Re: Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

Martin Read:

1. The init daemon should fork  exactly once; in the child it should

> exec another program, while the parent (PID 1) does nothing except
> reap zombies.
> 2. As (1), except that if the initially-forked child process exits,
> PID 1 should repeat the fork and exec-in-child procedure.

Whilst you were primarily making a point about the idea of requring 
interchangeability of tools that involve different design decisions, you 
did make a common error in two of your examples that should be 
addressed.  Whilst these are commonly-held positions, they are only 
commonly held by people who have never actually written a process #1 
program that functions in production systems; because experience (as I 
can attest) teaches otherwise.  There are, in fact, several things that 
various operating system kernels and other programs demand of process #1 
that one simply cannot escape.  People think, as above, that acting as 
the parent of orphaned processes is the prime function.  Ironically, it 
is (with recent Linux kernels) a part the system that one can largely 
factor out of process #1 into other processes, whilst the things that 
people usually forget in their off-the-top-of-the-head designs (such as 
handling SIGINT, SIGPWR, SIGWINCH, and so forth sent from the kernel and 
enacting the various system state change requests) are the parts that 
one cannot.  To see what one actually has no choice but to do in process 
#1 programs, look at the overlaps in the operation of Gerrit Pape's 
runit, Felix von Leitner's minit, and the system-manager program from 
the nosh package.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546f44d3.9010...@ntlworld.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Hi,

Jerry Stuckle  writes:
> On 11/16/2014 10:29 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle  writes:
>>> So why, instead of spending all this time on a new init system didn't
>>> developers already familiar with sysvinit work on it?  Systemd wasn't
>>> one person alone.
>> 
>> Presumably nobody was interested enough to do so.
>
> Maybe someone SHOULD have had enough interest.

Which doesn't change the fact that nobody was...

I can write long lists of what SHOULD be done in my opinion, but that
won't make any of it happen.

 1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making them
 into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each other, which do
 the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them accomplishing at least
 the common subset of tasks an init system is supposed to provide.
[...]
>> It's not going to happen, because...
>> ... nobody wants to work on it (at least not for free).
>
> So why don't YOU work on it?

Oh, that's easy to answer. There is no motivation for me to do so: I
don't care about support for sysvinit. I care even less thanks to the
behavior of some people who write angry mails (no, really: why should
I waste my free time to do something for them?).

Ansgar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87zjbq7laq@deep-thought.43-1.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Klistvud]

Dne, 16. 11. 2014 21:06:09 je Tanstaafl napisal(a):

On 11/16/2014 6:40 AM, Klistvud  wrote:
> As a further example, the former udev (prior to being merged into
> systemd) has already been forked and could/will serve us well for
> years to come. And so on.

Is eudev in the debian sources?

Or do you mean another fork?


I meant eudev, I am not aware of any other forks.

--
Kinda regards,
my beast washes

Klistvud  
http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com
Certifiable Loonix Oozer #481801 Please reply to the list, not to  
me.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1416178461.11318.1@compax

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 11/16/2014 10:29 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Jerry Stuckle  writes:
>> The problem here is lack of time and/or skills.  I would love to help,
>> but I already have my plate full.  Additionally, I've done device
>> drivers and applications, but never dealt with init systems.  There
>> would be a big learning curve.  And then there is the politics of being
>> accepted by the DD community.  Maybe some people don't think it's too
>> bad - but I get enough politics in real life that I don't want to deal
>> with it in a volunteer position.
> 
> If you do not have time/skill/motivation to deal with it yourself, there
> is also the option of hiring someone to do the work for you.
>

If I had the money to hire someone, I wouldn't need to work so hard.

> See [1] for a list of people offering services for Debian to start
> with.
> 
>   [1] 
> 
>> So why, instead of spending all this time on a new init system didn't
>> developers already familiar with sysvinit work on it?  Systemd wasn't
>> one person alone.
> 
> Presumably nobody was interested enough to do so.
> 

Maybe someone SHOULD have had enough interest.

>>> 1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making them
>>> into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each other, which do
>>> the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them accomplishing at least
>>> the common subset of tasks an init system is supposed to provide.
>>
>> That would be great, but it's not going to happen.  The TC has already
>> indicated systemd is going to be the default, and packages are already
>> beginning to require systemd.  I predict more and more packages will
>> require systemd as time goes on.
> 
> It's not going to happen, because...
>

For the reason I stated.

>> This would also be great.  However, who's going to spend the time
>> building these replacements?  Maintaining/upgrading sysvinit is minor
>> compared to this job, and even that couldn't be done.
> 
> ... nobody wants to work on it (at least not for free).
> 
> Ansgar
> 
> 

So why don't YOU work on it?

Jerry



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54690ca9.1040...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Tanstaafl]

On 11/16/2014 6:40 AM, Klistvud  wrote:
> As a further example, the former udev (prior to being merged into
> systemd) has already been forked and could/will serve us well for
> years to come. And so on.

Is eudev in the debian sources?

Or do you mean another fork?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546903b1.7060...@libertytrek.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Ludovic Meyer]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 06:08:48PM +, Martin Read wrote:
> On 16/11/14 17:33, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> >Are you aware that this is the approach that systemd and upstart have
> >taken, right?
> >
> >1) Both systemd (PID1) and upstart are drop-in replacement for the good
> >old SysVinit as they both support the common "standard" that are LSB
> >scripts (A really good share of the existing LSB initscripts in the
> >debian archive are just working out of the box).
> 
> Well. They're (mostly) a drop-in replacement for sysvrc and its
> supporting tools. They're certainly not a *drop-in* replacement for
> *sysvinit*, because they don't support all of sysvinit's interfaces;
> specifically, they don't support /etc/inittab.
> 
> Luckily (for some values of lucky), /etc/inittab was such a terrible
> interface (it's unpleasantly reminiscent of Angband's monster, item,
> etc. databases) that it seems even most people who prefer sysvinit
> to systemd or upstart were using a factory-default /etc/inittab.

Writing a generator would be trivial.

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Generators/

No one seemed to care enough for writing one however, but reading 
the file and generating a unit file ( with the automated restart behavior )
is easy to do.

-- 
l.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141116192021.ge25...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Erwan David]

Le 16/11/2014 19:22, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2014, Klistvud wrote:
>
>> Dne, 21. 10. 2014 04:06:23 je Marty napisal(a):
>>> On 10/20/2014 03:45 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
 After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to
 systemd, I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't
 be sysvinit.
>> Why not? I do not see sysvinit -- or any other legacy init system,
>> for that matter -- as contradicting the following:
> Systemd is intended as a "modern" replacement for sysvinit.  I wanted
> to know if not systemd, what init others would choose to replace
> sysvinit.  Simple question.  Difficult to answer.
>
> B 
>
>
Please define "modern". And no, new is not equivalent of better.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5468efc7.4020...@rail.eu.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Laurent Bigonville]

Le Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:08:48 +,
Martin Read  a écrit :

> On 16/11/14 17:33, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > Are you aware that this is the approach that systemd and upstart
> > have taken, right?
> >
> > 1) Both systemd (PID1) and upstart are drop-in replacement for the
> > good old SysVinit as they both support the common "standard" that
> > are LSB scripts (A really good share of the existing LSB
> > initscripts in the debian archive are just working out of the box).
> 
> Well. They're (mostly) a drop-in replacement for sysvrc and its 
> supporting tools. They're certainly not a *drop-in* replacement for 
> *sysvinit*, because they don't support all of sysvinit's interfaces; 
> specifically, they don't support /etc/inittab.
> 
> Luckily (for some values of lucky), /etc/inittab was such a terrible 
> interface (it's unpleasantly reminiscent of Angband's monster, item, 
> etc. databases) that it seems even most people who prefer sysvinit to 
> systemd or upstart were using a factory-default /etc/inittab.

Note that there were plans to either abort systemd-sysv installation or
at least display a big fat warning in case /etc/inittab was modified on
the machine.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141116194032.38ec5...@fornost.bigon.be

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014, Klistvud wrote:

> Dne, 21. 10. 2014 04:06:23 je Marty napisal(a):
> > On 10/20/2014 03:45 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to
> >> systemd, I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't
> >> be sysvinit.
> 
> Why not? I do not see sysvinit -- or any other legacy init system,
> for that matter -- as contradicting the following:

Systemd is intended as a "modern" replacement for sysvinit.  I wanted
to know if not systemd, what init others would choose to replace
sysvinit.  Simple question.  Difficult to answer.

B 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141116102221.3...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[The Wanderer]

On 11/16/2014 at 12:33 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:

> Le Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:53:24 +, Nuno Magalhães 
>  a écrit :
> 
>> On 2014-11-16 11:40, Klistvud wrote:
>> 
>>> 1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making
>>> them into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each
>>> other, which do the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them
>>> accomplishing at least the common subset of tasks an init system
>>> is supposed to provide.
>>> 
>>> 2. Complementing them with existing or new tools (again, drop-in
>>> interchangeable replacements of each other) which build on them
>>> and provide the next layer. For example, the kernel autofs
>>> facility provides very nice automounting and could be deployed
>>> to the majority of desktop installs (instead of being just an
>>> optional package, as it is now), thus making the various
>>> automount daemons of the various desktop environments/file
>>> managers virtually superfluous. As a further example, the former
>>> udev (prior to being merged into systemd) has already been
>>> forked and could/will serve us well for years to come. And so
>>> on.
>> 
>> +1 for being reasonable and making sense
>> 
>> It's an approach that would keep a lot of people happy and, more
>> importantly (at least to me), it gives the user choice instead of
>> taking it away. At least this way each user could choose the
>> loosely-coupled components s/he wanted.
> 
> Are you aware that this is the approach that systemd and upstart have
> taken, right?
> 
> 1) Both systemd (PID1) and upstart are drop-in replacement for the
> good old SysVinit as they both support the common "standard" that
> are LSB scripts (A really good share of the existing LSB initscripts
> in the debian archive are just working out of the box).

Not a "full" drop-in replacement; with systemd replacing sysvinit,
unless you change configuration settings elsewhere, you will see
behavior changes that aren't unambiguous 100% improvements.

A drop-in replacement must, at minimum, Just Work in all of the same
environments and with all of the same configurations where the thing
being replaced already worked. systemd mostly does that, but not
entirely - fstab-related boot failures (lack of noauto / nofail leading
to a boot failure with systemd, where with sysvinit it would not),
issues with booting on/from/to encrypted filesystems, et cetera.

A drop-in replacement should, theoretically and ideally, work *exactly
the same way* as the thing being replaced, when presented the exact same
configuration, except possibly when it can work in a way which is
obviously and incontrovertibly better. There are cases in which systemd
does not do that - consider the "quiet" kernel command-line option, for
example.

Now, there may be good reason to have systemd prefer to not behave in
the same way as sysvinit in these regards, and there's certainly nothing
saying that it can't or shouldn't do so in its own configuration.

But to the extent that it does not do so *by default*, in a
configuration inherited from a sysvinit machine, it is not a full
drop-in replacement for sysvinit.

> But then you cannot blame the systemd project for 3rd party software
> taking advantages of these new functionalities if they think they
> fit their usecases.

I can, however, blame the systemd project for having implemented these
new functionalities in a way which only works in the presence of
functionality which is only provided by their own init system. But
that's a mostly separate argument, which I don't really care to rehash
at present.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Martin Read]

On 16/11/14 17:33, Laurent Bigonville wrote:

Are you aware that this is the approach that systemd and upstart have
taken, right?

1) Both systemd (PID1) and upstart are drop-in replacement for the good
old SysVinit as they both support the common "standard" that are LSB
scripts (A really good share of the existing LSB initscripts in the
debian archive are just working out of the box).


Well. They're (mostly) a drop-in replacement for sysvrc and its 
supporting tools. They're certainly not a *drop-in* replacement for 
*sysvinit*, because they don't support all of sysvinit's interfaces; 
specifically, they don't support /etc/inittab.


Luckily (for some values of lucky), /etc/inittab was such a terrible 
interface (it's unpleasantly reminiscent of Angband's monster, item, 
etc. databases) that it seems even most people who prefer sysvinit to 
systemd or upstart were using a factory-default /etc/inittab.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5468e830.30...@zen.co.uk

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Laurent Bigonville]

Le Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:53:24 +,
Nuno Magalhães  a écrit :

> On 2014-11-16 11:40, Klistvud wrote:
> > 1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making them
> > into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each other,
> > which do the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them
> > accomplishing at least the common subset of tasks an init system is
> > supposed to provide.
> > 
> > 2. Complementing them with existing or new tools (again, drop-in
> > interchangeable replacements of each other) which build on them and
> > provide the next layer. For example, the kernel autofs facility
> > provides very nice automounting and could be deployed to the
> > majority of desktop installs (instead of being just an optional
> > package, as it is now), thus making the various automount daemons
> > of the various desktop environments/file managers virtually
> > superfluous. As a further example, the former udev (prior to being
> > merged into systemd) has already been forked and could/will serve
> > us well for years to come. And so on.
> 
> +1 for being reasonable and making sense
> 
> It's an approach that would keep a lot of people happy and, more
> importantly (at least to me), it gives the user choice instead of
> taking it away. At least this way each user could choose the
> loosely-coupled components s/he wanted.

Are you aware that this is the approach that systemd and upstart have
taken, right?

1) Both systemd (PID1) and upstart are drop-in replacement for the good
old SysVinit as they both support the common "standard" that are LSB
scripts (A really good share of the existing LSB initscripts in the
debian archive are just working out of the box).

2) Again that's exactly what systemd and upstart are doing, they have
added extra features to PID1 like socket activation, process tracking
or the fact that the daemons are started in a clean environment. And
then to that, the systemd project (outside of PID1) has consolidated
services (some of them dead upstream for _years_) under the same
umbrella project. All of this without preventing the already existing
implementations to be used. journald is _not_ preventing a syslog
daemon to be used, the .timer unit files are _not_ preventing cron to
be used and so on...

But then you cannot blame the systemd project for 3rd party software
taking advantages of these new functionalities if they think they fit
their usecases.

Laurent Bigonville


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141116183351.3bd37...@fornost.bigon.be

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Martin Read]

On 16/11/14 11:40, Klistvud wrote:

1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making them
into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each other, which do
the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them accomplishing at least
the common subset of tasks an init system is supposed to provide.


Given the profundity of disagreement about what "init systems" are 
"supposed to provide", I believe that this would be a Sisyphean task. 
Positions people hold on the topic include, but:


1. The init daemon should fork exactly once; in the child it should exec 
another program, while the parent (PID 1) does nothing except reap zombies.


2. As (1), except that if the initially-forked child process exits, PID 
1 should repeat the fork and exec-in-child procedure.


3. The init daemon should have a simple integrated service management 
mechanism akin to sysvinit's "/etc/inittab".


4. The init daemon should have a complex integrated service management 
mechanism, perhaps akin to those of upstart or systemd.


5. The init program should do some basic setup, then exec a service 
manager daemon *within PID 1*.


Moving on from *there*, let's take a look at two of the things you 
suggest, each of which are quite reasonable in isolation.


On the one hand, "making them into true, interchangeable drop-in 
replacements of each other" suggests to me that you think they should 
all have exactly the same set of interfaces and functionality. I don't 
agree with this position, but it's reasonable, though it's rather 
stifling (since now you can't add new functionality unless you can 
persuade all the other init maintainers to add it).


On the other, "each of them accomplishing at least the common subset of 
tasks an init system is supposed to provide" suggests to me that you 
think it would be all right for some of them to have extra interfaces 
and functionality - but as soon as you allow extra interfaces and 
functionality, you no longer achieve the "true, interchangeable drop-in 
replacements" part.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5468c4a7.5000...@zen.co.uk

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Hi,

Jerry Stuckle  writes:
> The problem here is lack of time and/or skills.  I would love to help,
> but I already have my plate full.  Additionally, I've done device
> drivers and applications, but never dealt with init systems.  There
> would be a big learning curve.  And then there is the politics of being
> accepted by the DD community.  Maybe some people don't think it's too
> bad - but I get enough politics in real life that I don't want to deal
> with it in a volunteer position.

If you do not have time/skill/motivation to deal with it yourself, there
is also the option of hiring someone to do the work for you.

See [1] for a list of people offering services for Debian to start
with.

  [1] 

> So why, instead of spending all this time on a new init system didn't
> developers already familiar with sysvinit work on it?  Systemd wasn't
> one person alone.

Presumably nobody was interested enough to do so.

>> 1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making them
>> into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each other, which do
>> the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them accomplishing at least
>> the common subset of tasks an init system is supposed to provide.
>
> That would be great, but it's not going to happen.  The TC has already
> indicated systemd is going to be the default, and packages are already
> beginning to require systemd.  I predict more and more packages will
> require systemd as time goes on.

It's not going to happen, because...

> This would also be great.  However, who's going to spend the time
> building these replacements?  Maintaining/upgrading sysvinit is minor
> compared to this job, and even that couldn't be done.

... nobody wants to work on it (at least not for free).

Ansgar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87zjbrkvtm@deep-thought.43-1.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 11/16/2014 6:40 AM, Klistvud wrote:
> Dne, 21. 10. 2014 04:06:23 je Marty napisal(a):
>> On 10/20/2014 03:45 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
>>> I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.
> 
> Why not? I do not see sysvinit -- or any other legacy init system, for
> that matter -- as contradicting the following:
> 
>> Whichever one the user wants is the best. The users should decide,
>> individually and collectively. The distro should be the testbed for
>> new ideas, with users trying out and choosing solutions that work best
>> for them. Debian should not make that choice for users. "Upstreams"
>> should not make that choice for Debian.
> 
> I'll second that. There has been much gnashing of teeth and talking
> about forks and pitchforks on this list. Instead of talking of
> catastrophic upheavals, such as systemd or forking, why not talk of
> refreshing/refurbishing/maintaining sysvinit and other existing systems?
> After all, we probably wouldn't be dealing with this hot systemd potato
> now had sysvinit been maintained intensely, actively, and with adequate
> manpower through all these years. Instead, it has been left more or less
> bitrotting on savannah (kudos to the few maintainers working on it
> despite the hostile stance of the Linux community), and this major
> upheaval is now the result.
>

The problem here is lack of time and/or skills.  I would love to help,
but I already have my plate full.  Additionally, I've done device
drivers and applications, but never dealt with init systems.  There
would be a big learning curve.  And then there is the politics of being
accepted by the DD community.  Maybe some people don't think it's too
bad - but I get enough politics in real life that I don't want to deal
with it in a volunteer position.

Most of the qualified people I know are pretty much in the same position.

>>
>> This is official Debian Policy but some people seem upset about it.
> 
> Exactly. Instead of all the ire, sysvinit & alternatives are in dire
> need of some love. Instead of reinventing the square wheel, much of this
> misguided energy could be directed toward patching up the old wheels
> which, after all, had been serving us -- and serving us well -- for the
> last 20 years.
> 

So why, instead of spending all this time on a new init system didn't
developers already familiar with sysvinit work on it?  Systemd wasn't
one person alone.

>> I hope this just a misunderstanding that gets cleared up after the
>> dust settles and everyone starts talking again, instead of just
>> yelling at each other.
> 
> Ditto. I hope some defectors come back to Debian and realize that if
> they give Debian/upstream packages some work, many bitrotten packages
> may be reinstated into Debian main, without having to make a blend/fork
> or whatever. For the benefit of us all.
> 

I don't think this is going to happen.  I know a lot of people who are
looking at another distro, or even helping with a fork.  This includes
me.  And when I find a distro I like, I won't be coming back.  The
others feel the same way.

I don't change distros very often; it's a lot of work to test new
systems before placing in production.  And then there is the learning
curve.

>>> So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
>>> Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?
>>
>> We all should be able to propose our ideal solution with a reasonable
>> expectation that if it's a good idea, and somebody does the work, it
>> could be adopted and help other people, without being unduly hindered
>> by a software bundle laying exclusive claim to PID 1.
> 
> 1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making them
> into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each other, which do
> the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them accomplishing at least
> the common subset of tasks an init system is supposed to provide.
> 

That would be great, but it's not going to happen.  The TC has already
indicated systemd is going to be the default, and packages are already
beginning to require systemd.  I predict more and more packages will
require systemd as time goes on.

> 2. Complementing them with existing or new tools (again, drop-in
> interchangeable replacements of each other) which build on them and
> provide the next layer. For example, the kernel autofs facility provides
> very nice automounting and could be deployed to the majority of desktop
> installs (instead of being just an optional package, as it is now), thus
> making the various automount daemons of the various desktop
> environments/file managers virtually superfluous. As a further example,
> the former udev (prior to being merged into systemd) has already been
> forked and could/will serve us well for years to come. And so on.
>

This would also be great.  However, who's going to spend the time
building these replacements?  Maintaining

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Hi,

Nuno Magalhães  writes:
> On 2014-11-16 11:40, Klistvud wrote:
>> 1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making them
>> into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each other, which do
>> the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them accomplishing at least
>> the common subset of tasks an init system is supposed to provide.
>> 
>> 2. Complementing them with existing or new tools (again, drop-in
>> interchangeable replacements of each other) which build on them and
>> provide the next layer. For example, the kernel autofs facility provides
>> very nice automounting and could be deployed to the majority of desktop
>> installs (instead of being just an optional package, as it is now), thus
>> making the various automount daemons of the various desktop
>> environments/file managers virtually superfluous. As a further example,
>> the former udev (prior to being merged into systemd) has already been
>> forked and could/will serve us well for years to come. And so on.
>
> +1 for being reasonable and making sense
>
> It's an approach that would keep a lot of people happy and, more
> importantly (at least to me), it gives the user choice instead of taking
> it away. At least this way each user could choose the loosely-coupled
> components s/he wanted.

Nobody is stopping anybody from improving sysvinit if they want to. So,
have fun hacking on it. ;)

Ansgar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8761efp6ka@deep-thought.43-1.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Nuno Magalhães]

On 2014-11-16 11:40, Klistvud wrote:
> 1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making them
> into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each other, which do
> the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them accomplishing at least
> the common subset of tasks an init system is supposed to provide.
> 
> 2. Complementing them with existing or new tools (again, drop-in
> interchangeable replacements of each other) which build on them and
> provide the next layer. For example, the kernel autofs facility provides
> very nice automounting and could be deployed to the majority of desktop
> installs (instead of being just an optional package, as it is now), thus
> making the various automount daemons of the various desktop
> environments/file managers virtually superfluous. As a further example,
> the former udev (prior to being merged into systemd) has already been
> forked and could/will serve us well for years to come. And so on.

+1 for being reasonable and making sense

It's an approach that would keep a lot of people happy and, more
importantly (at least to me), it gives the user choice instead of taking
it away. At least this way each user could choose the loosely-coupled
components s/he wanted.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5468ac54.6040...@eu.ipp.pt

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Klistvud]

Dne, 21. 10. 2014 04:06:23 je Marty napisal(a):

On 10/20/2014 03:45 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:

After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.


Why not? I do not see sysvinit -- or any other legacy init system, for  
that matter -- as contradicting the following:


Whichever one the user wants is the best. The users should decide,  
individually and collectively. The distro should be the testbed for  
new ideas, with users trying out and choosing solutions that work  
best for them. Debian should not make that choice for users.  
"Upstreams" should not make that choice for Debian.


I'll second that. There has been much gnashing of teeth and talking  
about forks and pitchforks on this list. Instead of talking of  
catastrophic upheavals, such as systemd or forking, why not talk of  
refreshing/refurbishing/maintaining sysvinit and other existing  
systems? After all, we probably wouldn't be dealing with this hot  
systemd potato now had sysvinit been maintained intensely, actively,  
and with adequate manpower through all these years. Instead, it has  
been left more or less bitrotting on savannah (kudos to the few  
maintainers working on it despite the hostile stance of the Linux  
community), and this major upheaval is now the result.




This is official Debian Policy but some people seem upset about it.


Exactly. Instead of all the ire, sysvinit & alternatives are in dire  
need of some love. Instead of reinventing the square wheel, much of  
this misguided energy could be directed toward patching up the old  
wheels which, after all, had been serving us -- and serving us well --  
for the last 20 years.


I hope this just a misunderstanding that gets cleared up after the  
dust settles and everyone starts talking again, instead of just  
yelling at each other.


Ditto. I hope some defectors come back to Debian and realize that if  
they give Debian/upstream packages some work, many bitrotten packages  
may be reinstated into Debian main, without having to make a blend/fork  
or whatever. For the benefit of us all.


So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user  
desktop?

Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?


We all should be able to propose our ideal solution with a reasonable  
expectation that if it's a good idea, and somebody does the work, it  
could be adopted and help other people, without being unduly hindered  
by a software bundle laying exclusive claim to PID 1.


1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making them  
into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each other, which do  
the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them accomplishing at least  
the common subset of tasks an init system is supposed to provide.


2. Complementing them with existing or new tools (again, drop-in  
interchangeable replacements of each other) which build on them and  
provide the next layer. For example, the kernel autofs facility  
provides very nice automounting and could be deployed to the majority  
of desktop installs (instead of being just an optional package, as it  
is now), thus making the various automount daemons of the various  
desktop environments/file managers virtually superfluous. As a further  
example, the former udev (prior to being merged into systemd) has  
already been forked and could/will serve us well for years to come. And  
so on.


We don't need another Windows,
We don't need to know the way /home
All we want is life beyond the Thunderdome


--
Kinda regards,
my beast washes

Klistvud  
http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com
Certifiable Loonix Oozer #481801 Please reply to the list, not to  
me.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1416138037.11318.0@compax

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Tanstaafl]

On 11/13/2014 3:42 PM, Andrei POPESCU  wrote:
> On Jo, 13 nov 14, 11:28:57, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>> Yes, apparently because someone actively sabotaged any possibility of
>> OpenRC being considered by giving improper bad information on how to use
>> it...
> 
> OpenRC was "represented" by its Maintainer in the init debate (Thomas 
> Goirand). Are you saying he intentionally sabotaged it to not be 
> considered?

I'm not, but that seemed to be what someone else said - although when I
asked for clarification, none was forthcoming:

On 10/24/2014 7:07 AM, Tanstaafl  wrote:> On
10/24/2014 4:49 AM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
>  wrote:
>> Tanstaafl:
>>> And why was OpenRC not a  contender?

>> Your question takes a falsehood as its premise. It actually was, 
>> contrary to what M. Popescu dismissively stated. Several members of
>> the technical committee took it and tried to use it themselves,
>> just as they did the other systems; and it was included on the
>> formal ballots and in the votes.

> I actually do remember reading a fleeting mention of it somewhere in
> the vast sea of stuff I read when trying to catch up on this issue...
>
>> Contrastingly, the people who were propounding OpenRC at the
>> time provided a good example of how NOT to go about doing so.  Their
>> several mistakes are worth learning from.
>
> Not sure I understand what you are saying here...
>
> Are you saying that some of the people who suggested OpenRC actually
> provided BAD examples - meaning, examples that were destined to result
> in problems - of how to use it in Debian? If so, maybe that was on
> purpose, to decrease the chances of OpenRC being a real contender?
>
> The fact is, OpenRC has been the default init system on gentoo since I
> don't know when, and I have *never* had an init problem on any of my
> gentoo systems - although I admittedly never use unstable/testing for
> system-critical packages either...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54652207.7050...@libertytrek.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Jo, 13 nov 14, 11:28:57, Tanstaafl wrote:
> 
> Yes, apparently because someone actively sabotaged any possibility of
> OpenRC being considered by giving improper bad information on how to use
> it...

OpenRC was "represented" by its Maintainer in the init debate (Thomas 
Goirand). Are you saying he intentionally sabotaged it to not be 
considered?

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Tanstaafl]

On 11/13/2014 10:53 AM, Lisi Reisz  wrote:
> On Saturday 08 November 2014 15:31:02 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>> Andrei Popescu:
>>> Quote from above, with added  emphasis:
>>  >> Upstart was the only *real* contender to systemd *at the time* of
>>  >> the evaluation for the Technical Committee, [...]
>>
>> Yes, that's exactly where you were dismissive.  It ill behove you, and
>> you were wrong.
> 
> No, the final vote was between upstart and systemd.

Yes, apparently because someone actively sabotaged any possibility of
OpenRC being considered by giving improper bad information on how to use
it...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5464dc49.20...@libertytrek.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Lisi Reisz]

On Saturday 08 November 2014 15:31:02 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Andrei Popescu:
> > Upstart was the only realcontender to systemd at the time of the
> >
>  > evaluation by the Technical Committee, but it has or is being
>  > replaced by systemd everywhere.
>
> Tanstaafl:
> > And why was OPenRC not acontender?
>
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:
> > Your question takes a falsehood  as its premise.  It actually was,
> >
>  > contrary to what M. Popescu dismissively stated. Several members of
>  > the technical committee took it and tried to use it themselves, just
>  > as they did the other systems; and it was included on the formal
>  > ballots and in the votes.
>
> Andrei Popescu:
> > Quote from above, with added  emphasis:
>  >> Upstart was the only *real* contender to systemd *at the time* of
>  >> the evaluation for the Technical Committee, [...]
>
> Yes, that's exactly where you were dismissive.  It ill behove you, and
> you were wrong.

No, the final vote was between upstart and systemd.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201411131553.06894.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

Andrei Popescu:

Upstart was the only realcontender to systemd at the time of the

> evaluation by the Technical Committee, but it has or is being
> replaced by systemd everywhere.

Tanstaafl:

And why was OPenRC not acontender?


Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:

Your question takes a falsehood  as its premise.  It actually was,

> contrary to what M. Popescu dismissively stated. Several members of
> the technical committee took it and tried to use it themselves, just
> as they did the other systems; and it was included on the formal
> ballots and in the votes.

Andrei Popescu:

Quote from above, with added  emphasis:

>> Upstart was the only *real* contender to systemd *at the time* of
>> the evaluation for the Technical Committee, [...]

Yes, that's exactly where you were dismissive.  It ill behove you, and 
you were wrong.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/545e3736.4010...@ntlworld.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:

Contrastingly, the people who  were propounding OpenRC at the time

> provided a good example of how NOT to go about doing so. Their
> several mistakes are worth learning from.

Tanstaafl:

Not sure I understand what you  are saying here...

>
> Are you saying that some of the people who suggested OpenRC actually
> provided BAD examples - meaning, examples that were destined to
> result in problems - of how to use it in Debian?

No; it was more an entirely bungled presentation.  For example: They 
reacted badly and disproportionately to being told about simple 
problems, like the fact that what they had presented didn't have any 
doco at all.  That's a mistake worth learning from.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/545e370d.8040...@ntlworld.com

Re: Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Vi, 24 oct 14, 09:49:46, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Andrei Popescu:
> >Upstart was the only real  contender to systemd at the time of the
> > evaluation by the Technical Committee, but it has or is being
> > replaced by systemd everywhere.
> 
> Tanstaafl:
> >And why was OPenRC not a  contender?
> 
> Your question takes a falsehood as its premise.  It actually was, contrary
> to what M. Popescu dismissively stated. 

Quote from above, with added emphasis:

Upstart was the only *real* contender to systemd *at the time* of 
the evaluation for the Technical Committee, [...]

> Several members of the technical
> committee took it and tried to use it themselves, just as they did the other
> systems; and it was included on the formal ballots and in the votes.

In my opinion that was more a formality, it was quite clear that OpenRC 
would be beaten by both systemd and upstart. It did reach quorum though 
(i.e. better than Further Discussion), which SysV did not.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00402.html

> Contrastingly, the people who were propounding OpenRC at the time provided a
> good example of how NOT to go about doing so.  Their several mistakes are
> worth learning from.

Fully agreed.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Tanstaafl]

On 10/24/2014 4:49 AM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
 wrote:
> Tanstaafl:
>> And why was OPenRC not a  contender?

> Your question takes a falsehood as its premise.  It actually was, 
> contrary to what M. Popescu dismissively stated.  Several members of the 
> technical committee took it and tried to use it themselves, just as they 
> did the other systems; and it was included on the formal ballots and in 
> the votes.

I actually do remember reading a fleeting mention of it somewhere in
the vast sea of stuff I read when trying to catch up on this issue...

> Contrastingly, the people who were propounding OpenRC at the 
> time provided a good example of how NOT to go about doing so.  Their 
> several mistakes are worth learning from.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here...

Are you saying that some of the people who suggested OpenRC actually
provided BAD examples - meaning, examples that were destined to result
in problems - of how to use it in Debian? If so, maybe that was on
purpose, to decrease the chances of OpenRC being a real contender?

The fact is, OpenRC has been the default init system on gentoo since I
don't know when, and I have *never* had an init problem on any of my
gentoo systems - although I admittedly never use unstable/testing for
system-critical packages either...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544a32ef.3090...@libertytrek.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Tanstaafl]

On 10/23/2014 4:10 PM, koanhead  wrote:
> I propose OpenRC, having recently tried it. So far I'm liking how it
> works, and it solves most of the problems I had with sysvinit. It's not
> a replacement for PID1, and is supposed to be compatible with arbitrary
> PID1 programs (sysvinit, sytemd, runit, etc.) I expect to test it with
> other PID1 programs at some point, but for now I'm still learning it.
> There's also runit, which I haven't tried yet but about which I've heard
> good things; and daemontools, which has already been talked up on this
> list. All these are already in Debian's repositories.

Seconded...

OpenRC has also been the default init system for gentoo for as long as I
can remember knowing what init system I was running on my gentoo server
(I had help setting up the first one ten years ago, so I don't know if
it was the default then)...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544a2f86.2070...@libertytrek.org

Re: Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

Andrei Popescu:

Upstart was the only real  contender to systemd at the time of the

> evaluation by the Technical Committee, but it has or is being
> replaced by systemd everywhere.

Tanstaafl:

And why was OPenRC not a  contender?


Your question takes a falsehood as its premise.  It actually was, 
contrary to what M. Popescu dismissively stated.  Several members of the 
technical committee took it and tried to use it themselves, just as they 
did the other systems; and it was included on the formal ballots and in 
the votes.  Contrastingly, the people who were propounding OpenRC at the 
time provided a good example of how NOT to go about doing so.  Their 
several mistakes are worth learning from.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544a12aa.10...@ntlworld.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, koanhead wrote:

> On 10/20/2014 04:00 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to
> > systemd, I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't
> > be sysvinit.
> > 
> > Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's
> > been patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things
> > that weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's
> > long past due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.
> > 
> > So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user
> > desktop? Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?
> 
> I propose OpenRC, having recently tried it. So far I'm liking how it
> works, and it solves most of the problems I had with sysvinit. It's
> not a replacement for PID1, and is supposed to be compatible with
> arbitrary PID1 programs (sysvinit, sytemd, runit, etc.) I expect to
> test it with other PID1 programs at some point, but for now I'm still
> learning it. There's also runit, which I haven't tried yet but about
> which I've heard good things; and daemontools, which has already been
> talked up on this list. All these are already in Debian's
> repositories.

I myself have been looking at runit for a just-for-fun try at replacing
systemd in Jessie running in a VM.  One of the reasons for considering
runit is it purports to be a "drop-in" replacement for sysvinit, either
in part or wholly.

I've heard of OpenRC, but haven't really researched it much.  I'll take
a more lengthy look at it. 

Thanks for the reply.

B


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141023153145.26cb5...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[koanhead]

On 10/20/2014 04:00 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
> I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.
> 
> Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
> patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
> weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
> due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.
> 
> So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
> Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?

I propose OpenRC, having recently tried it. So far I'm liking how it
works, and it solves most of the problems I had with sysvinit. It's not
a replacement for PID1, and is supposed to be compatible with arbitrary
PID1 programs (sysvinit, sytemd, runit, etc.) I expect to test it with
other PID1 programs at some point, but for now I'm still learning it.
There's also runit, which I haven't tried yet but about which I've heard
good things; and daemontools, which has already been talked up on this
list. All these are already in Debian's repositories.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m2bnc3$vh0$1...@news.albasani.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:27:45AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Ok, let's start with:
> - it's the rare desktop that has a fiber channel interface
snip

It's a rare server, too.

Nearly all of our physical servers are VM hosts, onto which we fit around 100
VMs. Physical servers are at best <5% of all our "servers", and the traits of
physical servers are therefore relatively scarce.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141023064941.gc20...@chew.redmars.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 22/10/14 21:23, Rusi Mody wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:20:05 PM UTC+5:30, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> On 21/10/14 15:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:
 Scott Ferguson wrote:

> 
> Are you guys just having fun talking past each other?

I can only speak for myself - no. I doubt Miles is having fun either.
And as it's apparent not a discussion I don't intend to pursue it.

I'm sure Miles does have some good points - and is a knowledgeable guy,
but he doesn't appear to be deploying a logic schema upon which to base
a technical discussion instead of continual goal shifting in an attempt
to substantiate an opinion based mostly on emotion (fear).

I 'can' understand: why he feels so emotional about it ; how that
emotion can affect thinking/writing.

> Or seriously dont know the two meanings of 'server'?

No. I was aware of both.

Three actually - to 'some' people, who have an annoying habit of
differentiating between "server" and "desktop" on the basis of case
style or location.

> 
> First two here: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/server
> 
> 

Kind regards


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5448241f.8030...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 22/10/14 20:51, Reco wrote:
>  Hi.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:27:45AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Scott Ferguson wrote:
> 
>> - when's the last time you saw a desktop or laptop with an IPMI BMC
>> (or for that matter, had a BMC infected by a virus - not pretty)
>> (note: if you don't know what BMC stands for, then go away and learn
>> something about serious data centers, before weighing in on the
>> distinctions between desktops and servers)
> 
> A minor nitpick - there's Intel AMT which specifically targets desktops
> to provide capabilities similar to BMC.
> 
> Reco
> 
> 


And (the old) HP Kayak range also, both "Desktops" and "Servers".

I'm now struggling to see how this directly relates to Debian.

Kind regards


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5448214e.1030...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 22/10/14 20:27, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 21/10/14 15:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Scott Ferguson wrote:
 Good question Patrick - top posted as I'm referring to the Subject.

 On 21/10/14 06:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
> I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.
>
> Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
> patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
> weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
> due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.
>
> So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
> Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?
 One of the difficulties is that there is no clear distinction between a
 desktop and a server - just degrees.

>>> Um, yes, there is.  Typically different hardware (headless for
>>> starters), storage area networks, clusters, high availability, as well
>>> as different role, and so forth.
>>>
>>> Miles
>>>
>> With respect, you're just repeating your claim that there is a clear
>> distinction between server and desktop - not proving it, which doesn't
>> advance the discussion.
> 
> Ok, let's start with:
> - it's the rare desktop that has a fiber channel interface
> - it's the rare desktop that has an interface for dual-ported disk drives
> - it's the rare desktop configuration that splits processing and storage
> (e.g., blade servers + storage servers)
> - in servers, large RAID arrays are common, desktops might have a pair
> of mirrored disks, never seen anybody set up a desktop for RAID5,6,10
> - these days, servers are generally run in clusters, with cluster file
> systems, and environments like openstack on top of them
> - when it comes to performance, desktops generally emphasize graphics
> performance (e.g., for gaming, video editing, and such); servers are
> designed more for how many virtual machines they can run
> - high-availability clustering is a big data center concern, not a
> desktop concern (anybody run DRBD, or Corosync on a dekstop?)
> - when it comes to virtualization, on desktops its mostly for running
> programs in other environments; for servers its mostly about supporting
> lots of independent users and services
> - when's the last time you saw a desktop or laptop with an IPMI BMC (or
> for that matter, had a BMC infected by a virus - not pretty) (note: if
> you don't know what BMC stands for, then go away and learn something
> about serious data centers, before weighing in on the distinctions
> between desktops and servers)
> - scalability, optimization for transaction processing, high-volume mail
> processing, etc., etc., etc. - not issues that one worries about on the
> desktop

I don't disagree with any of the above.

Respectfully, I repeat:-
; there is no *clear* distinction between server and desktop.
; you have not advanced the discussion (expand and/or tangent != advance)


> 
>>
>> Samba is a server, as is NFS, and apache. If you run them on a desktop
>> is it still *just* a desktop?
>>
>> Can you not run a desktop on server hardware?
> 
> Generally not - except remotely - given that most servers are headless
> and don't have graphics boards.  

Please, you're a smart guy and have no need to stoop to advancing
selective cases as evidence of *clear* distinctions.

> Yeah, one can X- into a server, if you
> install the software.  Many (most?) don't - CLI and various management
> tools is plenty good for server admin

Agreed.


> one of the reasons that a lot of sysadmins don't like systemd).

Opinions vary - not that "a lot" is *not* case, but that "a lot"
constitutes a "significant" percentage - or a "majority".

Of the sysadmin I've spoken to - the majority (a slight majority) hold
an opinion similar to mine:- we don't have one[*1], we are *very* wary
of "popular opinion" (lowest common denominator?), we are primarily
technicians and engineers not writers and have a strong preference for
demonstrated facts ("in the course of extensive testing").

[*1] as a result of "considering" two opposing opinions

> 
>> Can you not run a server on desktop hardware?
> 
> Not if you're supporting a serious load - unless you're clustering lots
> of machines (but once you cluster a few hundred motherboards, you're
> talking a desktop machine, you're talking a cluster).

Again, selective instances. *Not* "clear cut distinctions".

> 
>>
>> I don't "believe" you've thought this through... :
>>
>> I'll leave pulseaudio out, just to make things simpler (and acknowledge
>> that "simple" is a synonym for "dumb").
> 
> I don't believe you have any knowledge whatsoever about data centers or
> real servers - and are talking through your hat.  

That's the problem with "beliefs" - they can be the core of
"confirmation bias" - as to the insults, I'd normal

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 22/10/14 19:05, Joe wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:04:26 +1100
> Scott Ferguson  wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>> P.S. I have been told that one major distro does (or is attempting to
>> do) just that - separate into a 'server' and a 'desktop' distribution.
>>
>>
> 
> What, like Windows? 

No.
A Linux distro. SUSE.

> I think that really is the point that is being
> made, that Windows has always made the distinction, with the server OS
> being very expensive and requiring access licences for machines or
> people making use of it. Microsoft server software, such as DNS and
> the full web server is only available on the server OS, with a few
> cut-down versions on workstations.
> 
> With Linux, it is (so far) only usage which determines the category,
> e.g. with few exceptions, servers are continuously powered, don't
> have monitors, many don't have X, etc. There is no software which is
> *only* installable on a server, though there is some which isn't
> really practical on an intermittently-powered machine.
> 


Kind regards.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54481b6a.9000...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jimmy Johnson]

Martin Steigerwald wrote:

Jimmy, I wrote to you off list, and you put my personal reply on the list. 
Please don�t do that. I mean personal replies as personal replies.



I think I am not interested into digging into this topic further anyway.


No problem and sorry as I did not realize you where posting off list.
--
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Squeeze - KDE 4.4.5 - AMD64 - EXT4 at sda11
Registered Linux User #380263


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5448105b.9080...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Martin Steigerwald]

Am Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2014, 12:34:16 schrieb Jimmy Johnson:
> Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2014, 11:37:51 schrieben Sie:
> >>> Its Jessie/Sid that are under some circumstances difficult to use
> >>> without
> >>> systemd. As to my current knowledge one of the circumstances is an
> >>> installed  GNOME desktop.
> >> 
> >> I install using the Debian-Live-KDE-iso(another project I have helped
> >> with) and will continue my testing and upgrading of Debian systems for
> >> as long as Debian fits my needs.
> >> 
> >> Upon the first sign of a backdoor and/or keylogger being installed and
> >> used in Debian by default it will begone and mentally ripped to shreds.
> > 
> > Huh? Where does your fear of that come from?
> 
> Martin, "fear"..I have no fear..but I'm not naive ether and taking this
> subject any further on list I will not do, but you are welcome to
> contact me off list.

Jimmy, I wrote to you off list, and you put my personal reply on the list. 
Please don´t do that. I mean personal replies as personal replies.

I think I am not interested into digging into this topic further anyway.

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3337305.afCvyX72Cr@merkaba

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Ric Moore]

On 10/22/2014 12:17 PM, Jimmy Johnson wrote:

Martin Steigerwald wrote:

Am Montag, 20. Oktober 2014, 19:49:43 schrieb Jimmy Johnson:



So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?



Just wondering.

See above and unless you are a tester or developer you may want to
roll-back to Squeeze.



Why Squeeze? Wheezy has sysvinit just fine… and so or so I expect
Jessie to work with sysvinit as well.



Hi Martin, Something I did not know at the time you asked the question:
Why Squeeze?.

Is that Wheezy was used by Debian to test systemd and even though I did
not know this at that time I did not feel comfortable using Wheezy as my
main desktop and now knowing that Wheezy is capable of installing
systemd it will not be my main desktop until systemd is proven to be
safe to use, I need to know more than words from a blog or a wiki to
feel comfortable.

I have been able to customize Squeeze to do all and behave as good as
Wheeze but probably a little faster and once again I feel like a "Happy
Debian User". :)


You have to make a concerted effort to enable systemd to Wheezy. I mean, 
you really have to try hard. :) Ric


--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544808ee.5020...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jimmy Johnson]

Martin Steigerwald wrote:

Am Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2014, 11:37:51 schrieben Sie:
Its Jessie/Sid that are under some circumstances difficult to use without 
systemd. As to my current knowledge one of the circumstances is an

installed  GNOME desktop.
I install using the Debian-Live-KDE-iso(another project I have helped 
with) and will continue my testing and upgrading of Debian systems for 
as long as Debian fits my needs.


Upon the first sign of a backdoor and/or keylogger being installed and 
used in Debian by default it will begone and mentally ripped to shreds.


Huh? Where does your fear of that come from?



Martin, "fear"..I have no fear..but I'm not naive ether and taking this 
subject any further on list I will not do, but you are welcome to 
contact me off list.

--
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Squeeze - KDE 4.4.5 - AMD64 - EXT4 at sda11
Registered Linux User #380263


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544806b8.9080...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Mi, 22 oct 14, 08:44:02, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/21/2014 4:21 PM, Andrei POPESCU  wrote:
> > Upstart was the only real contender to systemd at the time of the 
> > evaluation by the Technical Committee, but it has or is being replaced 
> > by systemd everywhere.
> 
> And why was OPenRC not a contender?

It's all in the debate, but from the top of my head: not ready, lack of 
documentation, not much gain compared to the migration costs, could have 
been more.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jimmy Johnson]

Martin Steigerwald wrote:

Hi Jimmy,

Am Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2014, 09:17:16 schrieb Jimmy Johnson:

Martin Steigerwald wrote:

Am Montag, 20. Oktober 2014, 19:49:43 schrieb Jimmy Johnson:



So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?

Just wondering.

See above and unless you are a tester or developer you may want to
roll-back to Squeeze.

Why Squeeze? Wheezy has sysvinit just fine… and so or so I expect Jessie
to
work with sysvinit as well.




Hi Martin, Something I did not know at the time you asked the question:
Why Squeeze?.

Is that Wheezy was used by Debian to test systemd and even though I did
not know this at that time I did not feel comfortable using Wheezy as my
main desktop and now knowing that Wheezy is capable of installing
systemd it will not be my main desktop until systemd is proven to be
safe to use, I need to know more than words from a blog or a wiki to
feel comfortable.

I have been able to customize Squeeze to do all and behave as good as
Wheeze but probably a little faster and once again I feel like a "Happy
Debian User". :)


While Wheezy has systemd packages and it somewhat works, but also had lots of 
issues in my testing with really systemd packages, its optional.


So as long as you do not install it, you will have sysvinit just as with 
Squeeze. So systemd is not a reason to delay an update from Squeeze to Wheezy.


As I have posted elsewhere, I have more than a few installs of Wheezy, I 
also have testing and unstable installed too, they will remain as always 
until I no longer have an interest in Debian and that will be a sad day 
if and when it happens.


Its Jessie/Sid that are under some circumstances difficult to use without 
systemd. As to my current knowledge one of the circumstances is an installed 
GNOME desktop.


I install using the Debian-Live-KDE-iso(another project I have helped 
with) and will continue my testing and upgrading of Debian systems for 
as long as Debian fits my needs.


Upon the first sign of a backdoor and/or keylogger being installed and 
used in Debian by default it will begone and mentally ripped to shreds.

--
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Squeeze - KDE 4.4.5 - AMD64 - EXT4 at sda11
Registered Linux User #380263


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5447f97f.4010...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Martin Steigerwald]

Hi Jimmy,

Am Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2014, 09:17:16 schrieb Jimmy Johnson:
> Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Montag, 20. Oktober 2014, 19:49:43 schrieb Jimmy Johnson:
> >>> So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
> >>> Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?
> >>> 
> >>> Just wondering.
> >> 
> >> See above and unless you are a tester or developer you may want to
> >> roll-back to Squeeze.
> > 
> > Why Squeeze? Wheezy has sysvinit just fine… and so or so I expect Jessie
> > to
> > work with sysvinit as well.
> 
> Hi Martin, Something I did not know at the time you asked the question:
> Why Squeeze?.
> 
> Is that Wheezy was used by Debian to test systemd and even though I did
> not know this at that time I did not feel comfortable using Wheezy as my
> main desktop and now knowing that Wheezy is capable of installing
> systemd it will not be my main desktop until systemd is proven to be
> safe to use, I need to know more than words from a blog or a wiki to
> feel comfortable.
> 
> I have been able to customize Squeeze to do all and behave as good as
> Wheeze but probably a little faster and once again I feel like a "Happy
> Debian User". :)

While Wheezy has systemd packages and it somewhat works, but also had lots of 
issues in my testing with really systemd packages, its optional.

So as long as you do not install it, you will have sysvinit just as with 
Squeeze. So systemd is not a reason to delay an update from Squeeze to Wheezy.

Its Jessie/Sid that are under some circumstances difficult to use without 
systemd. As to my current knowledge one of the circumstances is an installed 
GNOME desktop.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/13094961.CDQsp2eu1D@merkaba

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jimmy Johnson]

Patrick Bartek wrote:

After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.

Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception. 


And it still works and is completely customizable. Wow! Just maybe I can 
get by using it for a couple more years.

--
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Squeeze - KDE 4.4.5 - AMD64 - EXT4 at sda11
Registered Linux User #380263


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5447da97.8080...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jimmy Johnson]

Martin Steigerwald wrote:

Am Montag, 20. Oktober 2014, 19:49:43 schrieb Jimmy Johnson:



So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?



Just wondering.
See above and unless you are a tester or developer you may want to 
roll-back to Squeeze.


Why Squeeze? Wheezy has sysvinit just fine… and so or so I expect Jessie to 
work with sysvinit as well.



Hi Martin, Something I did not know at the time you asked the question: 
Why Squeeze?.


Is that Wheezy was used by Debian to test systemd and even though I did 
not know this at that time I did not feel comfortable using Wheezy as my 
main desktop and now knowing that Wheezy is capable of installing 
systemd it will not be my main desktop until systemd is proven to be 
safe to use, I need to know more than words from a blog or a wiki to 
feel comfortable.


I have been able to customize Squeeze to do all and behave as good as 
Wheeze but probably a little faster and once again I feel like a "Happy 
Debian User". :)

--
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Squeeze - KDE 4.4.5 - AMD64 - EXT4 at sda11
Registered Linux User #380263


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5447d88c@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Miles Fidelman]

Peter Nieman wrote:

On 21/10/14 21:08, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Steve Litt wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:18:49 +0200
Raffaele Morelli  wrote:

Using systemd since 2014-08-09 with no issues.

Good for you. Let's see if you have no issues 2016-08-09, if Red Hat
wins its war against Linux.



Not quite sure I'd go that far - personally, this seems more like
Poettering on a mission to reshape Linux in his image, and is taking Red
Hat along for the ride.  But I could be wrong.


I hope you're not, because the only other explanations I can think of 
would be far more frightening. In one of the links Steve provided 
(http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html), 
Mr. "Pid Eins" (= "Pid One") tries to talk *all* Linux distributions 
into adopting his "reinvention how distributions work" [sic] "as part 
of the systemd project". Who would be interested in such a 
"unification" of all Linux distributions? Red Hat? Under normal 
circumstances, no corporation could possibly be interested in seeing 
its excellent ideas and its unique selling point being copied by all 
competitors. A corporation would want its competitors to adopt *bad* 
ideas - and then step back and watch the competitors dismantle 
themselves. And if we start thinking about who else would certainly 
benefit from such a homogenous landscape of highly opaque systems as 
that proposed by Mr. Pid Eins, we'll quickly enter the realm of what 
user or developer John Doe would call "conspiracy theories".




It occurs to me to wonder if anyone in the BSD or Illumos ecosystems 
might want to see Linux die (at least for server-side use). ;-)







--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5447b0a9.5050...@meetinghouse.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Tanstaafl]

On 10/21/2014 4:21 PM, Andrei POPESCU  wrote:
> Upstart was the only real contender to systemd at the time of the 
> evaluation by the Technical Committee, but it has or is being replaced 
> by systemd everywhere.

And why was OPenRC not a contender?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5447a692.1060...@libertytrek.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Peter Nieman]

On 21/10/14 21:08, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Steve Litt wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:18:49 +0200
Raffaele Morelli  wrote:

Using systemd since 2014-08-09 with no issues.

Good for you. Let's see if you have no issues 2016-08-09, if Red Hat
wins its war against Linux.



Not quite sure I'd go that far - personally, this seems more like
Poettering on a mission to reshape Linux in his image, and is taking Red
Hat along for the ride.  But I could be wrong.


I hope you're not, because the only other explanations I can think of 
would be far more frightening. In one of the links Steve provided 
(http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html), 
Mr. "Pid Eins" (= "Pid One") tries to talk *all* Linux distributions 
into adopting his "reinvention how distributions work" [sic] "as part of 
the systemd project". Who would be interested in such a "unification" of 
all Linux distributions? Red Hat? Under normal circumstances, no 
corporation could possibly be interested in seeing its excellent ideas 
and its unique selling point being copied by all competitors. A 
corporation would want its competitors to adopt *bad* ideas - and then 
step back and watch the competitors dismantle themselves. And if we 
start thinking about who else would certainly benefit from such a 
homogenous landscape of highly opaque systems as that proposed by Mr. 
Pid Eins, we'll quickly enter the realm of what user or developer John 
Doe would call "conspiracy theories".


p.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m288an$c20$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Rusi Mody]

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:20:05 PM UTC+5:30, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
> > On 21/10/14 15:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >> Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >>> Good question Patrick - top posted as I'm referring to the Subject.
> >>> On 21/10/14 06:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>  After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
>  I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.
>  Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
>  patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
>  weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
>  due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.
>  So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
>  Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?
> >>> One of the difficulties is that there is no clear distinction between a
> >>> desktop and a server - just degrees.
> >> Um, yes, there is.  Typically different hardware (headless for
> >> starters), storage area networks, clusters, high availability, as well
> >> as different role, and so forth.
> >> Miles
> > With respect, you're just repeating your claim that there is a clear
> > distinction between server and desktop - not proving it, which doesn't
> > advance the discussion.

> Ok, let's start with:
> - it's the rare desktop that has a fiber channel interface
> - it's the rare desktop that has an interface for dual-ported disk drives
> - it's the rare desktop configuration that splits processing and storage 
> (e.g., blade servers + storage servers)
> - in servers, large RAID arrays are common, desktops might have a pair 
> of mirrored disks, never seen anybody set up a desktop for RAID5,6,10
> - these days, servers are generally run in clusters, with cluster file 
> systems, and environments like openstack on top of them
> - when it comes to performance, desktops generally emphasize graphics 
> performance (e.g., for gaming, video editing, and such); servers are 
> designed more for how many virtual machines they can run
> - high-availability clustering is a big data center concern, not a 
> desktop concern (anybody run DRBD, or Corosync on a dekstop?)
> - when it comes to virtualization, on desktops its mostly for running 
> programs in other environments; for servers its mostly about supporting 
> lots of independent users and services
> - when's the last time you saw a desktop or laptop with an IPMI BMC (or 
> for that matter, had a BMC infected by a virus - not pretty) (note: if 
> you don't know what BMC stands for, then go away and learn something 
> about serious data centers, before weighing in on the distinctions 
> between desktops and servers)
> - scalability, optimization for transaction processing, high-volume mail 
> processing, etc., etc., etc. - not issues that one worries about on the 
> desktop

> > Samba is a server, as is NFS, and apache. If you run them on a desktop
> > is it still *just* a desktop?
> > Can you not run a desktop on server hardware?

> Generally not - except remotely - given that most servers are headless 
> and don't have graphics boards.  Yeah, one can X- into a server, if you 
> install the software.  Many (most?) don't - CLI and various management 
> tools is plenty good for server admin (along with lots of bash scripts - 
> one of the reasons that a lot of sysadmins don't like systemd).

> > Can you not run a server on desktop hardware?

> Not if you're supporting a serious load - unless you're clustering lots 
> of machines (but once you cluster a few hundred motherboards, you're 
> talking a desktop machine, you're talking a cluster).

> > I don't "believe" you've thought this through... :
> > I'll leave pulseaudio out, just to make things simpler (and acknowledge
> > that "simple" is a synonym for "dumb").

> I don't believe you have any knowledge whatsoever about data centers or 
> real servers - and are talking through your hat.  That you even mention 
> audio in the same conversation as
> servers says you're in a different universe.

Are you guys just having fun talking past each other?
Or seriously dont know the two meanings of 'server'?

First two here: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/server


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/b38ccdfc-09a1-4b17-865e-d6f3bdf85...@googlegroups.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Reco]

 Hi.

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:27:45AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:

> - when's the last time you saw a desktop or laptop with an IPMI BMC
> (or for that matter, had a BMC infected by a virus - not pretty)
> (note: if you don't know what BMC stands for, then go away and learn
> something about serious data centers, before weighing in on the
> distinctions between desktops and servers)

A minor nitpick - there's Intel AMT which specifically targets desktops
to provide capabilities similar to BMC.

Reco


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141022095110.GA23107@x101h

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Miles Fidelman]

Scott Ferguson wrote:

On 21/10/14 15:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Scott Ferguson wrote:

Good question Patrick - top posted as I'm referring to the Subject.

On 21/10/14 06:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:

After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.

Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.

So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?

One of the difficulties is that there is no clear distinction between a
desktop and a server - just degrees.


Um, yes, there is.  Typically different hardware (headless for
starters), storage area networks, clusters, high availability, as well
as different role, and so forth.

Miles


With respect, you're just repeating your claim that there is a clear
distinction between server and desktop - not proving it, which doesn't
advance the discussion.


Ok, let's start with:
- it's the rare desktop that has a fiber channel interface
- it's the rare desktop that has an interface for dual-ported disk drives
- it's the rare desktop configuration that splits processing and storage 
(e.g., blade servers + storage servers)
- in servers, large RAID arrays are common, desktops might have a pair 
of mirrored disks, never seen anybody set up a desktop for RAID5,6,10
- these days, servers are generally run in clusters, with cluster file 
systems, and environments like openstack on top of them
- when it comes to performance, desktops generally emphasize graphics 
performance (e.g., for gaming, video editing, and such); servers are 
designed more for how many virtual machines they can run
- high-availability clustering is a big data center concern, not a 
desktop concern (anybody run DRBD, or Corosync on a dekstop?)
- when it comes to virtualization, on desktops its mostly for running 
programs in other environments; for servers its mostly about supporting 
lots of independent users and services
- when's the last time you saw a desktop or laptop with an IPMI BMC (or 
for that matter, had a BMC infected by a virus - not pretty) (note: if 
you don't know what BMC stands for, then go away and learn something 
about serious data centers, before weighing in on the distinctions 
between desktops and servers)
- scalability, optimization for transaction processing, high-volume mail 
processing, etc., etc., etc. - not issues that one worries about on the 
desktop




Samba is a server, as is NFS, and apache. If you run them on a desktop
is it still *just* a desktop?

Can you not run a desktop on server hardware?


Generally not - except remotely - given that most servers are headless 
and don't have graphics boards.  Yeah, one can X- into a server, if you 
install the software.  Many (most?) don't - CLI and various management 
tools is plenty good for server admin (along with lots of bash scripts - 
one of the reasons that a lot of sysadmins don't like systemd).




Can you not run a server on desktop hardware?


Not if you're supporting a serious load - unless you're clustering lots 
of machines (but once you cluster a few hundred motherboards, you're 
talking a desktop machine, you're talking a cluster).




I don't "believe" you've thought this through... :

I'll leave pulseaudio out, just to make things simpler (and acknowledge
that "simple" is a synonym for "dumb").


I don't believe you have any knowledge whatsoever about data centers or 
real servers - and are talking through your hat.  That you even mention 
audio in the same conversation as

servers says you're in a different universe.



Kind regards

P.S. I have been told that one major distro does (or is attempting to
do) just that - separate into a 'server' and a 'desktop' distribution.



Let's see:
- IBM doesn't do desktops
- Windows has very separate desktop and server-side editions
- MacOS comes in separate flavors
- BSDs are primarily server oriented
- Until recently, most Linux distros were server oriented - particularly 
Debian, I might add -- Linux on the desktop is a new phenomenon
- Solaris is mostly a server side o/s (workstations are small servers, 
not large desktops)

- In the Linux world Ubuntu comes in desktop, server, and cloud varieties
- RHEL is almost entirely server oriented (can you say "Enterprise", 
Gluster, JBoss, ?)

- SUSE has desktop, server, and cloud varieties

Again - if you didn't know that, then you're talking out of ignorance.

Miles Fidelman





--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https:/

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Joe]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:04:26 +1100
Scott Ferguson  wrote:


> 
> P.S. I have been told that one major distro does (or is attempting to
> do) just that - separate into a 'server' and a 'desktop' distribution.
> 
> 

What, like Windows? I think that really is the point that is being
made, that Windows has always made the distinction, with the server OS
being very expensive and requiring access licences for machines or
people making use of it. Microsoft server software, such as DNS and
the full web server is only available on the server OS, with a few
cut-down versions on workstations.

With Linux, it is (so far) only usage which determines the category,
e.g. with few exceptions, servers are continuously powered, don't
have monitors, many don't have X, etc. There is no software which is
*only* installable on a server, though there is some which isn't
really practical on an intermittently-powered machine.

-- 
Joe


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141022090545.0702a...@jresid.jretrading.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Steve Litt]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:41:21 -0700
Patrick Bartek  wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Steve Litt wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700
> > Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> > 
> > > After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to
> > > systemd, I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  
> > 
> > * Nosh
> > * Runit
> > * Upstart
> > * S6
> > * Probably more I don't know about.
> 
> OpenRC, God, and another one -- I can't recall the name -- come to
> mind.  Been studying them all.  Runit as a partial or full "drop-in"
> replacement for sysvinit seems promising.
> 
> > > And it can't be sysvinit.
> > > 
> > > Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's
> > > been patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged
> > 
> > Nobody's arguing for sysvinit as a long term solution, for the exact
> > reasons you post above. Those of us who appeared to favor sysvinit
> > were saying "let's wait until we have something good." We also
> > pointed out the false choice of prematurely narrowing it to systemd,
> > Upstart or sysvinit.
> 
> This I realize, but for some "something good" is never ever good
> enough to replace the old, the familiar, the comfortable.

I spoze. But there's little good about systemd, and a whole lot of bad.
Like I listed near the beginning of this thread, there are plenty of
"something good"s that I'd gladly replace sysvinit with. But systemd is
a catastrophe if you want a computer controlled by you and not
Red Hat.

SteveT

Steve Litt*  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141022020458.55d17...@mydesq2.domain.cxm

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 21/10/14 15:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> Good question Patrick - top posted as I'm referring to the Subject.
>>
>> On 21/10/14 06:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
>>> I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.
>>>
>>> Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
>>> patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
>>> weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
>>> due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.
>>>
>>> So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
>>> Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?
>>
>> One of the difficulties is that there is no clear distinction between a
>> desktop and a server - just degrees.
>>
> 
> Um, yes, there is.  Typically different hardware (headless for
> starters), storage area networks, clusters, high availability, as well
> as different role, and so forth.
> 
> Miles
> 

With respect, you're just repeating your claim that there is a clear
distinction between server and desktop - not proving it, which doesn't
advance the discussion.

Samba is a server, as is NFS, and apache. If you run them on a desktop
is it still *just* a desktop?

Can you not run a desktop on server hardware?

Can you not run a server on desktop hardware?

I don't "believe" you've thought this through... :)

I'll leave pulseaudio out, just to make things simpler (and acknowledge
that "simple" is a synonym for "dumb").


Kind regards

P.S. I have been told that one major distro does (or is attempting to
do) just that - separate into a 'server' and a 'desktop' distribution.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544710aa.4080...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Steve Litt wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700
> Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> 
> > After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to
> > systemd, I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  
> 
> * Nosh
> * Runit
> * Upstart
> * S6
> * Probably more I don't know about.

OpenRC, God, and another one -- I can't recall the name -- come to
mind.  Been studying them all.  Runit as a partial or full "drop-in"
replacement for sysvinit seems promising.

> > And it can't be sysvinit.
> > 
> > Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's
> > been patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged
> 
> Nobody's arguing for sysvinit as a long term solution, for the exact
> reasons you post above. Those of us who appeared to favor sysvinit
> were saying "let's wait until we have something good." We also
> pointed out the false choice of prematurely narrowing it to systemd,
> Upstart or sysvinit.

This I realize, but for some "something good" is never ever good enough
to replace the old, the familiar, the comfortable.

> Now of course, the systemd cabal will argue that we can't wait any
> longer. My question to them is, why was sysvinit not a dire emergency
> until Red Hat's systemd juggernaut came along, and then all of a
> sudden we just couldn't wait?

Doesn't GNOME3 now require systemd to work?  GNOME has been the default
desktop environment for Debian, Fedora, and Red Hat (and others) for a
long time. I never much liked it or KDE. Resource hogs. Fedora
went with GNOME3 as the default at 13, I think. They are now at 20.
Went systemd with 15. I abandoned Fedora a couple years after 12 went
EOL, and switched to Debian Wheezy with just a window manager.

B 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021184121.06d3c...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Scott Ferguson wrote:

> On 21/10/14 06:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > [snip]
> > 
> > So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user
> > desktop? Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?
> 
> 
> One of the difficulties is that there is no clear distinction between
> a desktop and a server - just degrees.
 
In general, that may be true, but servers can be highly customized for
their tasks and that may have a bearing on inits and startup
routines. User Desktops, I think, must be by their very use more
generic in startup to cover a multitude of different user
requirements.  So, it is possible and, perhaps, even desirable to have
different inits.  That's why I posed the question that way.


> > Just wondering.
> > 
> > 
> > B
> > 
> > 
> 
> I suspect, despite my interest in the subject, this would be better on
> the off-topic list.
> If that sounds hypocritical, perhaps it is - but I see it as
> acceptance that I've been wrong before.

I don't think it's off-topic.  After all, systemd is now, by default,
the official Debian init system.  And there are alternative inits in
the repos that work with Debian.  And this is the Debian-User list.
So, my query is relevant.  But some here are more particular of what
constitutes on or off topic.  I'm not one.  I consider this list a
general Debian discussion list and not a technical forum as such.

Now, if I were to ask for everyone's favorite gumbo recipe...  Now,
that would be off-topic even though those recipes came from Debian
users. ;-)

Thanks for your input.

B


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021181017.286e1...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

Rob Owens:

I'm not sure what is meant by  "nobody has taken ownership of the

> 'request for package' bug".  If that's something that needs to be
> done, tell me what is required and I'll see if I can do it.

It is Debian bug #763499, for reference.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5446cddc.5040...@ntlworld.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 21 oct 14, 15:38:46, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Ludovic Meyer wrote:
> 
> >For example, spotify decided to switch to Ubuntu rather than keeping Debian, 
> >and
> >if you look around, they are not the only ones.
> 
> And you're attributing that to Debian dragging its feet on systemd?
> 
> As I recall, the explicit reason Ubuntu finally decided to adopt systemd was
> the Debian decision to adopt systemd.

You seem to forget Ubuntu was already using upstart since 6.10 Edgy Eft, 
released in 2006. That's 8 (eight) years.

Upstart was the only real contender to systemd at the time of the 
evaluation by the Technical Committee, but it has or is being replaced 
by systemd everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstart#Adoption

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Miles Fidelman]

Ludovic Meyer wrote:


For example, spotify decided to switch to Ubuntu rather than keeping Debian, and
if you look around, they are not the only ones.


And you're attributing that to Debian dragging its feet on systemd?

As I recall, the explicit reason Ubuntu finally decided to adopt systemd 
was the Debian decision to adopt systemd.


Let's not re-write history here.

Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5446b646.4090...@meetinghouse.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Miles Fidelman]

Steve Litt wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:18:49 +0200
Raffaele Morelli  wrote:


Here are some interesting things one should be aware of before
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

We've all read that. My favorite Poettering manifesto is the one where
he talks of systemd subsuming packaging systems:

http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html


Read enough about but still haven't read something really valuable
against systemd from eg. Torvalds, Eric Steven Raymond, etc... (if
you do, post the link)

Isn't this quote from ESR enough "against systemd"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception

"very prone to mission creep and bloat and likely to turn into a nasty
hairball over the longer term."

As far as Torvalds, would this qualify as something really valuable
against systemd?

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY1MzA

"Key, I'm f*cking tired of the fact that you don't fix problems in the
code *you* write, so that the kernel then has to work around the
problems you cause."


I believe the main issue with systemd and the community mainly the
"badass-ness"

Badass is a complement. Poettering is just an ass. But if I used
ass-ness as a filter on software I use, I wouldn't use anything RMS
created, because he can be an ass, and I wouldn't use anything from the
Linux kernel, because Linus can be an ass. Ass-authored software is
used every day, by all of us. The thing is, asses like Linus and RMS
don't have a roadmap to the destruction of the software ecosystem that
created them (any more).


More than that, I think.  RMS and Linus take a professional approach to 
software development, and pay attention things like architecture, 
interfaces, regression testing, design review and other feedback - in a 
way that Poettering does not seem to.





of the guys in this "init system war" or whatever you
prefer to address at.

Using systemd since 2014-08-09 with no issues.

Good for you. Let's see if you have no issues 2016-08-09, if Red Hat
wins its war against Linux.


Not quite sure I'd go that far - personally, this seems more like 
Poettering on a mission to reshape Linux in his image, and is taking Red 
Hat along for the ride.  But I could be wrong.


Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5446af3e.2000...@meetinghouse.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Rob Owens]

- Original Message -
> From: "Jonathan Dowland" 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:00:21AM -0400, Rob Owens wrote:
> > I'm not sure what is meant by "nobody has taken ownership of the 'request
> > for
> > package' bug".  If that's something that needs to be done, tell me what is
> > required and I'll see if I can do it.
> 
> There is a bug, it's currently a "request for package", to progress, someone
> prepared to maintain uselessd in Debian should take over the bug and rename
> it
> to "ITP" for "intent to package". See
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#newpackage
> 
> At present nobody has indicated that they are going to do the work.

Ah, I see.  Unfortunately that's not something I'm able to do (I lack the 
skills).

-Rob


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/1965074579.286177.1413918502554.javamail.zim...@ptd.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Ludovic Meyer]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:02:38AM -0700, Rusi Mody wrote:
 
> There are other choices to
> - do nothing as weve done for 20 years
> - do it now
> 
> In particular, one can take a holistic view: not just Stable -> Jessie,
> but rather Stable -> Jessie -> Jessie+1
> 
> and work out the least disruptive, most generally acceptable solution
> in that +1ed widened frame

The fact is that this is already what happened. Systemd is a option in the 
current
stable, and I just tested, it run fine. 
So the plan was more "Stable -> Wheezy -> Jessie". What you are asking is not 
what you say, this is to 
push again now the moment to switch have happened.

And this happened because upstream has a need for feature proposed by systemd, 
and they waited
long enough ( as the plan was first proposed 2 years, in october 2012 ago 
and likely being discussed before during Guadec and others events ).

KDE people, wayland developpers among others also decided to reuse systemd
features, so if you think that Debian should wait 2 or 3 years more than the 2 
or
3 years that was already done, sure. But the more time you wait, the less Debian
will be a attractive target to upstream, the more work will have to be done to 
integrate, and 
the less innovation will happen. Ubuntu pushing for new stuff is why we see
ubuntu and not Debian as the goto OS for docker and amazon.

For example, spotify decided to switch to Ubuntu rather than keeping Debian, and
if you look around, they are not the only ones. 

Procrastination and protests are not really a solution. If people want to keep 
sysvinit, they should help adopt systemd-shim and do bug reports, not wait on 
others to do the work when there is obviously not much people who care about 
that ( since besides
ubuntu, almost no big community do use systemd-shim, so hope of getting wide 
coverage and
tests are rather slim ).

-- 
l.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021190510.gb13...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[John Hasler]

Steve Litt writes:
> Let's say that, in six months from now, Debian's uselessd package is
> ready for prime time. Would there be any reason some enterprising
> person couldn't simply copy it to another repository (hopefully a
> trusted one), so that people could add that repository and thus
> install uselessd on Jessie?

Yes, of course that could be done.  The name of the appropriate
repository is Debian/Unstable, also known as Sid.  The package could
then be backported and made available for installation in Jessie on
backports.debian.org.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87tx2xgsfl@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Ludovic Meyer]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:46:46AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:12:17 +0200
> Ludovic Meyer  wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 09:34:48PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700
> > > Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to
> > > > systemd, I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  
> > > 
> > > * Nosh
> > 
> > So this one is fun, it is just a direct copy of the systemd service
> > format. Guess the proof that's at least a feature that people do
> > want, dropping shell.
> 
> I think you meant a direct copy of daemontools, didn't you?

No. I mean't the format of the service is exactly the one of systemd, download 
the
tarball, and look at the code, like smbd.service :

 $ cat  smbd.service
## **
## For copyright and licensing terms, see the file named COPYING.
## **

[Unit]
Description=SAMBA file and print services daemon

[Service]
systemdWorkingDirectory=false
ExecStart=smbd -F -s /usr/local/etc/smb.conf
Restart=always

[Install]
WantedBy=server.target

 
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/Softwares/nosh.html
> 
> It's not a direct copy, it's an enhanced superset of daemontools, kind
> of. Daemontools preceded systemd by several years, and I sincerely doubt
> daemontools and systemd have anything in common.

Indeed, one is used and alive, and the other is written by djb.

> > 
> > And of course, not only the format is copied, it took the set of
> > systemd services and copied them like this. I am sure ftp-masters
> > wouldn't accept a GPL violation ( as the .service file are likely not
> > un the BSD ).
> 
> Daemontools wasn't GPL'ed, it was Public Domained, so anyone can do
> absolutely anything with it.

nosh take the same file for ssh with a service, a socket file and a separate
service for the keys generation than systemd, and this is not a copy ?

Look at the code, it use the same exact naming : Unit, Install etc section, and 
everything.
If that's not a copy, that's a rather strong inspiration, showing again that 
people recognize that systemd is doing the right thing when it come to dropping 
shell.
And since you recommend nosh, I guess you agree on this point.

Nosh also take over the job of showing a tty ( login-banner.cpp ), of setting 
the
network hostname ( set-dynamic-hostname.cpp ), of mouting ( nmount.cpp ), and 
maybe more.
See for example common-manager.cpp where it take over lots of configuration.

So yeah, nosh is basically following systemd steps, which is also likely 
showing that
systemd is doing the right thing.

And while the code is not that ugly, there is still some very specific ugly 
stuff like
mixing goto and exception for checking of errors, or there is magic constants
everywhere in some place of the code like service-is-up.cpp , 
common-manager.cpp 

> > 
> > > * Runit
> > 
> > was non free for a long time, not sure if developped
> > anymore, especially since last post on one of the ml date back to 
> > June 2013. 
> 
> Funtoo is using it, and I seriously doubt they'd be using something not
> developed anymore.

You would be surprised to see the number of people who are using cron and at.
At least, cron have been forked by RH to become cronie, but at didn't involve 
since
years.
 
> > 
> > > * Upstart
> > 
> > no longer developped, and suffer from several bugs, go read the
> > tech-ctte debate.
> 
> I read it, and if Upstart problems were the most distressing thing in
> that debate, I'd be a happy man. If Upstart is no longer under
> development, the reason would be that the Debian CTTE decided on
> systemd, so Cannonical reluctantly followed suit.

No, in fact, it was already not much developped during the previous
years :

https://www.openhub.net/p/upstart/commits/summary

Compare with more active projects :

https://www.openhub.net/p/systemd/commits/summary
https://www.openhub.net/p/python/commits/summary
https://www.openhub.net/p/perl/commits/summary

In fact, I would postulate that's systemd that made upstart being developped 
again
after the developper went to Google and the reason why Canonical switched so 
fast was because they were
not totally unhappy to drop it, and I guess their biggest concern was doing the 
integration
work, and guess what, as soon as they found Debian would do it for "free",
they decided to switch.

And they even do collaborate with systemd people quite well:

https://wiki.debian.org/Sprints/2014/SystemdGNOMESprint
( 3 people from Canonical there, even if 1 had to cancel )

or 
https://plus.google.com/107564545827215425270/posts/d5Gufn8Q2qE

> > > > And it can't be sysvinit.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's
> > > > been patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged
> > > 
> > > Nobody's arguing for sysvinit as a long term solutio

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Steve Litt]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:18:49 +0200
Raffaele Morelli  wrote:

> Here are some interesting things one should be aware of before 
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

We've all read that. My favorite Poettering manifesto is the one where
he talks of systemd subsuming packaging systems:

http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html

> 
> Read enough about but still haven't read something really valuable
> against systemd from eg. Torvalds, Eric Steven Raymond, etc... (if
> you do, post the link)

Isn't this quote from ESR enough "against systemd"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception

"very prone to mission creep and bloat and likely to turn into a nasty
hairball over the longer term."

As far as Torvalds, would this qualify as something really valuable
against systemd?

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY1MzA

"Key, I'm f*cking tired of the fact that you don't fix problems in the
code *you* write, so that the kernel then has to work around the
problems you cause."

> 
> I believe the main issue with systemd and the community mainly the
> "badass-ness" 

Badass is a complement. Poettering is just an ass. But if I used
ass-ness as a filter on software I use, I wouldn't use anything RMS
created, because he can be an ass, and I wouldn't use anything from the
Linux kernel, because Linus can be an ass. Ass-authored software is
used every day, by all of us. The thing is, asses like Linus and RMS
don't have a roadmap to the destruction of the software ecosystem that
created them (any more).

> of the guys in this "init system war" or whatever you
> prefer to address at.
> 
> Using systemd since 2014-08-09 with no issues.

Good for you. Let's see if you have no issues 2016-08-09, if Red Hat
wins its war against Linux.

SteveT

Steve Litt*  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021143639.64ed9...@mydesq2.domain.cxm

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Martinx - ジェームズ]

You guys can count on me to help testing uselessd in Debian/Ubuntu! I would
like to participate.

On 21 October 2014 16:02, Steve Litt  wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:11:32 +0100
> Jonathan Dowland  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please do not top-post.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:27:34AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
> > > If uselessd provides ONLY a new init, based on CGroups and lots of
> > > cool ideas from systemd itself, then, it worth trying it! Just for
> > > fun...
> >
> > I think it's an interesting project and I might contribute towards the
> > packaging, so long as it's a team effort, but currently nobody has
> > taken ownership of the 'request for package' bug, so there is almost
> > no chance of uselessd being a part of jessie. (it would have to be
> > packaged, uploaded and pass NEW in under 2 weeks.)
>
> Hey Jonathan,
>
> First, if you do contribute to uselessd, thank you very much.
>
> I want to make sure I'm reading your paragraph correctly: The
> Debian uselessd package cannot be finished in time to make it into
> Jessie, so there will be no uselessd package in Jessie. Is that correct?
>
> Let's say that, in six months from now, Debian's uselessd package is
> ready for prime time. Would there be any reason some enterprising
> person couldn't simply copy it to another repository (hopefully a
> trusted one), so that people could add that repository and thus install
> uselessd on Jessie?
>
> Thanks,
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt*  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
> Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive:
> https://lists.debian.org/20141021140253.264d0...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
>
>

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[golinux]

On Tue, 10/21/14, Steve Litt  wrote:

 Subject: Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
 To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
 Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 1:02 PM

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:11:32 +0100
Jonathan Dowland  wrote:


Hi,


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:27:34AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
> If uselessd provides ONLY a new init, based on CGroups and lots of
> cool ideas from systemd itself, then, it worth trying it! Just for
> fun...

I think it's an interesting project and I might contribute towards the
packaging, so long as it's a team effort, but currently nobody has
taken ownership of the 'request for package' bug, so there is almost
no chance of uselessd being a part of jessie. (it would have to be
packaged, uploaded and pass NEW in under 2 weeks.)


Hey Jonathan,

First, if you do contribute to uselessd, thank you very much.

I want to make sure I'm reading your paragraph correctly: The
Debian uselessd package cannot be finished in time to make it into
Jessie, so there will be no uselessd package in Jessie. Is that correct?

Let's say that, in six months from now, Debian's uselessd package is
ready for prime time. Would there be any reason some enterprising
person couldn't simply copy it to another repository (hopefully a
trusted one), so that people could add that repository and thus install
uselessd on Jessie?

Thanks,

SteveT

-

If I'm understanding this post correctly, exbarx over on FDN already 
managed to port uselessd to Debian Jessie.  (Most of the discussion is 
way over my pay grade.):


http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=117944

golinux




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/da1d90bfad2bf739b0d0dcbc74579...@riseup.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Steve Litt]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:11:32 +0100
Jonathan Dowland  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Please do not top-post. 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:27:34AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
> > If uselessd provides ONLY a new init, based on CGroups and lots of
> > cool ideas from systemd itself, then, it worth trying it! Just for
> > fun...
> 
> I think it's an interesting project and I might contribute towards the
> packaging, so long as it's a team effort, but currently nobody has
> taken ownership of the 'request for package' bug, so there is almost
> no chance of uselessd being a part of jessie. (it would have to be 
> packaged, uploaded and pass NEW in under 2 weeks.)

Hey Jonathan,

First, if you do contribute to uselessd, thank you very much.

I want to make sure I'm reading your paragraph correctly: The
Debian uselessd package cannot be finished in time to make it into
Jessie, so there will be no uselessd package in Jessie. Is that correct?

Let's say that, in six months from now, Debian's uselessd package is
ready for prime time. Would there be any reason some enterprising
person couldn't simply copy it to another repository (hopefully a
trusted one), so that people could add that repository and thus install
uselessd on Jessie?

Thanks,

SteveT

Steve Litt*  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021140253.264d0...@mydesq2.domain.cxm

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jimmy Johnson]

On 10/21/2014 01:03 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:

Am Montag, 20. Oktober 2014, 19:49:43 schrieb Jimmy Johnson:

So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?

Just wondering.


See above and unless you are a tester or developer you may want to
roll-back to Squeeze.


Why Squeeze? Wheezy has sysvinit just fine… and so or so I expect Jessie to
work with sysvinit as well.

Squeeze has security support through the LTS initiative that only provides
this support for a reduced set of packages.



Hi Martin,

I have Squeeze installed on my laptop too and Squeeze works well for my 
needs which are audio and video when I'm not testing other systems..now 
Lenny was probably my favorite and was hard to let go. Using Squeeze is 
like stepping out of the current picture and getting a none bias look at 
current situation. I still have more than a few Wheezy installs, a 
couple Jessie installs, one Sid, a couple Tanglu installs and all 
configured, tested and updated and then I try to keep up with other 
current systems that are not following current trends. While looking at 
Sid I can see the future and the future is a bit too much for my needs. 
 There are a bunch of upgraded applications out there for Squeeze and 
are already packaged to be installed and I think Squeeze is a good place 
to start if someone wanted to remove themselves from the current trend. 
 I already know that people want upgrades because there are upgrades, 
but that's not me.


Martin this is 'debian-live-6.0.10-amd64-kde-desktop'.
--
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Squeeze - KDE 4.4.5 - AMD64 - EXT4 at sda11
Registered Linux User #380263


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544681ae.3040...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:00:21AM -0400, Rob Owens wrote:
> I'm not sure what is meant by "nobody has taken ownership of the 'request for
> package' bug".  If that's something that needs to be done, tell me what is
> required and I'll see if I can do it.

There is a bug, it's currently a "request for package", to progress, someone
prepared to maintain uselessd in Debian should take over the bug and rename it
to "ITP" for "intent to package". See
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#newpackage

At present nobody has indicated that they are going to do the work.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021153913.ga1...@chew.redmars.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Curt]

On 2014-10-20, Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,

Oh shit.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnm4cpua.244.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Rob Owens]

- Original Message -
> From: "Jonathan Dowland" 
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:27:34AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
> > If uselessd provides ONLY a new init, based on CGroups and lots of
> > cool ideas from systemd itself, then, it worth trying it! Just for
> > fun...
> 
> I think it's an interesting project and I might contribute towards the
> packaging, so long as it's a team effort, but currently nobody has
> taken ownership of the 'request for package' bug, so there is almost
> no chance of uselessd being a part of jessie. (it would have to be
> packaged, uploaded and pass NEW in under 2 weeks.)

Jonathan,

I'm not sure what is meant by "nobody has taken ownership of the 'request for 
package' bug".  If that's something that needs to be done, tell me what is 
required and I'll see if I can do it.

-Rob


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/812307098.111494.1413900021175.javamail.zim...@ptd.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Miles Fidelman]

Steve Litt wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:12:17 +0200
Ludovic Meyer  wrote:




* Upstart

no longer developped, and suffer from several bugs, go read the
tech-ctte debate.

I read it, and if Upstart problems were the most distressing thing in
that debate, I'd be a happy man. If Upstart is no longer under
development, the reason would be that the Debian CTTE decided on
systemd, so Cannonical reluctantly followed suit.


And this is where the Tech. Committee decision really hurt the Linux 
community as a whole.


Essentially, this came down to giving in to blackmail (if you want GNOME 
you have to take systemd) - and yes, I read all the email about the 
decision, but that's really what it comes down to (IMHO). And in doing 
so, basically led to a general decline in the overall Linux ecosystem.



Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544661b5.7010...@meetinghouse.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Tanstaafl]

On 10/20/2014 10:36 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ 
wrote:
> 1- Fork udev (out from systemd's tree or before it got merged / engulfed);

Maybe Gentoo's eudev would be a good place to start with that.

I also don't see why OpenRC isn't on the list of obvious choices. It is
the default in Gentoo and has been for ages, and it 'just works'.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544638ab.4010...@libertytrek.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Tanstaafl]

On 10/20/2014 3:45 PM, Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
> I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.
> 
> Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
> patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
> weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
> due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.
> 
> So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
> Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?

OpenRC has been working just fine on my Gentoo server for many years.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54463621.3010...@libertytrek.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Raffaele Morelli]

On 21/10/14 at 09:41am, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:18:49AM +0200, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
> > Here are some interesting things one should be aware of before
> > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html
> > 
> > Read enough about but still haven't read something really valuable against
> > systemd from eg. Torvalds, Eric Steven Raymond, etc... (if you do, post the
> > link)
> 
> Please don't, because that isn't on topic for this mailing list.

you know, it's been months that this systemd thing is going on
and I thought it was tolerated (though I learned to use ^D in mutt :-) )


I apologize


-- 
« Nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus »


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021094833.gg1...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Martin Steigerwald]

Hi Raffaele,

Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2014, 10:18:49 schrieb Raffaele Morelli:
> Here are some interesting things one should be aware of before
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html
> 
> Read enough about but still haven't read something really valuable against
> systemd from eg. Torvalds, Eric Steven Raymond, etc... (if you do, post the
> link)
> 
> I believe the main issue with systemd and the community mainly the
> "badass-ness" of the guys in this "init system war" or whatever you prefer
> to address at.
> 
> Using systemd since 2014-08-09 with no issues.

I think this is certainly a good read for background.

I also suggest to revisit


[systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and 
resistance
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023290.html


Rob from this list voiced some concern there.

And I added hints about debianfork.org and also raised some issues here now.

This is where upstream really gets to see the feedback. So I again suggest you 
voice your concerns there. Politely and in enough detail.


Or as some of you do, work on the alternatives.

Lets see what comes out of the GR: I hope it goes for restricting dependencies 
to PID 1 tightly.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5729685.ll3milQcNW@merkaba

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 21 oct 14, 00:10:27, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> 
> Um, yes, there is.  Typically different hardware (headless for starters),
> storage area networks, clusters, high availability, as well as different
> role, and so forth.

I have a Raspberry Pi serving my domain (DNS + WWW). As far as I'm 
concerned that's *my* server.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:18:49AM +0200, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
> Here are some interesting things one should be aware of before
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html
> 
> Read enough about but still haven't read something really valuable against
> systemd from eg. Torvalds, Eric Steven Raymond, etc... (if you do, post the
> link)

Please don't, because that isn't on topic for this mailing list.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021084152.gf28...@chew.redmars.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Raffaele Morelli]

Here are some interesting things one should be aware of before 
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

Read enough about but still haven't read something really valuable against
systemd from eg. Torvalds, Eric Steven Raymond, etc... (if you do, post the 
link)

I believe the main issue with systemd and the community mainly the 
"badass-ness" of 
the guys in this "init system war" or whatever you prefer to address at.

Using systemd since 2014-08-09 with no issues.

-- 
« Nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus »


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021081847.gb1...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jonathan Dowland]

Hi,

Please do not top-post. 

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:27:34AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
> If uselessd provides ONLY a new init, based on CGroups and lots of
> cool ideas from systemd itself, then, it worth trying it! Just for
> fun...

I think it's an interesting project and I might contribute towards the
packaging, so long as it's a team effort, but currently nobody has
taken ownership of the 'request for package' bug, so there is almost
no chance of uselessd being a part of jessie. (it would have to be 
packaged, uploaded and pass NEW in under 2 weeks.)

> Systemd will be still around, acting only as udev, I know... But,
> then, it will be more easy to live without it.

udev and systemd are not the same things. Their source co-exists in
the same version control repository, and they are developed in concert,
but they are (currently) independent, and will certainly be independent
for jessie. (whether they remain independent in the future is another
question.)

> Sorry about my poor English.

No need to apologise!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021081132.ga28...@chew.redmars.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Martin Steigerwald]

Am Montag, 20. Oktober 2014, 19:49:43 schrieb Jimmy Johnson:
> > So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
> > Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?
> > 
> > Just wondering.
> 
> See above and unless you are a tester or developer you may want to 
> roll-back to Squeeze.

Why Squeeze? Wheezy has sysvinit just fine… and so or so I expect Jessie to 
work with sysvinit as well.

Squeeze has security support through the LTS initiative that only provides 
this support for a reduced set of packages.

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/282804258.gtEqSjICmt@merkaba

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Martinx - ジェームズ]

That's true... Can't wait to try it!

If uselessd provides ONLY a new init, based on CGroups and lots of
cool ideas from systemd itself, then, it worth trying it! Just for
fun...

Systemd will be still around, acting only as udev, I know... But,
then, it will be more easy to live without it.

If that becomes true, I mean, if uselessd can act as systemd to
mange/supervise process in a new fashion (i.e. no init scripts), then,
it will be doing what systemd was supposed to be doing (in Debian) in
first place!

Sorry about my poor English.

-
 Thiago

On 21 October 2014 04:58, Jonathan Dowland  wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:36:52AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
>> 2- Start testing uselessd;
>
> You missed 'package uselessd' for Debian - not yet done.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021065822.gc28...@chew.redmars.org
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAJSM8J3KX+BpG_EovV0d-P+KVKDmQQ=9pj_-RstF=_nx5em...@mail.gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Rusi Mody]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:00:01 PM UTC+5:30, Ludovic Meyer wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 09:34:48PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700
> > Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> > > After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
> > > I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  
> > * Nosh

> So this one is fun, it is just a direct copy of the systemd service format.
> Guess the proof that's at least a feature that people do want, dropping shell.

> And of course, not only the format is copied, it took the set of systemd
> services and copied them like this. I am sure ftp-masters wouldn't accept
> a GPL violation ( as the .service file are likely not un the BSD ).

> > * Runit

> was non free for a long time, not sure if developped
> anymore, especially since last post on one of the ml date back to 
> June 2013. 

> > * Upstart

> no longer developped, and suffer from several bugs, go read the tech-ctte
> debate.

> > * S6

> likely the same as runit when it come to be alive.

> > * Probably more I don't know about.

> You could add openrc, the only serious contender.

> > > And it can't be sysvinit.
> > > Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
> > > patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged
> > Nobody's arguing for sysvinit as a long term solution, for the exact
> > reasons you post above. Those of us who appeared to favor sysvinit were
> > saying "let's wait until we have something good." We also pointed out
> > the false choice of prematurely narrowing it to systemd, Upstart or
> > sysvinit.

> You mean "let's do like we did since 20 years, wait, in case if something 
> will happen".
> None of the alternatives you propose have been widely adopted by anyone 
> except upstart.
> And that's mostly because no one cared about them up to the point to even 
> propose them.

> > Now of course, the systemd cabal will argue that we can't wait any
> > longer. My question to them is, why was sysvinit not a dire emergency
> > until Red Hat's systemd juggernaut came along, and then all of a
> > sudden we just couldn't wait?

> You mean that after waiting several years, the solution is to wait again, 
> because
> no one cared before, and when 1 group came and changed, the solution is to 
> refuse
> and go back doing nothing ?

Fallacy of False Dilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

There are other choices to
- do nothing as weve done for 20 years
- do it now

In particular, one can take a holistic view: not just Stable -> Jessie,
but rather Stable -> Jessie -> Jessie+1

and work out the least disruptive, most generally acceptable solution
in that +1ed widened frame


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/a0e8993f-d150-42d4-b31e-3b44c2fe8...@googlegroups.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:36:52AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
> 2- Start testing uselessd;

You missed 'package uselessd' for Debian - not yet done.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021065822.gc28...@chew.redmars.org

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Steve Litt]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:12:17 +0200
Ludovic Meyer  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 09:34:48PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700
> > Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> > 
> > > After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to
> > > systemd, I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  
> > 
> > * Nosh
> 
> So this one is fun, it is just a direct copy of the systemd service
> format. Guess the proof that's at least a feature that people do
> want, dropping shell.

I think you meant a direct copy of daemontools, didn't you?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/Softwares/nosh.html

It's not a direct copy, it's an enhanced superset of daemontools, kind
of. Daemontools preceded systemd by several years, and I sincerely doubt
daemontools and systemd have anything in common.

> 
> And of course, not only the format is copied, it took the set of
> systemd services and copied them like this. I am sure ftp-masters
> wouldn't accept a GPL violation ( as the .service file are likely not
> un the BSD ).

Daemontools wasn't GPL'ed, it was Public Domained, so anyone can do
absolutely anything with it.

> 
> > * Runit
> 
> was non free for a long time, not sure if developped
> anymore, especially since last post on one of the ml date back to 
> June 2013. 

Funtoo is using it, and I seriously doubt they'd be using something not
developed anymore.

> 
> > * Upstart
> 
> no longer developped, and suffer from several bugs, go read the
> tech-ctte debate.

I read it, and if Upstart problems were the most distressing thing in
that debate, I'd be a happy man. If Upstart is no longer under
development, the reason would be that the Debian CTTE decided on
systemd, so Cannonical reluctantly followed suit.

> 
> > * S6
> 
> likely the same as runit when it come to be alive.
> 
> > * Probably more I don't know about.
> 
> You could add openrc, the only serious contender.

Thanks. I hereby add openrc, assuming it's ready now.

> 
> 
> > > And it can't be sysvinit.
> > > 
> > > Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's
> > > been patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged
> > 
> > Nobody's arguing for sysvinit as a long term solution, for the exact
> > reasons you post above. Those of us who appeared to favor sysvinit
> > were saying "let's wait until we have something good." We also
> > pointed out the false choice of prematurely narrowing it to
> > systemd, Upstart or sysvinit.
> 
> You mean "let's do like we did since 20 years, wait, in case if
> something will happen". None of the alternatives you propose have
> been widely adopted by anyone except upstart. And that's mostly
> because no one cared about them up to the point to even propose them. 

The reason nobody paid attention to them yet is the alternative wasn't
systemd until now. systemd is a mighty motivator, I'll say that for it.

> > Now of course, the systemd cabal will argue that we can't wait any
> > longer. My question to them is, why was sysvinit not a dire
> > emergency until Red Hat's systemd juggernaut came along, and then
> > all of a sudden we just couldn't wait?
> 
> You mean that after waiting several years, the solution is to wait
> again, because no one cared before, 

That is *exactly* what I mean. Don't move to a worse position, and if
this had really been life or death, systemd would have been gone a few
years ago.

> and when 1 group came and
> changed, the solution is to refuse and go back doing nothing ?

Now that, I didn't say. Go back and read the quoted text.

SteveT

Steve Litt*  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021024646.04540...@mydesq2.domain.cxm

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Ludovic Meyer]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 09:34:48PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700
> Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> 
> > After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
> > I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  
> 
> * Nosh

So this one is fun, it is just a direct copy of the systemd service format.
Guess the proof that's at least a feature that people do want, dropping shell.

And of course, not only the format is copied, it took the set of systemd
services and copied them like this. I am sure ftp-masters wouldn't accept
a GPL violation ( as the .service file are likely not un the BSD ).

> * Runit

was non free for a long time, not sure if developped
anymore, especially since last post on one of the ml date back to 
June 2013. 

> * Upstart

no longer developped, and suffer from several bugs, go read the tech-ctte
debate.

> * S6

likely the same as runit when it come to be alive.

> * Probably more I don't know about.

You could add openrc, the only serious contender.


> > And it can't be sysvinit.
> > 
> > Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
> > patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged
> 
> Nobody's arguing for sysvinit as a long term solution, for the exact
> reasons you post above. Those of us who appeared to favor sysvinit were
> saying "let's wait until we have something good." We also pointed out
> the false choice of prematurely narrowing it to systemd, Upstart or
> sysvinit.

You mean "let's do like we did since 20 years, wait, in case if something will 
happen".
None of the alternatives you propose have been widely adopted by anyone except 
upstart.
And that's mostly because no one cared about them up to the point to even 
propose them.
 
> Now of course, the systemd cabal will argue that we can't wait any
> longer. My question to them is, why was sysvinit not a dire emergency
> until Red Hat's systemd juggernaut came along, and then all of a
> sudden we just couldn't wait?

You mean that after waiting several years, the solution is to wait again, 
because
no one cared before, and when 1 group came and changed, the solution is to 
refuse
and go back doing nothing ?

--
l.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021061217.ga29...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Miles Fidelman]

Scott Ferguson wrote:

Good question Patrick - top posted as I'm referring to the Subject.

On 21/10/14 06:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:

After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.

Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.

So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?


One of the difficulties is that there is no clear distinction between a
desktop and a server - just degrees.



Um, yes, there is.  Typically different hardware (headless for 
starters), storage area networks, clusters, high availability, as well 
as different role, and so forth.


Miles

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5445dcb3.4030...@meetinghouse.net

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Jimmy Johnson]

On 10/20/2014 12:45 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:

After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.


sysvinit will do just fine until other init-systems can be developed and 
installed from the repos.



Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.


You sound like my X-wife.


So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?

Just wondering.


See above and unless you are a tester or developer you may want to 
roll-back to Squeeze.

--
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Squeeze - KDE 4.4.5 - AMD64 - EXT4 at sda11
Registered Linux User #380263


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5445c9c7.8060...@gmail.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Martinx - ジェームズ]

1- Fork udev (out from systemd's tree or before it got merged / engulfed);
2- Start testing uselessd;
3- Remove systemd from Debian sources, since it is uselessd now  lol ;

I vote for upstart too (instead of uselessd), since I'm using without any
problems (and it is not trying to take over the world).

I believe (because I'm not a software engineer), that the main problem with
systemd started when they merged udev. That was a smart move (for Them)
but, there is time to take udev back and use another init, as good old days.

Jut my two bitcents...

On 20 October 2014 17:45, Patrick Bartek  wrote:

> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
> I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.
>
> Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
> patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
> weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
> due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.
>
> So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
> Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?
>
> Just wondering.
>
>
> B
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive:
> https://lists.debian.org/20141020124511.44a19...@debian7.boseck208.net
>
>

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Marty]

On 10/20/2014 03:45 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:

After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.


One that doesn't divide the FOSS world. We have enough challenges 
without that.



Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.


Whichever one the user wants is the best. The users should decide, 
individually and collectively. The distro should be the testbed for new 
ideas, with users trying out and choosing solutions that work best for 
them. Debian should not make that choice for users. "Upstreams" should 
not make that choice for Debian.


This is official Debian Policy but some people seem upset about it.
I don't understand antipathy toward user choice, especially here. I 
sometimes wonder if they have lost sight of the purpose of FOSS, which 
would be sad, because they (especially volunteers) have given us so much 
in the name of software freedom. They have changed the world.


I hope this just a misunderstanding that gets cleared up after the dust 
settles and everyone starts talking again, instead of just yelling at 
each other. I hope some people change their minds about the importance 
of user choice. I hope Ian Jackson stops being bitter. :)



So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?


We all should be able to propose our ideal solution with a reasonable 
expectation that if it's a good idea, and somebody does the work, it 
could be adopted and help other people, without being unduly hindered by 
a software bundle laying exclusive claim to PID 1. That is the unique 
gate-keeper spot in all systems, and it's probably why the policy pays 
special attention to it. That button belongs to me, the  user. Hands off 
my computer at its most vulnerable spot.



Just wondering.


Me too.



B





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5445bf9f.2060...@ix.netcom.com

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Lee Winter]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Patrick Bartek  wrote:

> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
> I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.
>
> Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
> patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
> weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
> due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.
>
> So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
> Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?
>
> Just wondering.
>

One key component of an effective startup process is dependency handling.
So why not look for one of the best as a model?  I suggest DJB's redo
system.  It is excruciatingly simple.  But very effective.  And it is the
opposite of monolithic.

But the real answer to this question will be found in the specs for the
better system.  So someone needs to go through the specs for both sysv-init
and its competitors marking features to keep and features to kill.  Then
the real discussion will begin.

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire
United States of America

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Steve Litt]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700
Patrick Bartek  wrote:

> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
> I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  

* Nosh
* Runit
* Upstart
* S6
* Probably more I don't know about.

> And it can't be sysvinit.
> 
> Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
> patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged

Nobody's arguing for sysvinit as a long term solution, for the exact
reasons you post above. Those of us who appeared to favor sysvinit were
saying "let's wait until we have something good." We also pointed out
the false choice of prematurely narrowing it to systemd, Upstart or
sysvinit.

Now of course, the systemd cabal will argue that we can't wait any
longer. My question to them is, why was sysvinit not a dire emergency
until Red Hat's systemd juggernaut came along, and then all of a
sudden we just couldn't wait?

SteveT

Steve Litt*  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141020213448.6c545...@mydesq2.domain.cxm

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Scott Ferguson]

Good question Patrick - top posted as I'm referring to the Subject.

On 21/10/14 06:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
> I wonder...  What is a better alternative?  And it can't be sysvinit.
> 
> Yes.  Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
> patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
> weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception.  It's long past
> due for a contemporary replacement.  Whatever that may be.
> 
> So, what would you all propose?  For a server?  Or for a user desktop?
> Or something that fulfills both scenarios?  And why?


One of the difficulties is that there is no clear distinction between a
desktop and a server - just degrees.

> 
> Just wondering.
> 
> 
> B
> 
> 

I suspect, despite my interest in the subject, this would be better on
the off-topic list.
If that sounds hypocritical, perhaps it is - but I see it as acceptance
that I've been wrong before.


Kind regards


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5445a952.1080...@gmail.com