Re: Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
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?
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?
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?
Hi, Nuno Magalhães nunomagalh...@eu.ipp.pt 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?
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/upgrading sysvinit is minor compared to this job, and even that couldn't be done. We
Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
Hi, Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com 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] https://www.debian.org/consultants/ 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?
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?
Le Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:53:24 +, Nuno Magalhães nunomagalh...@eu.ipp.pt 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?
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?
On 11/16/2014 at 12:33 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote: Le Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:53:24 +, Nuno Magalhães nunomagalh...@eu.ipp.pt 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?
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?
Le Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:08:48 +, Martin Read zen75...@zen.co.uk 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?
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?
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?
On 11/16/2014 6:40 AM, Klistvud klist...@gmail.com 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?
On 11/16/2014 10:29 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: Hi, Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com 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] https://www.debian.org/consultants/ 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?
Dne, 16. 11. 2014 21:06:09 je Tanstaafl napisal(a): On 11/16/2014 6:40 AM, Klistvud klist...@gmail.com 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?
Hi, Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com writes: On 11/16/2014 10:29 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com 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?
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?
On 11/13/2014 10:53 AM, Lisi Reisz lisi.re...@gmail.com 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?
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?
On 11/13/2014 3:42 PM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com 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 tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 10/24/2014 4:49 AM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com 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?
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: If Not Systemd, then What?
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: Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
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: Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
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?
On 10/23/2014 4:10 PM, koanhead koanh...@riseup.net 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: If Not Systemd, then What?
On 10/24/2014 4:49 AM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com 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?
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?
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?
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?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:41:21 -0700 Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Steve Litt wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700 Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com 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 goods 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?
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:04:26 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com 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?
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:
Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
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?
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?
On 21/10/14 21:08, Miles Fidelman wrote: Steve Litt wrote: On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:18:49 +0200 Raffaele Morelli raffaele.more...@gmail.com 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?
On 10/21/2014 4:21 PM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com 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 wrote: On 21/10/14 21:08, Miles Fidelman wrote: Steve Litt wrote: On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:18:49 +0200 Raffaele Morelli raffaele.more...@gmail.com 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?
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?
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. snip 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?
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?
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?
On Mi, 22 oct 14, 08:44:02, Tanstaafl wrote: On 10/21/2014 4:21 PM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com 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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
On 22/10/14 19:05, Joe wrote: On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:04:26 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com 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?
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. snipped 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 normally associate that with a lack of argument. Neither of which I expect of you. That you even mention audio in the same conversation as servers says you're in a different universe.
Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
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?
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: snipped 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?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 09:34:48PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700 Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com 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?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:12:17 +0200 Ludovic Meyer ludo.v.me...@gmail.com 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 nemomm...@gmail.com 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?
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?
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?
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 j...@debian.org 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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
On 10/20/2014 3:45 PM, Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com 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?
On 10/20/2014 10:36 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ thiagocmarti...@gmail.com 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?
Steve Litt wrote: On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:12:17 +0200 Ludovic Meyer ludo.v.me...@gmail.com wrote: snip * 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?
- Original Message - From: Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org 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?
On 2014-10-20, Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com 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?
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?
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?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:11:32 +0100 Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org 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?
On Tue, 10/21/14, Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com 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 j...@debian.org 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=20t=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?
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 sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote: On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:11:32 +0100 Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org 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?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:18:49 +0200 Raffaele Morelli raffaele.more...@gmail.com 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_itempx=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?
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:46:46AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:12:17 +0200 Ludovic Meyer ludo.v.me...@gmail.com 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 nemomm...@gmail.com 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 solution, for the exact reasons you post above. Those of us who appeared
Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
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?
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?
- Original Message - From: Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org 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?
Steve Litt wrote: On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:18:49 +0200 Raffaele Morelli raffaele.more...@gmail.com 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_itempx=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?
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?
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: Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
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?
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: If Not Systemd, then What?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Steve Litt wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700 Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com 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?
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?
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
Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700 Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com 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?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com 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?
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?
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 nemomm...@gmail.com 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?
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?
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
