On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:29:19AM -0800, Ronald Chmara wrote:
> The older init systems have had a bunch of problems, and workarounds, built
> into them over the years.
>
> A newer init system attempted to solve a bunch of problems, and in doing
> so, broke with established conventions, so it both
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Denis Heidtmann
wrote:
> To me, an uninformed and basically ignorant Linux user, this exchange
> appears to be an argument (sometimes nasty) between two philosophers.
> Because, as is the case in all philosophical arguments, the vocabulary is
> esoteric I cannot p
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "benjamin barber"
> > To: "Keith Lofstrom" , "Portland Linux/Unix Group" <
> plug@lists.pdxlinux.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 2:27:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: [PLUG] systemd
&g
So I was sent this off list, I will let the rest of you imply why that is.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Keith Lofstrom
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 12:27:51PM -0800, benjamin barber wrote:
> > This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the
> > substantitive questions.
> >
Lofstrom" , "Portland Linux/Unix Group" <
plug@lists.pdxlinux.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 2:27:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [PLUG] systemd
>
> This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the
> substantitive questions.
>
> For example
Fleck
- Original Message -
From: "benjamin barber"
To: "Keith Lofstrom" , "Portland Linux/Unix Group"
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 2:27:51 PM
Subject: Re: [PLUG] systemd
This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the
substantitive questions.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015, benjamin barber wrote:
> quite frankly this seems like the typical practice of embrace - extend -
> extinguish.
It is important to keep in mind that while all progress involves change,
not all change involves progress.
Rich
___
This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the
substantitive questions.
For example, is it wise to have an init system also control su as well as
DHCPd. ?
also, are we transitioning from gnu-linux to lennartix by ditching the unix
philosophy ?
quite frankly this seems like the ty
Like many recent linux changes, systemd solves a lot of problems
compared to the kluges that it replaces, but it was not deployed
with other people and existing infrastructure in mind. So, the
burden of adapting to such changes is foisted on the rest of us.
While glittery shiny first impressions
> "Russell" == Russell Senior writes:
> "benjamin" == benjamin barber writes:
benjamin> what would be great, is a debate about systemd
Russell> That would seem to require the existance of someone who
Russell> understood how it worked, in practice, not just in theory. I
Russell> have ye
They forked Debian because of systemd.., that should give anyone pause:
https://devuan.org
Also, there is the bit that systemd is lgpl.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Michael Rasmussen
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 06:34:14PM -0800, Louis Kowolowski wrote:
> > After reading http://boycotts
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 06:34:14PM -0800, Louis Kowolowski wrote:
> After reading http://boycottsystemd.org, I’m curious who thinks that systemd
> is an improvement for servers, and if so why/how. Are people running CentOS 7
> on servers yet?
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Louis Kowolowski wrote:
After reading http://boycottsystemd.org, I’m curious who thinks that
systemd is an improvement for servers, and if so why/how. Are people
running CentOS 7 on servers yet?
I've got CentOS 7 and Fedora 19 on servers, so I've been working with
system
After reading http://boycottsystemd.org, I’m curious who thinks that systemd is
an improvement for servers, and if so why/how. Are people running CentOS 7 on
servers yet?
—
Louis Kowolowskilou...@cryptomonkeys.org
Cryptomonkeys:
14 matches
Mail list logo