Re: question about systemd
On 10/10/2014 01:10 PM, James Ensor wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
>>
>> All well and good but what happens when sysv* get purged from the repos?
>>
>
> When is this going to happen?
>
>
I'm not aware of any intention to purge sysvinit-core from jessie or
sid. The old ("transitional") sysvinit package will eventually go away,
because sysvinit-core replaces it.
Even if sysvinit-core went away tomorrow, we'd not be stuck with only
systemd: openrc, runit, and even upstart are all still in the repos and
available for use.
--
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/m1d18j$8fk$1...@news.albasani.net
Re: question about systemd
On 10/11/2014 12:20 PM, Brian wrote: > On Sat 11 Oct 2014 at 12:49:15 -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:53:20 +0300 >> Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> >>> You might want to check your facts: >>> >>> Linus Torvalds "only" created the Linux kernel, which is notoriously >>> monolithic[1]. >>> >>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate >> >> This is very true, but the kernel knows its boundaries, and doesn't try >> to conquor all sorts of other, non-related, subsystems. > > What does that mean? It sounds deep but plumbing the depths of its > shallowness is a task for someone with more time than the universe has > got. > > It's pretty simple. The kernel has actual, literal boundaries, which it enforces. The part of the system you use is outside those boundaries, with certain mechanisms for passing data between user-space and kernel-space. If you took time away from insulting people on mailing lists to crack a book once in a while, you might know that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m1d0j5$kst$1...@news.albasani.net
Re: question about systemd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/10/2014 4:01 AM, James Ensor wrote: > What I was trying to say here is that people seem to want to debate > the philosophy/quality/whatever about systemd, and have used this to > come to wrong conclusions about the practical aspect of using an > alternate init system. That's just the nub of it, it /started/ as an init replacement and it has grown well beyond that [already] and is planned to grow much further beyond in order to make a *real operating system* -- watch the video from LCA conf from Perth... A. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iF4EAREIAAYFAlQ584kACgkQqBZry7fv4vvmpwD7BYLJzaQAe+/BS1N59oIDPsB+ Z1o1zRNutNohGgRHjS0BAKHexPn16yFPSFIzw3fNeVWwhpVG00WKq3BNZlHXqTA6 =wCFC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/5439f38c.7030...@affinityvision.com.au
Re: question about systemd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/10/2014 2:01 AM, James Ensor wrote: > The point of this thread was to demonstrate that you *do* still have a > choice. It's relatively simple to remove systemd from your Debian > installation if you choose to. In the short term, sure, but in the long term, we are so screwed if this change remains. A. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iF4EAREIAAYFAlQ56kAACgkQqBZry7fv4vsjcwD9H6sVO8+9/0ClMaiUV6RxzMnd MgNPBroUeWEKsoIKAosBAJi5b85GDx083TuwYkxSI06geORoz6v0NKpINYD40MWW =8Rvm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/5439ea42.8090...@affinityvision.com.au
Re: question about systemd
On 10/10/2014 8:44 AM, James Ensor wrote: > But, to get more to the point of my original question, there has been > so much discussion about systemd here, but as far as I can tell very > little of this discussion has been of practical use for a debian-user. Are you crazy, people are having problems -- left, right and center! How do DDs think it's going to get better when systemd becomes the tyranny of default? This is madness. More experiences sysadmins can deal with this more easily than newer users whom will come along, be baffled and go away -- unless they are extremely lucky not to have had any issues out of the box. For all those sysadmins that need to keep production servers in full and normal operation, systemd will be a nightmarre. It sure might be as simple as uninstall systemd after making sure sysvinit pieces are there, but that will be a horrible kludge. Please DDs get that GR happening before Debian is history over this crazy change. A. -- 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/5439e674.9010...@affinityvision.com.au
Re: question about systemd
John Hasler wrote: Reco writes: One must be *very* careful to wish for - [1]. OK, that's not pure LISP, it's Scheme :) [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine And a beautiful machine it was, too. 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/5439ddaf.8050...@meetinghouse.net
Re: question about systemd
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 09:23:08PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Sb, 11 oct 14, 13:01:38, James Ensor wrote: > > > > And, just for the record, I started this exercise just because I was > > curious what would happen if I removed systemd. I don't claim to > > understand all the complexities of init systems (as you have been able > > to tell). Honestly my system seemed to be working just fine with > > systemd, and it's working fine without it. I don't really have an > > opinion about it. Many of the opinions I have seen expressed in this > > thread seem to me to be based not on any facts or knowledge, but more > > on prejudice. > > Agreed. Otherwise known as FUD. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- 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/20141012013624.GB30520@tal
Re: question about systemd
Reco writes: > One must be *very* careful to wish for - [1]. OK, that's not pure LISP, > it's Scheme :) > [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine -- 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/87oati9o5p@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: question about systemd
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:16:05 -0400 Miles Fidelman wrote: > Reco wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:11:57 +0100 > > Brian wrote: > > > >> On Sat 11 Oct 2014 at 13:00:12 -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote: > >> > >>> I fear that we are living the axiom, "Those who do not understand UNIX > >>> are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." > >> That is a misquote. Understandable when it is all over the web and comes > >> up with a search engine, so don't worry about it. It should be > >> > >>"Those who do not understand systemd are condemned to reinvent > >> it, poorly." > > You misquote it too. An original quote was: > > > > "Those who do not understand Solaris SMF are condemned to reinvent it, > > with systemd, poorly." > > > > I believe the original is "Those who don't know LISP are bound to > reinvent it, poorly." > > Systemd, written in LISP - now that might be interesting! One must be *very* careful to wish for - [1]. OK, that's not pure LISP, it's Scheme :) [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/ 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/20141012015334.61797c67846332b28319a...@gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:03:18 +0100 Martin Read wrote: > On 11/10/14 19:00, Nate Bargmann wrote: > > This is the question I have, what are the stated boundaries of the > > systemd project? Have any boundaries/goals been stated in terms of > > when systemd will be feature complete? What is the stated > > compliance to POSIX (Google doesn't seem to provide me good > > results)? > > In respect of the first two questions: I am not aware of any such > firm statements having been made. > > In respect of your third question: Contrary to the implicit > expectation that seems to be attached to this question, POSIX.1-2008 > appears to have very little to say about how any of the things > systemd does are supposed to work. I think the source of most POSIX questions re systemd is the fact that Poettering has publically stated POSIX should be ignored under certain circumstances, and I mean a lot more circumstances than any Linux implementation currently ignores it. 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/20141011173951.50c60...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: question about systemd
On Sat 11 Oct 2014 at 16:16:05 -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > From what I've heard on this list, Xfce has drunk the systemd koolaid. What have you heard? Have you a link on -user to give us so we can judge for ourselves? > If that's true, screw em, they're not the only game in town. If nothing Love the "If that's true.". You actually don't know, do you? You have nothing to back up what you say. I have Xfce on unstable without systemd. Do you have to make a great effort to post inaccurate and misleading information or does it come naturally? -- 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/11102014220452.164da1ac4...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
Reco wrote: Hi. On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:11:57 +0100 Brian wrote: On Sat 11 Oct 2014 at 13:00:12 -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote: I fear that we are living the axiom, "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." That is a misquote. Understandable when it is all over the web and comes up with a search engine, so don't worry about it. It should be "Those who do not understand systemd are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." You misquote it too. An original quote was: "Those who do not understand Solaris SMF are condemned to reinvent it, with systemd, poorly." I believe the original is "Those who don't know LISP are bound to reinvent it, poorly." Systemd, written in LISP - now that might be interesting! 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/54399e15.8010...@meetinghouse.net
Re: question about systemd
On 11/10/14 20:00, Nate Bargmann wrote: This is the question I have, what are the stated boundaries of the systemd project? Have any boundaries/goals been stated in terms of when systemd will be feature complete? Didn't Mr. Poettering make it sufficiently clear in numerous speeches that the ultimate goal of the systemd people was to create an entirely new OS? Just listen to the first two minutes of the first youtube video you get when searching for his name: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdRmnSHHVw4 Or is my English so bad that I misinterpret almost every sentence he says? Isn't it the main point of our criticism that we are losing the OS we originally chose when installing Debian, because some people are now gradually changing it to an entirely different OS that closely resembles MS Windows? 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/m1c5p2$f6d$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: question about systemd
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:06:14 +0200 Slavko wrote: > Ahoj, > > Dňa Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:41:12 +0100 Brian > napísal: > > > And to illustrate how much work Debian maintainers put in to respond > > to users' concerns: > > > > root@gnome-jessie:~# apt-get install sysvinit-core systemd-shim > > Reading package lists... Done > > Building dependency tree > > Reading state information... Done > > The following extra packages will be installed: > > cgmanager libcgmanager0 libnih-dbus1 libnih1 > > Suggested packages: > > pm-utils > > The following packages will be REMOVED: > > systemd-sysv > > The following NEW packages will be installed: > > cgmanager libcgmanager0 libnih-dbus1 libnih1 systemd-shim > > sysvinit-core 0 upgraded, 6 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not > > upgraded. Need to get 482 kB of archives. > > After this operation, 1,030 kB of additional disk space will be > > used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] > > > > What more could a Debian user want? > > I don't know what other users want, but i tried it some days ago (when > the latest version of the systemd comes into testing) and i want e.g. > to be able to reboot, shutdown, suspend and hibernate the machine as > regular user from my XFCE session. That is all, what i want and when i > try it, i get message about insufficient permissions. From what I've heard on this list, Xfce has drunk the systemd koolaid. If that's true, screw em, they're not the only game in town. If nothing else, use Openbox with a no-brand panel, and that's kind of like Xfce. Oh, and make a few sudoers entries so you can reboot, shutdown, suspend and hibernate as a normal user. > > I ask here for help, but no one (i expect the response especially from > these who tells, that this ML is for support not for discussion) give > me the solution how to get the sufficient permissions back. I'd just work around their silly BS. sudoers plus shellscripts plus one of those multi-launchers to call those shellscripts should do that job. And maybe submit a bug report to Xfce telling them their new master killed features you use every day. 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/20141011161605.6254c...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: question about systemd
On Sb, 11 oct 14, 12:40:58, Bob Holtzman wrote: > > I don't have a task or a mission here. I simply asked a question. And the answer is: dependencies don't start their existence by installing the depended-on package. If this is not what you meant by "entanglement" please clarify. 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: question about systemd
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:16:57AM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Fri 10 Oct 2014 at 15:31:35 -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:16:23PM -0400, James Ensor wrote: > > > Please reply to the list and not directly to me. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:39 AM, PETER ZOELLER > > > wrote: > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > I'm sorry but I shouldn't have to remove systemd but be given a choice > > > > as to > > > > which one I want at the time of the install just as I choose my file > > > > system, > > > > my software, my networking, where I want my boot loader installed, etc. > > > > To > > > > assume on your part what I need or want and then expect me to counter > > > > your > > > > choice by requiring me to uninstall is rather presumptuous on your part > > > > just > > > > the same approach that I would expect from Microsoft not Linux. > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > I made no assumptions, as I had absolutely nothing to do with the > > > decision of making systemd the default init system. I merely point > > > out that it is possible (and quite easy) for a debian-user to remove > > > systemd. > > > > What about systemd's entanglement? From what I read here, once it's > > installed there are certain programs that depend on it. Not true? > > You are approaching this the wrong way. > > James Ensor claims it is possible and easy for a user to remove systemd. > Your task is to show that is not; preferably by giving a concrete > technical example. > > Your mission is not to repeat some of the nonsense you may have read on > debian-user, query the veracity of those statements and then ask someone > to comment on your beliefs. > > Constructive contributions *to the topic* are always welcome. I don't have a task or a mission here. I simply asked a question. -- Bob Holtzman Giant intergalactic brain-sucking hyperbacteria came to Earth to rape our women and create a race of mindless zombies. Look! It's working! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: question about systemd
Hi. On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:11:57 +0100 Brian wrote: > On Sat 11 Oct 2014 at 13:00:12 -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote: > > > I fear that we are living the axiom, "Those who do not understand UNIX > > are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." > > That is a misquote. Understandable when it is all over the web and comes > up with a search engine, so don't worry about it. It should be > > "Those who do not understand systemd are condemned to reinvent >it, poorly." You misquote it too. An original quote was: "Those who do not understand Solaris SMF are condemned to reinvent it, with systemd, poorly." 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/20141011233830.30f7c07dff50245df1464...@gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On Sat 11 Oct 2014 at 13:00:12 -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote: > I fear that we are living the axiom, "Those who do not understand UNIX > are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." That is a misquote. Understandable when it is all over the web and comes up with a search engine, so don't worry about it. It should be "Those who do not understand systemd are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." -- 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/11102014200741.190fad81c...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
On Sat 11 Oct 2014 at 20:06:14 +0200, Slavko wrote: > Ahoj, > > Dňa Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:41:12 +0100 Brian > napísal: > > > What more could a Debian user want? > > I don't know what other users want, but i tried it some days ago (when > the latest version of the systemd comes into testing) and i want e.g. to > be able to reboot, shutdown, suspend and hibernate the machine as > regular user from my XFCE session. That is all, what i want and when i > try it, i get message about insufficient permissions. > > I ask here for help, but no one (i expect the response especially from > these who tells, that this ML is for support not for discussion) give > me the solution how to get the sufficient permissions back. Is your installation (wheezy/testing/unstable) completely up-to-date? The last time you posted you were working with something which had no relationship with Debian as we know 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/11102014195959.f6cc6403f...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
On 11/10/14 19:00, Nate Bargmann wrote: This is the question I have, what are the stated boundaries of the systemd project? Have any boundaries/goals been stated in terms of when systemd will be feature complete? What is the stated compliance to POSIX (Google doesn't seem to provide me good results)? In respect of the first two questions: I am not aware of any such firm statements having been made. In respect of your third question: Contrary to the implicit expectation that seems to be attached to this question, POSIX.1-2008 appears to have very little to say about how any of the things systemd does are supposed to work. For example, one might expect that since the System Interfaces volume of POSIX.1-2008 stipulates the existence of the syslog() library function, it might say something about the nature of system logging. What it turns out to say is: "The syslog() function shall send a message to an implementation-defined logging facility, which may log it in an implementation-defined system log, write it to the system console, forward it to a list of users, or forward it to the logging facility on another host over the network. The logged message shall include a message header and a message body. The message header contains at least a timestamp and a tag string." (quoted from http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/syslog.html ) I believe the journal constitutes a compliant back-end to POSIX syslog(), no doubt much to many people's disgust. -- 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/54397ef6.7030...@zen.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
On Sat 11 Oct 2014 at 12:49:15 -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:53:20 +0300 > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > You might want to check your facts: > > > > Linus Torvalds "only" created the Linux kernel, which is notoriously > > monolithic[1]. > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate > > This is very true, but the kernel knows its boundaries, and doesn't try > to conquor all sorts of other, non-related, subsystems. What does that mean? It sounds deep but plumbing the depths of its shallowness is a task for someone with more time than the universe has got. -- 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/11102014194942.1eb584bf4...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
On Sat 11 Oct 2014 at 13:01:38 -0400, James Ensor wrote: > No, I don't think you are missing anything, I just did a really bad > job at translating things from my head to my keyboard, and I confused > two arguments Part of that is that I've lost track of who is > saying what. > > In my original post, I just pointed out that it's easy to pick an init > system other than systemd by purging it. I was just trying to be > practical. You will notice that not a single person has disputed this. The argument has instead been shifted to something else. Avoid agreement is the name of the game. > Subsequent posts seemed to get wy off topic, uninformative, and > possibly misleading about how many other things one would lose by > removing systemd. I think someone even stated that, by removing > systemd, a computer would be terrible for daily use. That's just > false. Of course it is, but when there is an agenda.. > What I was trying to say here is that people seem to want to debate > the philosophy/quality/whatever about systemd, and have used this to > come to wrong conclusions about the practical aspect of using an > alternate init system. It's only some people. Mind you, they have managed to generate some 1,000 posts in fighting yesterday's battles and ignoring reality. > And, just for the record, I started this exercise just because I was > curious what would happen if I removed systemd. I don't claim to > understand all the complexities of init systems (as you have been able > to tell). Honestly my system seemed to be working just fine with > systemd, and it's working fine without it. I don't really have an > opinion about it. Many of the opinions I have seen expressed in this > thread seem to me to be based not on any facts or knowledge, but more > on prejudice. Too practical. :) Why use something which is available in preference to something which doesn't exist? -- 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/11102014191736.8d72aebea...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
On Sb, 11 oct 14, 13:01:38, James Ensor wrote: > > And, just for the record, I started this exercise just because I was > curious what would happen if I removed systemd. I don't claim to > understand all the complexities of init systems (as you have been able > to tell). Honestly my system seemed to be working just fine with > systemd, and it's working fine without it. I don't really have an > opinion about it. Many of the opinions I have seen expressed in this > thread seem to me to be based not on any facts or knowledge, but more > on prejudice. 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: question about systemd
Hi. On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 19:41:31 +0300 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Sb, 11 oct 14, 19:12:38, Reco wrote: > > > > Upstream already did it for you - [1]. Actual maximum number is 69. And > > that's not compile options, that's number of resulting binaries. > > > > > > > (no, I won't be bothered to look up all systemd compile options) > > > > [2] shows actual compile options example. Not that much, I'd say. > > Comparing to the backported Debian Linux kernel 3.16 that's nothing: > > > > $ grep ^[A-Z] /boot/config-3.16-0.bpo.2-amd64 | wc -l > > 4437 > > > > So, my point stands. > > That systemd doesn't have to deal with hardware? No, that the kernel grants you all kinds of choices. Of course systemd deals with hardware, it ships udev for that specific task. Whenever it should deal with the hardware is another question. 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/20141011220843.6a040a249f0cf9ef2da81...@gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
Ahoj, Dňa Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:41:12 +0100 Brian napísal: > And to illustrate how much work Debian maintainers put in to respond > to users' concerns: > > root@gnome-jessie:~# apt-get install sysvinit-core systemd-shim > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > The following extra packages will be installed: > cgmanager libcgmanager0 libnih-dbus1 libnih1 > Suggested packages: > pm-utils > The following packages will be REMOVED: > systemd-sysv > The following NEW packages will be installed: > cgmanager libcgmanager0 libnih-dbus1 libnih1 systemd-shim > sysvinit-core 0 upgraded, 6 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not > upgraded. Need to get 482 kB of archives. > After this operation, 1,030 kB of additional disk space will be > used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] > > What more could a Debian user want? I don't know what other users want, but i tried it some days ago (when the latest version of the systemd comes into testing) and i want e.g. to be able to reboot, shutdown, suspend and hibernate the machine as regular user from my XFCE session. That is all, what i want and when i try it, i get message about insufficient permissions. I ask here for help, but no one (i expect the response especially from these who tells, that this ML is for support not for discussion) give me the solution how to get the sufficient permissions back. regards -- Slavko http://slavino.sk signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: question about systemd
* On 2014 11 Oct 12:11 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:53:20 +0300 > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > You might want to check your facts: > > > > Linus Torvalds "only" created the Linux kernel, which is notoriously > > monolithic[1]. > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate > > This is very true, but the kernel knows its boundaries, and doesn't try > to conquor all sorts of other, non-related, subsystems. Also, the kernel developers have moved some things out of the kernel over the years, IIUC. This is the question I have, what are the stated boundaries of the systemd project? Have any boundaries/goals been stated in terms of when systemd will be feature complete? What is the stated compliance to POSIX (Google doesn't seem to provide me good results)? I realize that no distribution will ever be formally POSIX compliant but I always thought it was a good goal to work toward. I really don't want to see the community abandon POSIX compliance. No, POSIX is not perfect and has received a number of revisions over the years. Without some kind of goal posts development will be all over the map. It seems we're looking at a similar situation today as then which begat POSIX as an effort to bring some order to the UNIX world a few decades ago. I fear that we are living the axiom, "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us -- 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/20141011180012.ga5...@n0nb.us
Re: question about systemd
On Sat 11 Oct 2014 at 07:38:42 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 10/10/2014 at 07:53 PM, James Ensor wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM, John Hasler > > wrote: > > > >> James Ensor writes: > >> > >>> My impression is that the idea of "systemd's entanglement" has > >>> been blown way out of proportion. > >> > >> The entanglement discussed here earlier had to do with the design > >> of the Systemd suite, not with dependencies. > > (Well, there was some discussion about the dependencies side of thing as > well, but I think that's more an effect of the design of the systemd > suite rather than a primary issue of its own.) > > > Exactly, and that has been blown way out of proportion. You do not > > need to have systemd installed or running to have a usable > > Debian-testing install. > > Er... how do these two sentences make sense together? > > If I'm reading you correctly, you're claiming that the entanglement > involved in the design of the systemd suite has been blown way out of > proportion, and in support of that you're citing the fact that you do > not need to have systemd installed to have a usable Debian testing system. > > But whether or not you have to have systemd installed to have a usable > Debian testing system is not about the design of the systemd suite; it's > about dependencies. So your citation seems to have nothing to do with > the claim at hand. > > Is there something I'm missing that makes this make sense? 1. The design of systemd is thought to have certain consequences which may have an inpact on a Debian system. 2. One consequence of the design is that there are 'entanglements' when it comes to installing packages on Debian. 'Entanglements' are simply dependencies. Debian has a package system which has relied on the concept of dependencies for many. many years. Inventing a new term for a familiar process doesn't appear helpful. 3. The consequence in 2. is a major consequence of the perceived design limitation in systemd . It might actually be the only one of practical importance to users installing and managing a Debian system. 4. It is an undisputed fact that testing and unstable users can remove systemd absurdly easily. 5. The practical outcome of 4. and 3. is that the proposition in 1. is of little importance to Debian users. Most are only concerned with 'Does it work?'. 'It does indeed' is the answer. These users have little interest in perusing the design of systemd. Even if it didn't work as well as it does they would still have no interest. The design aspect is trumped by reality; hammering away at it doesn't increase its significance. 6. A number of users want a different init system. Are they catered for? Of course they are! Please see 4. 1. was discussed earlier this year. A decision was made. Reprising it in debian-user may produce some clarification but the fundamental framework for Jessie has been laid down. And to illustrate how much work Debian maintainers put in to respond to users' concerns: root@gnome-jessie:~# apt-get install sysvinit-core systemd-shim Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following extra packages will be installed: cgmanager libcgmanager0 libnih-dbus1 libnih1 Suggested packages: pm-utils The following packages will be REMOVED: systemd-sysv The following NEW packages will be installed: cgmanager libcgmanager0 libnih-dbus1 libnih1 systemd-shim sysvinit-core 0 upgraded, 6 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 482 kB of archives. After this operation, 1,030 kB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] What more could a Debian user want? -- 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/20141011174112.ga17...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:38 AM, The Wanderer wrote: > On 10/10/2014 at 07:53 PM, James Ensor wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM, John Hasler >> wrote: >> >>> James Ensor writes: >>> My impression is that the idea of "systemd's entanglement" has been blown way out of proportion. >>> >>> The entanglement discussed here earlier had to do with the design >>> of the Systemd suite, not with dependencies. > > (Well, there was some discussion about the dependencies side of thing as > well, but I think that's more an effect of the design of the systemd > suite rather than a primary issue of its own.) > >> Exactly, and that has been blown way out of proportion. You do not >> need to have systemd installed or running to have a usable >> Debian-testing install. > > Er... how do these two sentences make sense together? > > If I'm reading you correctly, you're claiming that the entanglement > involved in the design of the systemd suite has been blown way out of > proportion, and in support of that you're citing the fact that you do > not need to have systemd installed to have a usable Debian testing system. > > But whether or not you have to have systemd installed to have a usable > Debian testing system is not about the design of the systemd suite; it's > about dependencies. So your citation seems to have nothing to do with > the claim at hand. > > Is there something I'm missing that makes this make sense? > No, I don't think you are missing anything, I just did a really bad job at translating things from my head to my keyboard, and I confused two arguments Part of that is that I've lost track of who is saying what. In my original post, I just pointed out that it's easy to pick an init system other than systemd by purging it. I was just trying to be practical. Subsequent posts seemed to get wy off topic, uninformative, and possibly misleading about how many other things one would lose by removing systemd. I think someone even stated that, by removing systemd, a computer would be terrible for daily use. That's just false. What I was trying to say here is that people seem to want to debate the philosophy/quality/whatever about systemd, and have used this to come to wrong conclusions about the practical aspect of using an alternate init system. And, just for the record, I started this exercise just because I was curious what would happen if I removed systemd. I don't claim to understand all the complexities of init systems (as you have been able to tell). Honestly my system seemed to be working just fine with systemd, and it's working fine without it. I don't really have an opinion about it. Many of the opinions I have seen expressed in this thread seem to me to be based not on any facts or knowledge, but more on prejudice. Cheers, James -- 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/CAFXvjvD2+yZsRAEV5gmqiJ=cw8yf--6tctkgoor9itqhb1n...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:53:20 +0300 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 10 oct 14, 06:57:18, PETER ZOELLER wrote: > > This is really ticking me off. We are becoming just like Microsoft > > that one size fits all. Linux has always been about choice and > > modularity and reconfigurability where a user or admin can choose > > that what suits him/her and the type of system they want. You want > > sysvinit you use Debian or Slackware, want Upstart go to Ubuntu, > > want systemd go to Fedora/Redhat. Where in all this is my choice > > to have my system boot via the means I or any user or admin > > considers to be the appropriate method to boot their system? > > What's wrong with you people? Have you lost sight of why Linus > > designed this system? Its about simplicity, modularity and > > reconfigurability. > > You might want to check your facts: > > Linus Torvalds "only" created the Linux kernel, which is notoriously > monolithic[1]. > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate This is very true, but the kernel knows its boundaries, and doesn't try to conquor all sorts of other, non-related, subsystems. 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/20141011124915.4c8e3...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: question about systemd
On Sb, 11 oct 14, 19:12:38, Reco wrote: > > Upstream already did it for you - [1]. Actual maximum number is 69. And > that's not compile options, that's number of resulting binaries. > > > > (no, I won't be bothered to look up all systemd compile options) > > [2] shows actual compile options example. Not that much, I'd say. > Comparing to the backported Debian Linux kernel 3.16 that's nothing: > > $ grep ^[A-Z] /boot/config-3.16-0.bpo.2-amd64 | wc -l > 4437 > > So, my point stands. That systemd doesn't have to deal with hardware? 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: question about systemd
Добрый день. -- С уважением, Олег Слабоспицкий консультант по ПО Oracle ЗАО РДТЕХ On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:24:09 +0300 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Sb, 11 oct 14, 15:56:02, Reco wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:53:20 +0300 > > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > > > Linus Torvalds "only" created the Linux kernel, which is notoriously > > > monolithic[1]. > > > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate > > > > Yet, being monolithic, it provides hugezillion compile options and lots > > of kernel modules which can be loaded and unloaded at user's pleasure. > > Therefore Linux kernel is about a choice :) > > $ ls /lib/systemd/systemd* | wc -l > 38 Upstream already did it for you - [1]. Actual maximum number is 69. And that's not compile options, that's number of resulting binaries. > (no, I won't be bothered to look up all systemd compile options) [2] shows actual compile options example. Not that much, I'd say. Comparing to the backported Debian Linux kernel 3.16 that's nothing: $ grep ^[A-Z] /boot/config-3.16-0.bpo.2-amd64 | wc -l 4437 So, my point stands. [1] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html [2] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/systemd/chapter06/systemd.html 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/20141011191238.d52351823489a0e030fa6...@gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On Sb, 11 oct 14, 15:56:02, Reco wrote: > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:53:20 +0300 > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > Linus Torvalds "only" created the Linux kernel, which is notoriously > > monolithic[1]. > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate > > Yet, being monolithic, it provides hugezillion compile options and lots > of kernel modules which can be loaded and unloaded at user's pleasure. > Therefore Linux kernel is about a choice :) $ ls /lib/systemd/systemd* | wc -l 38 (no, I won't be bothered to look up all systemd compile options) I think we're running is circles, so I'll stop. 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: question about systemd
Hi. On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:53:20 +0300 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 10 oct 14, 06:57:18, PETER ZOELLER wrote: > > This is really ticking me off. We are becoming just like Microsoft > > that one size fits all. Linux has always been about choice and > > modularity and reconfigurability where a user or admin can choose that > > what suits him/her and the type of system they want. You want > > sysvinit you use Debian or Slackware, want Upstart go to Ubuntu, want > > systemd go to Fedora/Redhat. Where in all this is my choice to have > > my system boot via the means I or any user or admin considers to be > > the appropriate method to boot their system? What's wrong with you > > people? Have you lost sight of why Linus designed this system? Its > > about simplicity, modularity and reconfigurability. > > You might want to check your facts: > > Linus Torvalds "only" created the Linux kernel, which is notoriously > monolithic[1]. > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate Yet, being monolithic, it provides hugezillion compile options and lots of kernel modules which can be loaded and unloaded at user's pleasure. Therefore Linux kernel is about a choice :) 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/20141011155602.26a8ecc9c5c931c9986cb...@gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On 10/10/2014 at 07:53 PM, James Ensor wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM, John Hasler > wrote: > >> James Ensor writes: >> >>> My impression is that the idea of "systemd's entanglement" has >>> been blown way out of proportion. >> >> The entanglement discussed here earlier had to do with the design >> of the Systemd suite, not with dependencies. (Well, there was some discussion about the dependencies side of thing as well, but I think that's more an effect of the design of the systemd suite rather than a primary issue of its own.) > Exactly, and that has been blown way out of proportion. You do not > need to have systemd installed or running to have a usable > Debian-testing install. Er... how do these two sentences make sense together? If I'm reading you correctly, you're claiming that the entanglement involved in the design of the systemd suite has been blown way out of proportion, and in support of that you're citing the fact that you do not need to have systemd installed to have a usable Debian testing system. But whether or not you have to have systemd installed to have a usable Debian testing system is not about the design of the systemd suite; it's about dependencies. So your citation seems to have nothing to do with the claim at hand. Is there something I'm missing that makes this make sense? -- 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: question about systemd
On Vi, 10 oct 14, 06:57:18, PETER ZOELLER wrote: > This is really ticking me off. We are becoming just like Microsoft > that one size fits all. Linux has always been about choice and > modularity and reconfigurability where a user or admin can choose that > what suits him/her and the type of system they want. You want > sysvinit you use Debian or Slackware, want Upstart go to Ubuntu, want > systemd go to Fedora/Redhat. Where in all this is my choice to have > my system boot via the means I or any user or admin considers to be > the appropriate method to boot their system? What's wrong with you > people? Have you lost sight of why Linus designed this system? Its > about simplicity, modularity and reconfigurability. You might want to check your facts: Linus Torvalds "only" created the Linux kernel, which is notoriously monolithic[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate 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: question about systemd
On Sb, 11 oct 14, 11:18:10, Martin Read wrote: > > Failure of the Debian Installer to offer a convenient mechanism for > selecting the init system to be installed can reasonably be argued to be a > bug in the installer, which you might want to consider reporting. But most likely severity 'wishlist' since this was not possible before either. 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: question about systemd
On 10/10/14 18:15, PETER ZOELLER wrote: And this is being hard coded in my opinion since it forces it to be installed as a default with no other option given and required for example if you want to use Gnome. It turns out to be the case that cases where Gnome fails to operate correctly without systemd as PID 1 are in fact being treated as bugs: https://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/other/testing.html - the list of release-critical bugs in Debian jessie, which refers to: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no&bug=759745 - a release-critical bug filed against gdm3, the X display manager provided as a component of Gnome 3. Failure of the Debian Installer to offer a convenient mechanism for selecting the init system to be installed can reasonably be argued to be a bug in the installer, which you might want to consider reporting. This system has been shown to be troublesome, is only one of many ways to handle the boot process, and forcing other distributions to either accept it or fall by the way side. A rather strong arm tactic of Microsoft. I loved Linux because of the freedom to choose, modify and configure it to what I want and need. Right now there are only two distro's left that do not use systemd and soon there will be none. This is madness. Systemd is a kludge, poorly designed, overly complex. and too convoluted leaving it open to being cracked and its host system compromised by the crackers of the world. It seems to me that if a cracker is in a position to exploit whatever attack surface systemd presents, your system has already been compromised. Until ALL the bugs are out and it has proven itself to be 100% stable and 100% secure it has no business being a part of a stable operating system. If that's your position, why are you using an operating system based on the Linux kernel? The Linux kernel has bugs, it is not 100% stable, and it is not 100% secure. -- 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/543903e2.9020...@zen.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
On Vi, 10 oct 14, 20:57:09, Peter Zoeller wrote: > I tell you what why don't you install Fedora the originator of this and try > to remove systemd and install sysvinit or Upstart and then we will talk. > Left Fedora for this very reason, lack of choice. As far as I understand Fedora has different goals, so it's quite natural for them to make design choices for those goals. Debian on the other hand has a quite general goal of providing a high quality free operating system. In practice this means that Debian will allow many programs providing similar functions to co-exist in the archive as long as they play nice with each other as much as possible[1]. However, as a side effect of this the complexity of Debian increases[2]. Having upstream developers and package maintainers support more than one init system means more work for them. So the only way to ensure Debian is able to support more init systems is to get involved. There are many things you can do: - If you use applications that depend on libpam-systemd help with systemd-shim / cgmanager in any way you can - If you want your services to still run fine under different inits help maintain the support for that init[3] - provide support for other users / write documentation on how to run Debian with other init systems - etc. It's simply pointless and demotivating to ask "Debian" to do something for you. The Debian Project is not even a legal entity and its Developers are free to *not* work on something if they choose so. If there's nobody willing to do the work IT WILL NOT BE DONE! [1] there are many examples here, like desktop environments, window managers, MTAs, webservers, etc. [2] yep, the complexity argument cuts both ways [3] e.g. for sysvinit you could help the package maintainer transition to init-d-script(5), which will make it much easier to maintain sysvinit support in the long term 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: question about systemd
Ahoj, Dňa Fri, 10 Oct 2014 23:31:02 +0100 Brian napísal: > On Fri 10 Oct 2014 at 21:00:41 +0200, Slavko wrote: > > [snip] > > > LANG=C aptpu libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0 > > The following packages will be REMOVED: > > [Snip] > > > cups-daemon : Depends: libsystemd-daemon0 (>= 31) but it is not > > going to be installed. > > If you are going to provide information for a testing or unstable > installation the least you can do is ensure it is up-to-date. It is a > necessary condition for a fruitful discussion. Dont't be quick. It take a lot of work to get the my system working again (with snapshots.debian.org help), after i test latest testing versions. After new version will works for me, i will have it updated, until i will have cca 50 in hold state and some custom recompiled to remove the systemd dependency: regards -- Slavko http://slavino.sk signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: question about systemd
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 22:12:14 +0100 Brian sent: > > Just for kicks, I also purged cgmanager. I guess I like to live > > dangerously. Nothing bad seems to have happened. I must be living dangerously to, because I don't even have cgmanager installed? Charlie -- Registered Linux User:- 329524 *** I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education. __Wilson Mizener *** Debian GNU/Linux - just the best way to create magic - -- 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/20141011153608.39477cd6@taogypsy
Re: question about systemd
On 10/10/2014 07:53 PM, James Ensor wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM, John Hasler wrote: >> James Ensor writes: >>> My impression is that the idea of "systemd's entanglement" has been >>> blown way out of proportion. >> >> The entanglement discussed here earlier had to do with the design of the >> Systemd suite, not with dependencies. >> -- > > Exactly, and that has been blown way out of proportion. You do not > need to have systemd installed or running to have a usable > Debian-testing install. I have not seen a counter-point so far that > demonstrates otherwise. > > Some time ago there was a list of dependencies on this thread. I would think that the entanglement was referring to that. Maybe it was wrong. The messages of the last couple days saying how to replace systemd did not seem to indicate any great loss of apps due to dependencies on systemd. It would be nice if someone knowledgeable would figure this out and post the results. --doug -- 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/5438af08.40...@optonline.net
Re: question about systemd
I tell you what why don't you install Fedora the originator of this and try to remove systemd and install sysvinit or Upstart and then we will talk. Left Fedora for this very reason, lack of choice. On 10/10/14 07:16 PM, Brian wrote: On Fri 10 Oct 2014 at 15:31:35 -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:16:23PM -0400, James Ensor wrote: Please reply to the list and not directly to me. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:39 AM, PETER ZOELLER wrote: Hi: I'm sorry but I shouldn't have to remove systemd but be given a choice as to which one I want at the time of the install just as I choose my file system, my software, my networking, where I want my boot loader installed, etc. To assume on your part what I need or want and then expect me to counter your choice by requiring me to uninstall is rather presumptuous on your part just the same approach that I would expect from Microsoft not Linux. Peter I made no assumptions, as I had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of making systemd the default init system. I merely point out that it is possible (and quite easy) for a debian-user to remove systemd. What about systemd's entanglement? From what I read here, once it's installed there are certain programs that depend on it. Not true? You are approaching this the wrong way. James Ensor claims it is possible and easy for a user to remove systemd. Your task is to show that is not; preferably by giving a concrete technical example. Your mission is not to repeat some of the nonsense you may have read on debian-user, query the veracity of those statements and then ask someone to comment on your beliefs. Constructive contributions *to the topic* are always welcome. -- 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/54388065.2040...@rogers.com
Re: question about systemd
On Fri 10 Oct 2014 at 18:50:48 -0400, James Ensor wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Brian wrote: > > > Why install sysv-rc, sysvinit and sysvinit-utils? To change from systemd > > to sysvinit it is surely enough to do > > > > aptitude install sysvinit-core > > I did that because I didn't know which one to install, so I just did > them all. Doesn't seem to have created any problems, but thanks for > clarifying sysvinit-core is sufficient On the present unstable: sysv-rc is a required package. Systemd depends on it. So it will be on the system anyway. sysvinit depends on init, an essential package. It provides an init in /lib/sysvinit/ in case /sbin/init fails. It needn't be on the system and can be safely removed if booting with systemd is fine. Not needed (for obvious reasons) when sysvinit-core is installed. sysvinit-utils is a required package. sysv-rc depends on it. So it will be on the system anyway. No harm done. Different routes taken to the same objective. > > Yes and no. You have to reboot before this command can be successfully > > carried out, otherwise the running system will complain very loudly you > > are doing something it will not obey. > > It did complain at this step, gave me a big warning that I was > removing something that was currently in use, so I did reboot at some > point, I can't remember if it was before or after purging systemd. > Could very well have been required to reboot before purging. Rebooting before removing is indeed necessary. > > > aptitude purge libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0 > > > > Purely optional. Say goodbye to cups-daemon if you purge libsystemd0. > > (libsystemd-daemon0 is a transitional library on unstable). > > I still had libsystemd0 even after doing this, so my cups-daemon > remained intact it appears. I mentioned libsystemd0 because the functionality of libsystemd-daemon0, libsystemd-journal0 and libsystemd-login0 is now all in one library. -- 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/11102014004534.c9eb16ddd...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM, John Hasler wrote: > James Ensor writes: >> My impression is that the idea of "systemd's entanglement" has been >> blown way out of proportion. > > The entanglement discussed here earlier had to do with the design of the > Systemd suite, not with dependencies. > -- Exactly, and that has been blown way out of proportion. You do not need to have systemd installed or running to have a usable Debian-testing install. I have not seen a counter-point so far that demonstrates otherwise. -- 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/CAFXvjvA9-70dCcoKxWh3Wx_Zu2m0=1jA_=v_5-g-xi-qjn5...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
James Ensor writes: > My impression is that the idea of "systemd's entanglement" has been > blown way out of proportion. The entanglement discussed here earlier had to do with the design of the Systemd suite, not with dependencies. -- 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/87a953biyg@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: question about systemd
On Fri 10 Oct 2014 at 15:31:35 -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:16:23PM -0400, James Ensor wrote: > > Please reply to the list and not directly to me. > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:39 AM, PETER ZOELLER > > wrote: > > > Hi: > > > > > > I'm sorry but I shouldn't have to remove systemd but be given a choice as > > > to > > > which one I want at the time of the install just as I choose my file > > > system, > > > my software, my networking, where I want my boot loader installed, etc. > > > To > > > assume on your part what I need or want and then expect me to counter your > > > choice by requiring me to uninstall is rather presumptuous on your part > > > just > > > the same approach that I would expect from Microsoft not Linux. > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > I made no assumptions, as I had absolutely nothing to do with the > > decision of making systemd the default init system. I merely point > > out that it is possible (and quite easy) for a debian-user to remove > > systemd. > > What about systemd's entanglement? From what I read here, once it's > installed there are certain programs that depend on it. Not true? You are approaching this the wrong way. James Ensor claims it is possible and easy for a user to remove systemd. Your task is to show that is not; preferably by giving a concrete technical example. Your mission is not to repeat some of the nonsense you may have read on debian-user, query the veracity of those statements and then ask someone to comment on your beliefs. Constructive contributions *to the topic* are always welcome. -- 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/11102014000426.bf6ad4258...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
> What about systemd's entanglement? From what I read here, once it's > installed there are certain programs that depend on it. Not true? No idea what you mean by that. Programs either depend on other programs or they don't. -- 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/87egufbjwk@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: question about systemd
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote: > > What about systemd's entanglement? From what I read here, once it's > installed there are certain programs that depend on it. Not true? > Some programs depend on systemd, but I'm not using any of them anymore, since they did not impact the usability of my system. Other programs depend on libsystemd0, but libsystemd0 can be installed without having to install systemd. My impression is that the idea of "systemd's entanglement" has been blown way out of proportion. -- 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/cafxvjvd58wa_2oqin-hpqdveokpgtapqcjiks5d7tx-m9mg...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Brian wrote: - snip - > > Anyway, that's enough of this advocacy lark, we will look at the > technical points you posted about. They are worth a look or two/ > > > looking to wade into any arguments about systemd. I certainly do not > > claim to have solved any great crisis... > > > > Anyway, this is what I did: > > > > aptitude install sysv-rc sysvinit sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils > > Why install sysv-rc, sysvinit and sysvinit-utils? To change from systemd > to sysvinit it is surely enough to do > > aptitude install sysvinit-core > I did that because I didn't know which one to install, so I just did them all. Doesn't seem to have created any problems, but thanks for clarifying sysvinit-core is sufficient > > aptitude purge systemd > > Yes and no. You have to reboot before this command can be successfully > carried out, otherwise the running system will complain very loudly you > are doing something it will not obey. > It did complain at this step, gave me a big warning that I was removing something that was currently in use, so I did reboot at some point, I can't remember if it was before or after purging systemd. Could very well have been required to reboot before purging. > > aptitude purge libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0 > > Purely optional. Say goodbye to cups-daemon if you purge libsystemd0. > (libsystemd-daemon0 is a transitional library on unstable). > I still had libsystemd0 even after doing this, so my cups-daemon remained intact it appears. > > Just for kicks, I also purged cgmanager. I guess I like to live > > dangerously. Nothing bad seems to have happened. > > So your install wasn't a new one from a Jessie d-i. And you were not > upgrading from Wheezy. Those are statements, not questions. > > > Like I said, the only thing I was using that was also removed was > > network-manager, but I don't really miss it. > > > > But, to get more to the point of my original question, there has been > > so much discussion about systemd here, but as far as I can tell very > > little of this discussion has been of practical use for a debian-user. > > You have good judgement. > I don't hear that very often ;) -- 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/cafxvjvdycloxirckzbo_bwyao8mich2mqiyuyqxtwggaqyk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:16:23PM -0400, James Ensor wrote: > Please reply to the list and not directly to me. > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:39 AM, PETER ZOELLER > wrote: > > Hi: > > > > I'm sorry but I shouldn't have to remove systemd but be given a choice as to > > which one I want at the time of the install just as I choose my file system, > > my software, my networking, where I want my boot loader installed, etc. To > > assume on your part what I need or want and then expect me to counter your > > choice by requiring me to uninstall is rather presumptuous on your part just > > the same approach that I would expect from Microsoft not Linux. > > > > Peter > > > > I made no assumptions, as I had absolutely nothing to do with the > decision of making systemd the default init system. I merely point > out that it is possible (and quite easy) for a debian-user to remove > systemd. What about systemd's entanglement? From what I read here, once it's installed there are certain programs that depend on it. Not true? -- Bob Holtzman Giant intergalactic brain-sucking hyperbacteria came to Earth to rape our women and create a race of mindless zombies. Look! It's working! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: question about systemd
Keith Peter writes: > Are you printing from your machine? Does WICD need wpasupplicant? Have > I misunderstood? Cups is not the only way to print. -- 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/87ppdzsgi9@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: question about systemd
On Fri 10 Oct 2014 at 21:00:41 +0200, Slavko wrote: [snip] > LANG=C aptpu libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0 > The following packages will be REMOVED: [Snip] > cups-daemon : Depends: libsystemd-daemon0 (>= 31) but it is not going to be > installed. If you are going to provide information for a testing or unstable installation the least you can do is ensure it is up-to-date. It is a necessary condition for a fruitful discussion. cups-deamon does not depend on libsystemd-daemon0. Using apt-cache 'show cups-daemon': Package: cups-daemon Depends: libavahi-client3 (>= 0.6.16), libavahi-common3 (>= 0.6.16), libc6 (>= 2.15), libcups2 (= 1.7.5-4), libcupsmime1 (>= 1.5.0), libdbus-1-3 (>= 1.0.2), libgnutls-deb0-28 (>= 3.3.0), libgssapi-krb5-2 (>= 1.10+dfsg~), libpam0g (>= 0.99.7.1), libpaper1, libsystemd0, init-system-helpers (>= 1.18~), procps, lsb-base (>= 3), ssl-cert (>= 1.0.11), adduser, bc I've also snipped the rest because it is probably based on an old testing version of Debian. Worthless. -- 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/10102014231518.9f99449f2...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
On Thu 09 Oct 2014 at 17:44:20 -0400, James Ensor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > > > > James, > > > > Please, please, *please* write down a detailed article on exactly > > how you did this. I'll help you if you'd like --- I write for a living, > > a lot of it tech writing. > > > > If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've > > just singlehandedly ended this whole argument. If you want to > > collaborate on this article, I'll throw an extra hard disk in my > > experimental box to tech edit your instructions. > > > > This just might be good news. > > > > SteveT > > Again, I just don't see what the big deal is, or why you would need a > detailed article about how to remove packages from debian. I'm not Some people don't really know what is going on with Debian but feel that offering to write a detailed article would allow them to make others feel that they did. Not that the article will materialise, with or without an extra hard disk. Expressing complete surprise at what you said and crediting it with uniqueness is a function of a bad memory and not reading what has been said many times on debian-user. Not worth bothering about. I'd ignore it; everyone else is trying to. Anyway, that's enough of this advocacy lark, we will look at the technical points you posted about. They are worth a look or two/ > looking to wade into any arguments about systemd. I certainly do not > claim to have solved any great crisis... > > Anyway, this is what I did: > > aptitude install sysv-rc sysvinit sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils Why install sysv-rc, sysvinit and sysvinit-utils? To change from systemd to sysvinit it is surely enough to do aptitude install sysvinit-core > aptitude purge systemd Yes and no. You have to reboot before this command can be successfully carried out, otherwise the running system will complain very loudly you are doing something it will not obey. > aptitude purge libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0 Purely optional. Say goodbye to cups-daemon if you purge libsystemd0. (libsystemd-daemon0 is a transitional library on unstable). > Just for kicks, I also purged cgmanager. I guess I like to live > dangerously. Nothing bad seems to have happened. So your install wasn't a new one from a Jessie d-i. And you were not upgrading from Wheezy. Those are statements, not questions. > Like I said, the only thing I was using that was also removed was > network-manager, but I don't really miss it. > > But, to get more to the point of my original question, there has been > so much discussion about systemd here, but as far as I can tell very > little of this discussion has been of practical use for a debian-user. You have good judgement. -- 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/20141010211214.gz17...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: question about systemd
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Keith Peter wrote: > > Hello James and all > > I found (when I tried a light system with sysvinit) that cups and > wpasupplicant needed a few systemd libraries. > > See > > http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/osd.html > > Are you printing from your machine? Does WICD need wpasupplicant? Have > I misunderstood? > > cheers > -- > Keith Burnett > http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/ Yes I believe there many things (including cups) that require libsystemd0, so I still have that package installed. But that does not preclude the use of an alternate init system. -- 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/CAFXvjvBjvm=bfh1xex_njnecqlcscx5vsmq45hhhtqx3svu...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote: > > All well and good but what happens when sysv* get purged from the repos? > When is this going to happen? -- 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/CAFXvjvBnHEAVYYULwNyzX=gr-subauo4uqawbirgqmqgrnm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
>
> It seems to be simple, but have you tried it?
>
Yes, and it succeeded for me
>> aptitude install sysv-rc sysvinit sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils
>
> LANG=C dpkg -l sysv-rc sysvinit sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils
> Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
> |
Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
> |/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
> ||/ Name Version Architecture
Description
>
+++-=-=-=-===
> ii sysv-rc 2.88dsf-53.4 all
System-V-like runlevel change mechanism
> ii sysvinit 2.88dsf-53.4 amd64
System-V-like init utilities - transitional package
> ii sysvinit-core 2.88dsf-53.4 amd64
System-V-like init utilities
> ii sysvinit-utils2.88dsf-53.4 amd64
System-V-like utilities
>
>> aptitude purge systemd
>
> (aptpu is my alias for aptitude purge)
>
> LANG=C aptpu systemd
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> systemd{p}
> 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 49 not upgraded.
> Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 5166 kB will be freed.
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> libpam-systemd : Depends: systemd (= 204-14) but it is not going to be
installed.
> The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
I do not have libpam-systemd installed on my system.
>
> Keep the following packages at their current version:
> 1) systemd [204-14 (now)]
>
> Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
>
> *** No more solutions available ***
>
> LANG=C aptpu systemd libpam-systemd
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> libpam-systemd{p} systemd{p}
> 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 2 to remove and 48 not upgraded.
> Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 5289 kB will be freed.
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> udisks2 : Depends: libpam-systemd but it is not going to be installed.
> policykit-1 : Depends: libpam-systemd but it is not going to be
installed.
> The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
I do not have udisks2 or policykit-1 installed on my system
>
> Keep the following packages at their current version:
> 1) libpam-systemd [204-14 (now)]
> 2) systemd [204-14 (now)]
>
> Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
>
> *** No more solutions available ***
>
> LANG=C aptpu systemd libpam-systemd policykit-1 udisks2
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> libpam-systemd{p} policykit-1{p} systemd{p} udisks2{p}
> 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 4 to remove and 46 not upgraded.
> Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 7151 kB will be freed.
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> gvfs-daemons : Depends: udisks2 but it is not going to be installed.
> policykit-1-gnome : Depends: policykit-1 but it is not going to be
installed.
> The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
>
I do not have gvfs-daemons nor policykit-1-gnome installed on my system
> Remove the following packages:
> 1) policykit-1-gnome
>
> Keep the following packages at their current version:
> 2) libpam-systemd [204-14 (now)]
> 3) systemd [204-14 (now)]
> 4) udisks2 [2.1.3-3 (now)]
>
> Leave the following dependencies unresolved:
> 5) udisks recommends policykit-1
> 6) upower recommends policykit-1
> 7) arduino recommends policykit-1
> 8) udisks2 recommends policykit-1
> 9) gvfs-daemons recommends policykit-1-gnome
>
> Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] q
>
> i didn't investigate another solutions, arduino and gvfs-daemons i need
These are just recommends
> aptitude purge libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0
- a bunch of stuff clipped -
>
> Hmm, great. I have some PHP5 & CGI scripts with the nginx, the will go
> away. And CUPS go away too. With the erlang will go away the wings3d
> too. Etc, etc, etc...
>
I have cups installed, so there is no need for that to go away just because
you purge systemd.
I *do* still have libsystemd0 installed.
>
> Then yes, you can have system without systemd of course, but it will be
> only terrible to use for daily work! Please, don't suggest what you
> mind, but what you know only and don't consider solution which works
> for you, that it will works for all.
>
On the contrary, my system is just fine for daily work. No where did I
suggest that there would not be side effects for other users, the point of
my original post is that removing systemd is possible. So many people
have been acting as they are being forced to use systemd, I just
demonstrated an example where this is not the case.
I guess I have different needs from my system than you have for yours, that
does not really surprise me, since in ge
Re: question about systemd
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:44:20PM -0400, James Ensor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > > > > On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:58:13 -0400 > > James Ensor wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion about systemd one way or the other, but > > > even after all of the debate and discussion that has been going on, > > > it was still not clear to me if systemd is something that is required > > > to be run, or if it's just a default init system that can be changed. > > > > > > So I went ahead and installed sysvinit and purged systemd so see if > > > something bad (tm) would happen, but as far as I can tell my system is > > > running fine. The only two things that changed are (1) > > > network-manager has been removed, so I'm using wicd instead for > > > network management, and (2) suspend from xfce no longer works so I > > > installed acpi-support to enable suspend. But everything else seems > > > to be working just fine. System is Debian Jessie amd64, and I'm > > > using Xfce4. > > > > > > So I guess my question is what's all the hubbub? > > > > > > James Ensor > > > > James, > > > > Please, please, *please* write down a detailed article on exactly > > how you did this. I'll help you if you'd like --- I write for a living, > > a lot of it tech writing. > > > > If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've > > just singlehandedly ended this whole argument. If you want to > > collaborate on this article, I'll throw an extra hard disk in my > > experimental box to tech edit your instructions. > > > > This just might be good news. > > > > SteveT > > > > Again, I just don't see what the big deal is, or why you would need a > detailed article about how to remove packages from debian. I'm not > looking to wade into any arguments about systemd. I certainly do not > claim to have solved any great crisis... > > Anyway, this is what I did: > > aptitude install sysv-rc sysvinit sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils > aptitude purge systemd > aptitude purge libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0 > > Just for kicks, I also purged cgmanager. I guess I like to live > dangerously. Nothing bad seems to have happened. All well and good but what happens when sysv* get purged from the repos? -- Bob Holtzman Giant intergalactic brain-sucking hyperbacteria came to Earth to rape our women and create a race of mindless zombies. Look! It's working! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: question about systemd
Ahoj,
Dňa Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:22:06 -0400 James Ensor
napísal:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Slavko wrote:
> > Ahoj,
> >
> > Dňa Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:16:23 -0400 James Ensor
> > napísal:
> >
> >> I made no assumptions, as I had absolutely nothing to do with the
> >> decision of making systemd the default init system. I merely point
> >> out that it is possible (and quite easy) for a debian-user to
> >> remove systemd.
> >
> > Please, don't hesitate and share how do it.
> >
> > regards
> >
>
> I can see how this would have been overlooked given the off-topic
> responses that have littered this thread. But this is what I provided
> earlier:
It seems to be simple, but have you tried it?
> aptitude install sysv-rc sysvinit sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils
LANG=C dpkg -l sysv-rc sysvinit sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
|/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Architecture
Description
+++-=-=-=-===
ii sysv-rc 2.88dsf-53.4 all
System-V-like runlevel change mechanism
ii sysvinit 2.88dsf-53.4 amd64
System-V-like init utilities - transitional package
ii sysvinit-core 2.88dsf-53.4 amd64
System-V-like init utilities
ii sysvinit-utils2.88dsf-53.4 amd64
System-V-like utilities
> aptitude purge systemd
(aptpu is my alias for aptitude purge)
LANG=C aptpu systemd
The following packages will be REMOVED:
systemd{p}
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 49 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 5166 kB will be freed.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libpam-systemd : Depends: systemd (= 204-14) but it is not going to be
installed.
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Keep the following packages at their current version:
1) systemd [204-14 (now)]
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
*** No more solutions available ***
LANG=C aptpu systemd libpam-systemd
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libpam-systemd{p} systemd{p}
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 2 to remove and 48 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 5289 kB will be freed.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
udisks2 : Depends: libpam-systemd but it is not going to be installed.
policykit-1 : Depends: libpam-systemd but it is not going to be installed.
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Keep the following packages at their current version:
1) libpam-systemd [204-14 (now)]
2) systemd [204-14 (now)]
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
*** No more solutions available ***
LANG=C aptpu systemd libpam-systemd policykit-1 udisks2
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libpam-systemd{p} policykit-1{p} systemd{p} udisks2{p}
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 4 to remove and 46 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 7151 kB will be freed.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
gvfs-daemons : Depends: udisks2 but it is not going to be installed.
policykit-1-gnome : Depends: policykit-1 but it is not going to be installed.
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Remove the following packages:
1) policykit-1-gnome
Keep the following packages at their current version:
2) libpam-systemd [204-14 (now)]
3) systemd [204-14 (now)]
4) udisks2 [2.1.3-3 (now)]
Leave the following dependencies unresolved:
5) udisks recommends policykit-1
6) upower recommends policykit-1
7) arduino recommends policykit-1
8) udisks2 recommends policykit-1
9) gvfs-daemons recommends policykit-1-gnome
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] q
i didn't investigate another solutions, arduino and gvfs-daemons i need
> aptitude purge libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0
LANG=C aptpu libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libsystemd-daemon0{p} libsystemd-login0{p}
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 2 to remove and 48 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 181 kB will be freed.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
php5-fpm : Depends: libsystemd-daemon0 (>= 31) but it is not going to be
installed.
udis
Re: question about systemd
* On 2014 10 Oct 08:39 -0500, Rob Owens wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Nate Bargmann" > > > > I just went ahead and went back to sysvinit-core and in the process > > started purging packages in Aptitude! At the end policykit, packagekit, > > rtkit, and systemd were excised and a whole host of other stuff I > > couldn't find a reason to keep. Guess what, Thunar now gives me > > read/write permission when mounting my flash drive due to an old line in > > /etc/fstab. However, it doesn't show up on the Xfce desktop. :-( I > > can live with that, however. > > Could you share that line in /etc/fstab? Certainly, this works for me (TM) and in Thunar usb0 is shown as a file system I can mount or open: /dev/sdc1 /media/usb0 autorw,user,noauto 0 0 It is partition specific so if I had a flash drive with two partitions I would need another stanza to make it work, unless someone has a better idea. > On my Jessie system, I've got USB mounting working with pcmanfm. It > required some systemd stuff as well as policykit: > > ~$ aptitude search ~i | grep systemd > i A libpam-systemd - system and service manager - PAM module > > id libsystemd-daemon0 - systemd utility library (deprecated) > > i A libsystemd0 - systemd utility library > > i A libsystemd0:i386- systemd utility library > > i A systemd - system and service manager > > i systemd-shim- shim for systemd As a comparison, I have only one systemd component installed: $ aptitude search ~i | grep systemd i A libsystemd0 - systemd utility library > $ aptitude search ~i | grep policykit > i A policykit-1 - framework for managing administrative > poli > i A policykit-1-gnome - GNOME authentication agent for > PolicyKit-1 And aptitude search ~i | grep policykit returns no results here. > I am running sysvinit, not systemd-sysv (which is why systemd-shim is > installed). I really found that I lost nothing essential on this desktop when I started purging last night. I am not done yet as I expect more will fall by the wayside as I am looking at a character app or two to replace GUI apps I use infrequently. That's not to say that I'll be working without Xorg installed--far from it! It's almost as though I want to avoid as much freedesktop.org/RedHat stuff as possible. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us -- 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/20141010181406.gc6...@n0nb.us
Re: question about systemd
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Slavko wrote: > Ahoj, > > Dňa Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:16:23 -0400 James Ensor > napísal: > >> I made no assumptions, as I had absolutely nothing to do with the >> decision of making systemd the default init system. I merely point >> out that it is possible (and quite easy) for a debian-user to remove >> systemd. > > Please, don't hesitate and share how do it. > > regards > I can see how this would have been overlooked given the off-topic responses that have littered this thread. But this is what I provided earlier: aptitude install sysv-rc sysvinit sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils aptitude purge systemd aptitude purge libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0 Cheers, James -- 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/cafxvjvcu+r-uogx5a5k-0kxlqc4euwwnu-kz7-fbpfaumkl...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On 10/10/2014 at 12:52 PM, Slavko wrote: > Ahoj, > > Dňa Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:16:23 -0400 James Ensor > napísal: > >> I made no assumptions, as I had absolutely nothing to do with the >> decision of making systemd the default init system. I merely >> point out that it is possible (and quite easy) for a debian-user to >> remove systemd. > > Please, don't hesitate and share how do it. He already did, last night: >> Anyway, this is what I did: >> >> aptitude install sysv-rc sysvinit sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils >> aptitude purge systemd >> aptitude purge libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0 >> >> Just for kicks, I also purged cgmanager. I guess I like to live >> dangerously. Nothing bad seems to have happened. >> >> Like I said, the only thing I was using that was also removed was >> network-manager, but I don't really miss it. Now, there will probably be side effects of this, and more as software gets updated to expect systemd functionality to be present - so this indeed isn't a perfect solution, in the long term. But if you can live with or work around the side effects, which many people probably can, then it does get the basic job done. -- 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: question about systemd
The point I am making is that Linux is moving away from a modular system open to change, choice and reconfiguration to one where one person or small group of people decide to hard code something into the system. And this is being hard coded in my opinion since it forces it to be installed as a default with no other option given and required for example if you want to use Gnome. This system has been shown to be troublesome, is only one of many ways to handle the boot process, and forcing other distributions to either accept it or fall by the way side. A rather strong arm tactic of Microsoft. I loved Linux because of the freedom to choose, modify and configure it to what I want and need. Right now there are only two distro's left that do not use systemd and soon there will be none. This is madness. Systemd is a kludge, poorly designed, overly complex. and too convoluted leaving it open to being cracked and its host system compromised by the crackers of the world. Until ALL the bugs are out and it has proven itself to be 100% stable and 100% secure it has no business being a part of a stable operating system. We users in this world should not be the beta site for this system. On Friday, October 10, 2014 12:16 PM, James Ensor wrote: Please reply to the list and not directly to me. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:39 AM, PETER ZOELLER wrote: > Hi: > > I'm sorry but I shouldn't have to remove systemd but be given a choice as to > which one I want at the time of the install just as I choose my file system, > my software, my networking, where I want my boot loader installed, etc. To > assume on your part what I need or want and then expect me to counter your > choice by requiring me to uninstall is rather presumptuous on your part just > the same approach that I would expect from Microsoft not Linux. > > Peter > I made no assumptions, as I had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of making systemd the default init system. I merely point out that it is possible (and quite easy) for a debian-user to remove systemd. If you do not want systemd to *ever* be installed on your system, well then that's another discussion that does not belong in this thread. > > On Friday, October 10, 2014 11:01 AM, James Ensor > wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:57 AM, PETER ZOELLER > wrote: > >> This is really ticking me off. We are becoming just like Microsoft that >> one >> size fits all. Linux has always been about choice and modularity and >> reconfigurability where a user or admin can choose that what suits him/her >> and the type of system they want. You want sysvinit you use Debian or >> Slackware, want Upstart go to Ubuntu, want systemd go to Fedora/Redhat. >> Where in all this is my choice to have my system boot via the means I or >> any >> user or admin considers to be the appropriate method to boot their system? >> What's wrong with you people? Have you lost sight of why Linus designed >> this system? Its about simplicity, modularity and reconfigurability. >> This >> approach with systemd flies in the face of all this. Its like demanding >> that you can use only ext4 as your file system. > >> >> > > The point of this thread was to demonstrate that you *do* still have a > choice. It's relatively simple to remove systemd from your Debian > installation if you choose to. > > > -- 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/cafxvjvcwwja8utkpqdraxbetpwtgq8u7tvt-g7h9_iqjj8n...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
Ahoj, Dňa Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:16:23 -0400 James Ensor napísal: > I made no assumptions, as I had absolutely nothing to do with the > decision of making systemd the default init system. I merely point > out that it is possible (and quite easy) for a debian-user to remove > systemd. Please, don't hesitate and share how do it. regards -- Slavko http://slavino.sk signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: question about systemd
Please reply to the list and not directly to me. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:39 AM, PETER ZOELLER wrote: > Hi: > > I'm sorry but I shouldn't have to remove systemd but be given a choice as to > which one I want at the time of the install just as I choose my file system, > my software, my networking, where I want my boot loader installed, etc. To > assume on your part what I need or want and then expect me to counter your > choice by requiring me to uninstall is rather presumptuous on your part just > the same approach that I would expect from Microsoft not Linux. > > Peter > I made no assumptions, as I had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of making systemd the default init system. I merely point out that it is possible (and quite easy) for a debian-user to remove systemd. If you do not want systemd to *ever* be installed on your system, well then that's another discussion that does not belong in this thread. > > On Friday, October 10, 2014 11:01 AM, James Ensor > wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:57 AM, PETER ZOELLER > wrote: > >> This is really ticking me off. We are becoming just like Microsoft that >> one >> size fits all. Linux has always been about choice and modularity and >> reconfigurability where a user or admin can choose that what suits him/her >> and the type of system they want. You want sysvinit you use Debian or >> Slackware, want Upstart go to Ubuntu, want systemd go to Fedora/Redhat. >> Where in all this is my choice to have my system boot via the means I or >> any >> user or admin considers to be the appropriate method to boot their system? >> What's wrong with you people? Have you lost sight of why Linus designed >> this system? Its about simplicity, modularity and reconfigurability. >> This >> approach with systemd flies in the face of all this. Its like demanding >> that you can use only ext4 as your file system. > >> >> > > The point of this thread was to demonstrate that you *do* still have a > choice. It's relatively simple to remove systemd from your Debian > installation if you choose to. > > > -- 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/cafxvjvcwwja8utkpqdraxbetpwtgq8u7tvt-g7h9_iqjj8n...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:57 AM, PETER ZOELLER wrote: > This is really ticking me off. We are becoming just like Microsoft that one > size fits all. Linux has always been about choice and modularity and > reconfigurability where a user or admin can choose that what suits him/her > and the type of system they want. You want sysvinit you use Debian or > Slackware, want Upstart go to Ubuntu, want systemd go to Fedora/Redhat. > Where in all this is my choice to have my system boot via the means I or any > user or admin considers to be the appropriate method to boot their system? > What's wrong with you people? Have you lost sight of why Linus designed > this system? Its about simplicity, modularity and reconfigurability. This > approach with systemd flies in the face of all this. Its like demanding > that you can use only ext4 as your file system. > > The point of this thread was to demonstrate that you *do* still have a choice. It's relatively simple to remove systemd from your Debian installation if you choose to. -- 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/CAFXvjvBiCvf9aOvXuwEOoHtOoi6VtjHmWjmOXa9iNF=4twy...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
This is really ticking me off. We are becoming just like Microsoft that one size fits all. Linux has always been about choice and modularity and reconfigurability where a user or admin can choose that what suits him/her and the type of system they want. You want sysvinit you use Debian or Slackware, want Upstart go to Ubuntu, want systemd go to Fedora/Redhat. Where in all this is my choice to have my system boot via the means I or any user or admin considers to be the appropriate method to boot their system? What's wrong with you people? Have you lost sight of why Linus designed this system? Its about simplicity, modularity and reconfigurability. This approach with systemd flies in the face of all this. Its like demanding that you can use only ext4 as your file system. On Friday, October 10, 2014 12:12 AM, Joey Hess wrote: Reco wrote: > You haven't took into account journald, which uses /run (mounted > in-memory) to write its' own blobs. With the limit of 1/2 of available > physical memory by default. That's wrong by nearly 2 orders of magnitude.. journald avoids using more than 10% of the size of /run by default, and the size of /run is 20% of physical memory. So, on a system with 4 gb of memory, it uses not 2 GiB, but 77 MiB. Sep 29 13:35:43 darkstar systemd-journal[169]: Runtime journal is using 8.0M (max allowed 76.9M, trying to leave 115.4M free of 761.3M available → current limit 76.9M). A system with 128 MiB of memory would have 1.3 MiB used for the journal. That's less memory than the (non-shared) memory used by bash to log into such a low memory system. But if it did become a problem, there's a simple config file to tune it, which has an excellent man page. SystemMaxUse=, SystemKeepFree=, SystemMaxFileSize=, RuntimeMaxUse=, RuntimeKeepFree=, RuntimeMaxFileSize= Enforce size limits on the journal files stored. The options prefixed with "System" apply to the journal files when stored on a persistent file system, more specifically /var/log/journal. The options prefixed with "Runtime" apply to the journal files when stored on a volatile in-memory file system, more specifically /run/log/journal. The former is used only when /var is mounted, writable, and the directory /var/log/journal exists. Otherwise, only the latter applies. Note that this means that during early boot and if the administrator disabled persistent logging, only the latter options apply, while the former apply if persistent logging is enabled and the system is fully booted up. journalctl and systemd-journald ignore all files with names not ending with ".journal" or ".journal~", so only such files, located in the appropriate directories, are taken into account when calculating current disk usage. SystemMaxUse= and RuntimeMaxUse= control how much disk space the journal may use up at maximum. SystemKeepFree= and RuntimeKeepFree= control how much disk space systemd-journald shall leave free for other uses. systemd-journald will respect both limits and use the smaller of the two values. The first pair defaults to 10% and the second to 15% of the size of the respective file system. -- see shy jo
Re: question about systemd
- Original Message - > From: "Nate Bargmann" > > I just went ahead and went back to sysvinit-core and in the process > started purging packages in Aptitude! At the end policykit, packagekit, > rtkit, and systemd were excised and a whole host of other stuff I > couldn't find a reason to keep. Guess what, Thunar now gives me > read/write permission when mounting my flash drive due to an old line in > /etc/fstab. However, it doesn't show up on the Xfce desktop. :-( I > can live with that, however. Could you share that line in /etc/fstab? On my Jessie system, I've got USB mounting working with pcmanfm. It required some systemd stuff as well as policykit: ~$ aptitude search ~i | grep systemd i A libpam-systemd - system and service manager - PAM module id libsystemd-daemon0 - systemd utility library (deprecated) i A libsystemd0 - systemd utility library i A libsystemd0:i386- systemd utility library i A systemd - system and service manager i systemd-shim- shim for systemd $ aptitude search ~i | grep policykit i A policykit-1 - framework for managing administrative poli i A policykit-1-gnome - GNOME authentication agent for PolicyKit-1 I am running sysvinit, not systemd-sysv (which is why systemd-shim is installed). -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/659588797.9625032.1412947405623.javamail.zim...@ptd.net
Re: question about systemd
Reco wrote: > You haven't took into account journald, which uses /run (mounted > in-memory) to write its' own blobs. With the limit of 1/2 of available > physical memory by default. That's wrong by nearly 2 orders of magnitude.. journald avoids using more than 10% of the size of /run by default, and the size of /run is 20% of physical memory. So, on a system with 4 gb of memory, it uses not 2 GiB, but 77 MiB. Sep 29 13:35:43 darkstar systemd-journal[169]: Runtime journal is using 8.0M (max allowed 76.9M, trying to leave 115.4M free of 761.3M available → current limit 76.9M). A system with 128 MiB of memory would have 1.3 MiB used for the journal. That's less memory than the (non-shared) memory used by bash to log into such a low memory system. But if it did become a problem, there's a simple config file to tune it, which has an excellent man page. SystemMaxUse=, SystemKeepFree=, SystemMaxFileSize=, RuntimeMaxUse=, RuntimeKeepFree=, RuntimeMaxFileSize= Enforce size limits on the journal files stored. The options prefixed with "System" apply to the journal files when stored on a persistent file system, more specifically /var/log/journal. The options prefixed with "Runtime" apply to the journal files when stored on a volatile in-memory file system, more specifically /run/log/journal. The former is used only when /var is mounted, writable, and the directory /var/log/journal exists. Otherwise, only the latter applies. Note that this means that during early boot and if the administrator disabled persistent logging, only the latter options apply, while the former apply if persistent logging is enabled and the system is fully booted up. journalctl and systemd-journald ignore all files with names not ending with ".journal" or ".journal~", so only such files, located in the appropriate directories, are taken into account when calculating current disk usage. SystemMaxUse= and RuntimeMaxUse= control how much disk space the journal may use up at maximum. SystemKeepFree= and RuntimeKeepFree= control how much disk space systemd-journald shall leave free for other uses. systemd-journald will respect both limits and use the smaller of the two values. The first pair defaults to 10% and the second to 15% of the size of the respective file system. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: question about systemd
2014/10/10 9:03 "Steve Litt" : > > [...] > LOL, the more people bust old features putting in new features, the > more I kludge. And that sums the entire argument up nicely, perhaps. :-( Joel Rees Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens. All is a stream of text flowing from the past into the future.
Re: question about systemd
* On 2014 09 Oct 19:03 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > Half the distros I've used couldn't mount flash drives. If systemd > takes away that ability, screw it, I'll do what I've always done, have > mount NOPASSORD in sudoers, and write a little shellscript, a couple > keystrokes called by dmenu, that mounts and tells the mountpoint. Maybe > even cd's to it within an xterm session. > > Of course, I run a one person desktop. No way I'd do that on a server. > > LOL, the more people bust old features putting in new features, the > more I kludge. I just went ahead and went back to sysvinit-core and in the process started purging packages in Aptitude! At the end policykit, packagekit, rtkit, and systemd were excised and a whole host of other stuff I couldn't find a reason to keep. Guess what, Thunar now gives me read/write permission when mounting my flash drive due to an old line in /etc/fstab. However, it doesn't show up on the Xfce desktop. :-( I can live with that, however. I had gotten my wireless network adapter working through /etc/network/interfaces a few days ago so had already purged NetworkManager. This is on my main desktop machine and I still have all of this stuff installed on my laptop since I prefer convenience when using it. Here I want speed and very little in my way for development. All this new stuff just covered up and destroyed what I had working in the past. As I'm the only user, this is now acceptable behavior. At the very least, I am starting to look at all of the installed packages as to what they do for me, not to me. ;-) - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us -- 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/20141010002917.ga6...@n0nb.us
Re: question about systemd
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 17:59:49 -0500 Nate Bargmann wrote: > * On 2014 09 Oct 17:51 -0500, James Ensor wrote: > > Just for kicks, I also purged cgmanager. I guess I like to live > > dangerously. Nothing bad seems to have happened. > > I am very curious how you dealt with policykit? Or do you not mount > USB flash drives? I'm a bit fed up that mounting a USB flash drive > from the Xfce desktop results in a mount that is read only for the > mounting user. Writes require root privileges. > > I am running systemd, so all this *should* be automagically working > and still my desktop is broken compared to a year or less ago. I've > been patient expecting bugs to be fixed, but so far, this behavior > remains. Half the distros I've used couldn't mount flash drives. If systemd takes away that ability, screw it, I'll do what I've always done, have mount NOPASSORD in sudoers, and write a little shellscript, a couple keystrokes called by dmenu, that mounts and tells the mountpoint. Maybe even cd's to it within an xterm session. Of course, I run a one person desktop. No way I'd do that on a server. LOL, the more people bust old features putting in new features, the more I kludge. 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/20141009194216.06f54...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: question about systemd
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote: > * On 2014 09 Oct 17:51 -0500, James Ensor wrote: >> Just for kicks, I also purged cgmanager. I guess I like to live >> dangerously. Nothing bad seems to have happened. > > I am very curious how you dealt with policykit? Or do you not mount USB > flash drives? I'm a bit fed up that mounting a USB flash drive from the > Xfce desktop results in a mount that is read only for the mounting > user. Writes require root privileges. > policykit is not installed. I mount usb drives manually, with an entry in my fstab. -- 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/CAFXvjvC68Gp83q9PNP_ZnSmMN=7KE-_iDgu=ntn+fyy_ryl...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
* On 2014 09 Oct 17:51 -0500, James Ensor wrote: > Just for kicks, I also purged cgmanager. I guess I like to live > dangerously. Nothing bad seems to have happened. I am very curious how you dealt with policykit? Or do you not mount USB flash drives? I'm a bit fed up that mounting a USB flash drive from the Xfce desktop results in a mount that is read only for the mounting user. Writes require root privileges. I am running systemd, so all this *should* be automagically working and still my desktop is broken compared to a year or less ago. I've been patient expecting bugs to be fixed, but so far, this behavior remains. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us -- 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/20141009225949.ga3...@n0nb.us
Re: question about systemd
On Thursday 09 October 2014 22:44:20 James Ensor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:58:13 -0400 > > > > James Ensor wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion about systemd one way or the other, but > > > even after all of the debate and discussion that has been going on, > > > it was still not clear to me if systemd is something that is required > > > to be run, or if it's just a default init system that can be changed. > > > > > > So I went ahead and installed sysvinit and purged systemd so see if > > > something bad (tm) would happen, but as far as I can tell my system is > > > running fine. The only two things that changed are (1) > > > network-manager has been removed, so I'm using wicd instead for > > > network management, and (2) suspend from xfce no longer works so I > > > installed acpi-support to enable suspend. But everything else seems > > > to be working just fine. System is Debian Jessie amd64, and I'm > > > using Xfce4. > > > > > > So I guess my question is what's all the hubbub? > > > > > > James Ensor > > > > James, > > > > Please, please, *please* write down a detailed article on exactly > > how you did this. I'll help you if you'd like --- I write for a living, > > a lot of it tech writing. > > > > If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've > > just singlehandedly ended this whole argument. If you want to > > collaborate on this article, I'll throw an extra hard disk in my > > experimental box to tech edit your instructions. > > > > This just might be good news. > > > > SteveT > > Again, I just don't see what the big deal is, or why you would need a > detailed article about how to remove packages from debian. I'm not > looking to wade into any arguments about systemd. I certainly do not > claim to have solved any great crisis... > > Anyway, this is what I did: > > aptitude install sysv-rc sysvinit sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils > aptitude purge systemd > aptitude purge libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0 > > Just for kicks, I also purged cgmanager. I guess I like to live > dangerously. Nothing bad seems to have happened. > > Like I said, the only thing I was using that was also removed was > network-manager, but I don't really miss it. > > But, to get more to the point of my original question, there has been > so much discussion about systemd here, but as far as I can tell very > little of this discussion has been of practical use for a debian-user. This simple sanity is very useful! Thank you James. 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/201410092349.50293.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:58:13 -0400 > James Ensor wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I don't have a strong opinion about systemd one way or the other, but > > even after all of the debate and discussion that has been going on, > > it was still not clear to me if systemd is something that is required > > to be run, or if it's just a default init system that can be changed. > > > > So I went ahead and installed sysvinit and purged systemd so see if > > something bad (tm) would happen, but as far as I can tell my system is > > running fine. The only two things that changed are (1) > > network-manager has been removed, so I'm using wicd instead for > > network management, and (2) suspend from xfce no longer works so I > > installed acpi-support to enable suspend. But everything else seems > > to be working just fine. System is Debian Jessie amd64, and I'm > > using Xfce4. > > > > So I guess my question is what's all the hubbub? > > > > James Ensor > > James, > > Please, please, *please* write down a detailed article on exactly > how you did this. I'll help you if you'd like --- I write for a living, > a lot of it tech writing. > > If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've > just singlehandedly ended this whole argument. If you want to > collaborate on this article, I'll throw an extra hard disk in my > experimental box to tech edit your instructions. > > This just might be good news. > > SteveT > Again, I just don't see what the big deal is, or why you would need a detailed article about how to remove packages from debian. I'm not looking to wade into any arguments about systemd. I certainly do not claim to have solved any great crisis... Anyway, this is what I did: aptitude install sysv-rc sysvinit sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils aptitude purge systemd aptitude purge libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-daemon0 Just for kicks, I also purged cgmanager. I guess I like to live dangerously. Nothing bad seems to have happened. Like I said, the only thing I was using that was also removed was network-manager, but I don't really miss it. But, to get more to the point of my original question, there has been so much discussion about systemd here, but as far as I can tell very little of this discussion has been of practical use for a debian-user. Cheers, James -- 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/cafxvjvdkrsfezq4aonbgt4ruoouj4cnr+t+ivxssb8g6sfq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 20:25:32 +0200 Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2014-10-09 19:48 +0200, Reco wrote: > > > On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:17:46 +0200 > > Erwan David wrote: > > > > That's one of the reasons I'm thinking to postpone that-pid1-process > > migration to jessie+1. I can understand the need of killing a useful > > tool for the greater cause (being upstream), but the thing that I don't > > understand is why kill the tool immediately if upstream wants it. And > > no, that isn't up to the discussion. I have no intention to start yet > > another that-pid1-process discussion thread. > > Which leads to the question why you are responding in this thread. There were some questions asked. Why else? > >> Other setting, some very small PC used as router/FW. on a testing > >> machine, I see systemd memory foot print to be > >> 177096 VSS , 5556 resident 3100 shared. > >> > >> Thats HUGE. 8 Mo just for the init system, once th system is booted ? > >> I am not sure I will consider debian an alternative fore those PCs once > >> Jessie is stable... > > The memory requirements just to run apt and dpkg are much higher, just > have a look at the files under /var/lib/apt/lists. 'Memory requirements'? Hardly. 'On-disk requirements' - that's something can I agree with. Or did they changed that in sid, so now /var/lib/apt/lists is mounted in memory too? And, last time I've checked, apt is not a part of init process :) Still, I took a look: $ du -shx /var/lib/apt/lists/ 53M /var/lib/apt/lists/ $ grep Total /proc/meminfo MemTotal: 16313292 kB SwapTotal: 16636796 kB VmallocTotal: 34359738367 kB HugePages_Total: 0 And I'd say your estimate is off by an order of magnitude. Because by your explanation (20% memory to /run * 10%) I should be prepared to lose 326265kb of memory to journald. > > You haven't took into account journald, which uses /run (mounted > > in-memory) to write its' own blobs. With the limit of 1/2 of available > > physical memory by default. > > No, the size of /run defaults to 20% of the available RAM, and by > default the maximum size of the journal is 10% of that. The mail I relied to implied that 8M RSS+SHR (for the init) is huge. I merely suggested that one should add journald blobs to that number as they're stored in memory anyway. I was off in numbers estimation, but still 8M RSS+SHR pales in comparison to wasting 2% of available memory to fancy blobs. 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/20141009235131.042fe3d97d10fa8f95c19...@gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On 2014-10-09 19:48 +0200, Reco wrote: > On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:17:46 +0200 > Erwan David wrote: > > That's one of the reasons I'm thinking to postpone that-pid1-process > migration to jessie+1. I can understand the need of killing a useful > tool for the greater cause (being upstream), but the thing that I don't > understand is why kill the tool immediately if upstream wants it. And > no, that isn't up to the discussion. I have no intention to start yet > another that-pid1-process discussion thread. Which leads to the question why you are responding in this thread. >> Other setting, some very small PC used as router/FW. on a testing >> machine, I see systemd memory foot print to be >> 177096 VSS , 5556 resident 3100 shared. >> >> Thats HUGE. 8 Mo just for the init system, once th system is booted ? >> I am not sure I will consider debian an alternative fore those PCs once >> Jessie is stable... The memory requirements just to run apt and dpkg are much higher, just have a look at the files under /var/lib/apt/lists. > You haven't took into account journald, which uses /run (mounted > in-memory) to write its' own blobs. With the limit of 1/2 of available > physical memory by default. No, the size of /run defaults to 20% of the available RAM, and by default the maximum size of the journal is 10% of that. Cheers, Sven -- 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/87d2a1w15v@turtle.gmx.de
Re: question about systemd
Hi. On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:17:46 +0200 Erwan David wrote: > > So, if one is willing to do all it takes to remove said-pid1-process > > from the typical server installation - it's doable. But from the > > desktop one - it's much harder. > > > > However I have server with special setting that today I handle with > policy-rc.d > I have not the slightest idea how I can have this setup with systemd nor > any idea how to get any help for this. > > When I asked for doc, I was answered here "jusyt write it yourself"... That's one of the reasons I'm thinking to postpone that-pid1-process migration to jessie+1. I can understand the need of killing a useful tool for the greater cause (being upstream), but the thing that I don't understand is why kill the tool immediately if upstream wants it. And no, that isn't up to the discussion. I have no intention to start yet another that-pid1-process discussion thread. > Other setting, some very small PC used as router/FW. on a testing > machine, I see systemd memory foot print to be > 177096 VSS , 5556 resident 3100 shared. > > Thats HUGE. 8 Mo just for the init system, once th system is booted ? > I am not sure I will consider debian an alternative fore those PCs once > Jessie is stable... You haven't took into account journald, which uses /run (mounted in-memory) to write its' own blobs. With the limit of 1/2 of available physical memory by default. > What can I do except express my problems, but then I see an army of > zealots coming against me. > for me in some cases systemd just made linux unusable. Sad, but true. For instance, you can use the very same tools Debian provides you: equivs, dpkg-divert and dpkg-buildpackage. There's little that cannot be done with them if one needs to change some package behavior or dependencies. Requires playing a maintainer, but produces meaningful results in the end. 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/20141009214855.e2fdea1b457ff2f67caf6...@gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
Le 09/10/2014 17:12, Reco a écrit : > Hi. > > On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 22:36:46 -0400 > Steve Litt wrote: > >> If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've >> just singlehandedly ended this whole argument. > That's a short-term solution at best. Because of: > > 1) Jessie isn't stable yet. Moreover, it's not even in freeze. > Hence, if it works now - nobody will guarantee it'll work tomorrow. > > 2) There are certain desktop environments that basically require > that-pid1-process. And one of those desktop environments is set as a > default one currently at d-i. > Hence, such solution will require one to stop using certain DEs (no > big loss in case of GNOME3, IMO, but still). > > 3) There's policykit issue, which was helpfully outlined by OP. > This privilege escalation suite crept into far too many GUI tools, > including XFCE. And currently it's *conveniently* broken if one does > not use that-pid1-process. > > > So, if one is willing to do all it takes to remove said-pid1-process > from the typical server installation - it's doable. But from the > desktop one - it's much harder. > > Reco > > However I have server with special setting that today I handle with policy-rc.d I have not the slightest idea how I can have this setup with systemd nor any idea how to get any help for this. When I asked for doc, I was answered here "jusyt write it yourself"... Other setting, some very small PC used as router/FW. on a testing machine, I see systemd memory foot print to be 177096 VSS , 5556 resident 3100 shared. Thats HUGE. 8 Mo just for the init system, once th system is booted ? I am not sure I will consider debian an alternative fore those PCs once Jessie is stable... What can I do except express my problems, but then I see an army of zealots coming against me. for me in some cases systemd just made linux unusable. Sad, but true. -- 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/5436c33a.9040...@rail.eu.org
Re: question about systemd
Doug writes: > I thought I read that systemd-shim is not being supplied anymore? Systemd-shim 8-2 is in both Jessie and Sid. -- 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/87siixtdy9@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: question about systemd
On 10/09/2014 04:45 AM, Joe wrote: On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 22:36:46 -0400 Steve Litt wrote: /snip/ We've had the instructions to revert on this list recently, but it's basically a matter of installing systemd-shim and sysvinit-core (assuming you have a system which once ran on sysvinit) and hunting down the grub instructions to boot with systemd. I did wonder why this didn't seem to work on the old workstation installation, until I realised that the new installation was a new hard drive on the same machine, and I'd just updated the grub which wasn't booting the machine... /snip/ I thought I read that systemd-shim is not being supplied anymore? --doug -- 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/5436ac9f.2080...@optonline.net
Re: question about systemd
* On 2014 09 Oct 10:20 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > I think if you wanted daemons runlevel specific, you'd need to write > that into the daemontools run script, but I'm not sure how many people > still use runlevels anyway. Most desktop people always boot to 5, and > it wouldn't violate the sensibilities of server people to boot to 3 and > then run startx, if they wanted GUI. For the record, Debian uses run level 2 and leaves customization of 3 through 5 up to the local administrator. Until a manual change is made, any of the multiuser run levels will be the same in Debian. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us -- 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/20141009154032.ge2...@n0nb.us
Re: question about systemd
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:16:47 -0400 Tanstaafl wrote: > On 10/8/2014 10:36 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > > If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've > > just singlehandedly ended this whole argument. > > Not really. > > Just because it can be done easily now, doesn't mean it will be as > easy > - or even possible - a year or more from now - and I think *that* is > the overriding concern of people who express legitimate concerns. I see your point, Tanstaafl. Let me restate... "If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've just singlehandedly reduced the urgency of this whole argument." It gives us time. Time to see if what I, and probably you, suspect of Red Hat, comes true, and if so, will Linux people rebel or go along. It gives us time to explore other other options, be it non-systemd distros, *BSD, or *ugh* Mac. It gives us time to see just how bad systemd will be technically, with everything interconnected. Time to see how one bad dbus-using program will bolix up the whole computer. It's quite a bit better than "You must either ditch Linux, use systemd, or use incredibly old software, by spring 2015." You're right: In an ideal world, hoop-jumps like this never would have been necessary. But in late 2014, at least James' process, if it works broadly, gives us some breathing room. 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/20141009113710.0abc8...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: question about systemd
Hi. On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 22:36:46 -0400 Steve Litt wrote: > If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've > just singlehandedly ended this whole argument. That's a short-term solution at best. Because of: 1) Jessie isn't stable yet. Moreover, it's not even in freeze. Hence, if it works now - nobody will guarantee it'll work tomorrow. 2) There are certain desktop environments that basically require that-pid1-process. And one of those desktop environments is set as a default one currently at d-i. Hence, such solution will require one to stop using certain DEs (no big loss in case of GNOME3, IMO, but still). 3) There's policykit issue, which was helpfully outlined by OP. This privilege escalation suite crept into far too many GUI tools, including XFCE. And currently it's *conveniently* broken if one does not use that-pid1-process. So, if one is willing to do all it takes to remove said-pid1-process from the typical server installation - it's doable. But from the desktop one - it's much harder. 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/20141009191232.a78ab132d4df2d95b1ade...@gmail.com
Re: question about systemd
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:45:02 +0100 Joe wrote: > I think the real issue is that nobody likes maintaining sysvinit > scripts. It's quite right that the job of running a piece of software > should be the responsibility of the upstream software writers, not the > distribution package maintainer, but the very existence of nasty > complicated sysvinit scripts surely means that systemd must somehow > accomplish the same things. > > If some of the complications of the init script could be pushed back > into the application code, I'd have thought that would have been done > long ago. Conversely, if a few systemd functions can replace the init > script, then surely the script was over-complicated to start with. And > if the widespread use of systemd elsewhere means that upstream writers > *have* to take on much of the job that an init script used to do, the > init script could be greatly simplified, in some cases to a generic > one. Here's where casting a wider net solves a lot of the problem. Yes, I've always considered init scripts to be spooky. And *one* way around them is systemd, if you want its problems. I suppose another way around them could be the upstream people somehow sewing run functionality into their code, but that complicates their code and makes their code entangled, just like systemd. Me, I'm a huge fan of daemontools for starting and maintaining a lot of my processes that don't need to start at the very first hint of boot. "Init scripts" (shellscript called run) for daemontools are very simple shellscripts to run them, with *no* code for stop, reload, etc, because daemontools' svc command does all that stuff. I think if you wanted daemons runlevel specific, you'd need to write that into the daemontools run script, but I'm not sure how many people still use runlevels anyway. Most desktop people always boot to 5, and it wouldn't violate the sensibilities of server people to boot to 3 and then run startx, if they wanted GUI. And of course, nosh could replace sysvinit or the PID 1 portions of systemd or upstart with a daemontools superset. By the way, I just read on the nosh web page that they can provide "nosh-systemd-services_1.7_amd64.deb", which supposedly supports nosh in daemontools compatibility mode under systemd. 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/20141009105808.2b771...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: question about systemd
Tanstaafl writes: > Just because it can be done easily now, doesn't mean it will be as > easy - or even possible - a year or more from now - and I think *that* > is the overriding concern of people who express legitimate concerns. That, and the fact that there will be many "special cases" where it won't work as well as many "special cases" where Systemd won't work. I fear that this is going to be a headache for years. -- 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/87wq89ti7c@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: question about systemd
On 10/8/2014 10:36 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've > just singlehandedly ended this whole argument. Not really. Just because it can be done easily now, doesn't mean it will be as easy - or even possible - a year or more from now - and I think *that* is the overriding concern of people who express legitimate concerns. -- 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/543698cf.9050...@libertytrek.org
Re: question about systemd
On 10/09/2014 04:45 AM, Joe wrote: And I have an old laptop and a virtual installation on a Windows laptop, both on sysvinit. But both exist for a small set of purposes, and have nothing like the range of software on my workstation, so I don't know what they tell us. They also only get upgraded occasionally, so they may already be dead computers walking... I think the real issue is that nobody likes maintaining sysvinit scripts. It's quite right that the job of running a piece of software should be the responsibility of the upstream software writers, not the distribution package maintainer, but the very existence of nasty complicated sysvinit scripts surely means that systemd must somehow accomplish the same things. If some of the complications of the init script could be pushed back into the application code, I'd have thought that would have been done long ago. Conversely, if a few systemd functions can replace the init script, then surely the script was over-complicated to start with. And if the widespread use of systemd elsewhere means that upstream writers *have* to take on much of the job that an init script used to do, the init script could be greatly simplified, in some cases to a generic one. I don't think it was ever about init scripts, or init anything. It's political and always has been. If unsupported packages and unmaintained scripts aid purposeful vendor lock-in, then Debian maintainers are part of the problem. I hope that's not the case. I use an old firewall program, guarddog, that survived two release cycles and is still in Debian ports, after losing upstream development. I still run it with Squeeze libs and it works fine. People in Debian with a winners vs losers mindset seem to be promoting an agenda. That would be a sad day for Debian. All the energy arguing or forking Debian could be used to provide solutions and preserve choice for all users. -- 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/54367e29.2020...@ix.netcom.com
Re: question about systemd
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 22:36:46 -0400 Steve Litt wrote: > On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:58:13 -0400 > James Ensor wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I don't have a strong opinion about systemd one way or the other, > > but even after all of the debate and discussion that has been going > > on, it was still not clear to me if systemd is something that is > > required to be run, or if it's just a default init system that can > > be changed. > > > > So I went ahead and installed sysvinit and purged systemd so see if > > something bad (tm) would happen, but as far as I can tell my system > > is running fine. The only two things that changed are (1) > > network-manager has been removed, so I'm using wicd instead for > > network management, and (2) suspend from xfce no longer works so I > > installed acpi-support to enable suspend. But everything else seems > > to be working just fine. System is Debian Jessie amd64, and I'm > > using Xfce4. > > > > So I guess my question is what's all the hubbub? > > > > James Ensor > > James, > > Please, please, *please* write down a detailed article on exactly > how you did this. I'll help you if you'd like --- I write for a > living, a lot of it tech writing. > > If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've > just singlehandedly ended this whole argument. If you want to > collaborate on this article, I'll throw an extra hard disk in my > experimental box to tech edit your instructions. > > This just might be good news. > No, I have at least three Sids running on sysvinit. But my present workstation is a clone of one of them, because it was just getting too unstable to actually use with systemd, and I installed systemd on this one as early as possible. I've reverted to sysvinit on the old installation, and nothing obvious is broken, but as I don't now use it in anger, I can't really tell. We've had the instructions to revert on this list recently, but it's basically a matter of installing systemd-shim and sysvinit-core (assuming you have a system which once ran on sysvinit) and hunting down the grub instructions to boot with systemd. I did wonder why this didn't seem to work on the old workstation installation, until I realised that the new installation was a new hard drive on the same machine, and I'd just updated the grub which wasn't booting the machine... My USB hard drive installation and my netbook both have systemd because I use a 3G dongle with them, and Network Manager had stopped talking to Modem Manager without dbus working under systemd. Possibly there's an alternative way to do this, but so far I haven't really had the time to find out. Mobile dongles are a pain at the best of times, I don't actually have to hunt down usbmodeswitch any more, but it's still a case of not being (too badly) broke... And I have an old laptop and a virtual installation on a Windows laptop, both on sysvinit. But both exist for a small set of purposes, and have nothing like the range of software on my workstation, so I don't know what they tell us. They also only get upgraded occasionally, so they may already be dead computers walking... I think the real issue is that nobody likes maintaining sysvinit scripts. It's quite right that the job of running a piece of software should be the responsibility of the upstream software writers, not the distribution package maintainer, but the very existence of nasty complicated sysvinit scripts surely means that systemd must somehow accomplish the same things. If some of the complications of the init script could be pushed back into the application code, I'd have thought that would have been done long ago. Conversely, if a few systemd functions can replace the init script, then surely the script was over-complicated to start with. And if the widespread use of systemd elsewhere means that upstream writers *have* to take on much of the job that an init script used to do, the init script could be greatly simplified, in some cases to a generic one. -- 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/20141009094502.5579d...@jresid.jretrading.com
Re: question about systemd
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:58:13 -0400 James Ensor wrote: > Hi, > > I don't have a strong opinion about systemd one way or the other, but > even after all of the debate and discussion that has been going on, > it was still not clear to me if systemd is something that is required > to be run, or if it's just a default init system that can be changed. > > So I went ahead and installed sysvinit and purged systemd so see if > something bad (tm) would happen, but as far as I can tell my system is > running fine. The only two things that changed are (1) > network-manager has been removed, so I'm using wicd instead for > network management, and (2) suspend from xfce no longer works so I > installed acpi-support to enable suspend. But everything else seems > to be working just fine. System is Debian Jessie amd64, and I'm > using Xfce4. > > So I guess my question is what's all the hubbub? > > James Ensor James, Please, please, *please* write down a detailed article on exactly how you did this. I'll help you if you'd like --- I write for a living, a lot of it tech writing. If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've just singlehandedly ended this whole argument. If you want to collaborate on this article, I'll throw an extra hard disk in my experimental box to tech edit your instructions. This just might be good news. 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/20141008223646.6d28b...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
