, use::configuring
(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 15 Aug 17:50 2012
Picon

[LAU] Apologize - Was: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

Chris I have to apologize. I didn't notice that it was me who send this
to the wrong ML. Dunno how this could happen, I seemingly didn't read
what autocomplete of my MUA added. It wasn't intended to send it to LAU.

Apologize to the list and Chris and to everybody quoted by this accidentally send mail,
Ralf
Justin Strickland | 16 Aug 19:21 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

heh this whole thread is hilarious, I believe upstream is eager to do so
just so people will stop complaining xD

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <
denisfalqueto <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia
> <archlinux <at> ishpeck.net> wrote:
> > 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
>
> --
> 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
> -------------------------------------------
>
(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 18:25 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:13 +0100, Paul Dann wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 18:04 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd


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.

Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf <at> alice-dsl.net> wrote:

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:51 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 14:59:43 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> > > 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
(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 18:14 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:04 +0100, Paul Dann wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 18:15 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 18:14 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:04 +0100, Paul Dann wrote:
> > 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 | 14 Aug 15:08 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/2012 08:45 AM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Monday 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 Joakim Hernberg wrote:
>> 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 
(Continue reading)

Thomas Bächler | 14 Aug 15:32 2012

Re: [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

Am 14.08.2012 15:08, schrieb Baho Utot:
>> 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.

> 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
(Continue reading)

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:32:42PM +0200, Thomas B?chler wrote:
> 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.

> 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 | 14 Aug 15:51 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 15:32 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> 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 | 14 Aug 15:55 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 08/14/2012 09:32 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 14.08.2012 15:08, schrieb Baho Utot:
>>> 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.

>
>> So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers
(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 16:19 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:55 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> 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

Gaetan Bisson | 15 Aug 09:24 2012

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

[2012-08-14 16:19:18 +0200] Ralf Mardorf:
> Regarding to this discussion I don't like his opinion.

You call this a discussion when all you've been doing is post useless
oneliners and decide whether or not you like other's opinions?

Please do everyone a big favor next time you are about to send your
prose to this list and ask yourself if it is not completely brainless.

--

-- 
Gaetan

Allan McRae | 14 Aug 15:37 2012

Re: [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 14/08/12 23:32, Thomas Bächler wrote:

> I want to just add replaces=('initscripts')
> to the systemd package just to make this fucking "discussion" stop. 

I'm doing nothing tomorrow...

Allan McRae | 14 Aug 15:43 2012

Re: [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On 14/08/12 23:32, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> 
> I wonder if there is a way to lock a thread in mailman.
> 

My solution was to unsubscribe to arch-general...  So all those long
threads have achieved is that I will now make decisions with even less
community input.

Allan

Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:08:36AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> 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.

> 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

(Continue reading)

Baho Utot | 14 Aug 16:04 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

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 | 14 Aug 16:11 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot <at> columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 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.

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

Paul Gideon Dann | 14 Aug 15:47 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 09:08:36 Baho Utot wrote:
> 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.

> 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.

> 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.
(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 14 Aug 16:00 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:47 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 09:08:36 Baho Utot wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> > 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 
(Continue reading)

gt | 13 Aug 15:41 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:50:16PM +0530, Jayesh Badwaik wrote:
> 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.)"
> 
> [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-
> August/006066.html

Lennart Poettering wants to control GNU/Linux, period. And, he has been
(Continue reading)

Ralf Mardorf | 13 Aug 16:08 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 19:11 +0530, gt wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:50:16PM +0530, Jayesh Badwaik wrote:
> > 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.)"
> > 
> > [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-
> > August/006066.html
> 
(Continue reading)

Kevin Chadwick | 13 Aug 16:31 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

> 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.

--

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
_______________________________________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Oon-Ee Ng | 13 Aug 16:51 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists <at> yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 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 | 13 Aug 18:28 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530
Jayesh Badwaik <jayesh.badwaik90 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> *wall of text*

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

Jameson | 13 Aug 20:30 2012
Picon

Re: Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Jayesh Badwaik
<jayesh.badwaik90 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 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


Gmane