Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 1:14 PM, Ric Moore wrote: > On 11/24/2014 08:18 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> And while Wheezy will still be supported for a couple of years, it's not >> necessarily the answer. While many people don't want the "latest and >> greatest", they also don't want the "oldest and baddest". > > Sounds like your customers need to either pay for their software or > donate large sums to Debian, to have it the way they want it. You have > "stable" and "testing" and "non-stable", take your pick. If you want > fries with that, expect to pay for them. :/ Ric > > No, they're going to another distribution. But they do pay for their software - they either have their own programmers, or hire consultants to do the work for them. And either way, they don't see the need to change existing init scripts (which may have been in place for years) to conform to LSB style, or to create .deb files for packaging. Either way, it's more money spent in already tight budgets. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54737c94.4070...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 1:08 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/24/2014 10:52 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>> On 25/11/14 01:57, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. >>> 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to >>> Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us >>> "engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying. >>> >> It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people >> (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are >> many companies I know of who have looked at jessie. >> >>> 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and >>> duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it >>> overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of >>> systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do >>> know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of >>> instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other >>> distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice >>> lost users - quite the reverse. >>> >> These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came >> to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see >> the way Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll >> probably end up on BSD. >> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as hard. >>> At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. >>> >>> But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. >>> >> I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even >> staying with sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the >> handwriting on the wall - whether you agree with it or not. >> >>> Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should >>> file bug reports if those customisations are not supported *if* >>> they change init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported >>> customisations done the "Debian Way" - and I have every >>> confidence they will continue to do so >>> >> And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT >> customized pre-packaged) software to the system? >> >> > Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind. >>> Agreed (also fs guidelines) >>> > Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the > basic: download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar ./configure; make; > make install >>> and "checkinstall" > Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of software they create? >>> No, I expect the admin to 'try' and do that (e.g. checkinstall) or >>> install the upstream package to the appropriate place where it *will* >>> withstand upgrade. But not everyone follows BP (e.g. ITIL, PCI, and >>> whatever relevant guidelines apply to their use-case). I don't know what >>> your use-case is... >>> >> These are system admins who have either started with Unix in the 1980's, >> or people who learned from those sysadmins. Back then you did put stuff >> in /bin and/or /sbin, for instance. And the company is not changing. > > > Well, just to be accurate, most folks who started with Unix in the 80s > install local stuff into > /usr/... > and > /usr/local/ > > and there's also /opt > > And most well-formed source trees that I've come across are designed to > download into /usr/local/src and make into /usr/local by default. > > Cheers, > > Miles > For user stuff, yes. But for system tools, they often installed executables in /bin and/or /sbin. And they install other files in /etc, /var, etc., as appropriate. A LOT of unix systems did this, because there were no packagers. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54737bc5.8000...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 1:00 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a >> lot of >> dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or >> possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. > 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose > Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types" > place little stock in soothsaying. > It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many companies I know of who have looked at jessie. > 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and > duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it > overlooks the > possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more > users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators" > manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to > show > that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* > choice lost users - quite the reverse. > These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see the way Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll probably end up on BSD. >> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as >> hard. > At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. > >But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. > I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even staying with sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the handwriting on the wall - whether you agree with it or not. > Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug > reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change > init > systems. > Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done the "Debian > Way" - > and I have every confidence they will continue to do so > And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized pre-packaged) software to the system? >>> Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind. >>> >>> Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the basic: >>> download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar >>> ./configure; make; make install >>> >>> >> Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of software >> they create? >> >> It doesn't happen - and is not going to happen. It's much faster to >> just copy the files to the appropriate directories. And since they have >> complete control over the code, they know when changes are made and what >> has to be done when the code is updated. >> >> > > Not sure what you're arguing about here Jerry. Alien, checkinstall, and > equivs are ways to incorporate unpackaged software into the apt > ecosystem - for tracking and updating purposes, ./configure, make, > install is standard installation from source, bypassing the packaging > system. > > Which is something they have decided NOT to do. And that is their prerogative - it is their system. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54737b1e.4070...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 12:37 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 25/11/14 03:26, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/24/2014 10:52 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>> On 25/11/14 01:57, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of software they create? >>> >>> No, I expect the admin to 'try' and do that (e.g. checkinstall) or >>> install the upstream package to the appropriate place where it *will* >>> withstand upgrade. But not everyone follows BP (e.g. ITIL, PCI, and >>> whatever relevant guidelines apply to their use-case). I don't know what >>> your use-case is... >>> >> >> These are system admins who have either started with Unix in the 1980's, >> or people who learned from those sysadmins. Back then you did put stuff >> in /bin and/or /sbin, for instance. And the company is not changing. > > Good luck with that (whoever you really are). The triumph of optimism > over experience will no doubt be one hell of a party. Shame I'll likely > not have an invite. > Historically "Overcome (difficulties) and Adapt (to change)" works for > survivors. > It is me. But once again you start with the attacks. >> It doesn't happen - and is not going to happen. It's much faster >>> >>> Convenience is the antipathy of security? (security also mean reliability). >>> >> >> It is reliable. > > Imagine that I used a time machine to make the same point previously > (whoever you really are). > It is me. But once again you start with the attacks. >> And has been for many years. That's what testing is >> all about. > > Apropos of what? You (whoever you are) shouldn't be running Testing if > you want stability (Stable). I'm unable to conceive of how any minimally > qualified "Veteran UNIX Administrator" doesn't "get that" (though > admittedly I have been accused of lacking imagination). > > Please stop shifting goal posts - you'll not only hurt your back but > also blow your cover. > Who said anything about running testing? Not I. Testing is installing software and ensuring it works correctly. It has nothing to do with a Debian distribution called "testing" (although the reason for the distribution is to perform testing). >> >> And even if they did create .deb files for everything, that would not >> negate the need for testing. > > Agreed - I'm glad you (who ever you are) have finally grasped some of > the basics of the "Debian Way", and also, basic "change control". My > only question is - what is your point? (aside from argument for the sake > of argument). > It is me. But once again you start with the attacks. And I DO understand the "Debian Way". So do my customers. However, they don't make .deb files for the custom software they install. They don't feel a need to. And it's their system - it's their choice. > I am pleased that some to what I've said earlier has helped your > understanding - it somewhat compensates for my time. > > > > Yours in Debian solidarity. > > You have helped with nothing. All you've done is dismiss facts and attack because those facts don't meet YOUR requirements. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54737aa6.8050...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 12:22 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 25/11/14 03:13, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/24/2014 10:05 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>> On 25/11/14 00:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will >> lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. >> Possibly another fork, or possibly another distro. But >> Debian will lose users. > > 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to > Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us > "engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying. > It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many companies I know of who have looked at jessie. >>> >>> 1. Like most things, that's relative. In this instance to the >>> number of readers and "users":- https://lwn.net/Articles/620441/ >>> and, see my comments further down about "churn" (if I was overly >>> tired and emotional I might write "they're your ball, you know >>> where your home is?", "empty promises", and, "what's second >>> prize?". But I'm not 'that' tired and emotional). >>> >>> 2. Fore-telling the future, especially when the basis for future >>> extrapolation is *not* based on *any* (supplied and confirm-able) >>> facts - is assumption (not presumption - which generally, >>> pre-supposes 'some' evidence, of which you provide none (which >>> doesn't preclude the possibility you will at a later stage). >>> "Presumption" is distinct from "assumptions". (not to imply you are >>> cognitively impaired, just in awareness that this is not a 1:1 >>> communication) >>> >> >> It is not an assumption nor a presumption or prediction. Several >> people here (including me) have already indicated they are >> abandoning Debian for another distro or BSD. So have most of my >> customers who are currently using Debian. It is a fact. > > Lacking evidence - it remains *not* a fact. Feel free to amnend the > world's dictionaries to adjust to you "stated belief". > As I predicted - since I can't name specific companies, you just dismiss the comments. >> >>> 3. "companies" that you 'know '"have looked at Jessie" (which is >>> not yet a Stable release) is like "secret attorneys" - not >>> demonstrable facts and of dubious relevance. An unintentional >>> oversight on your part I 'suspect'. I may be alone in the desire >>> to not start jumping at shadows (or hanging monkeys in sailor >>> suits) - that 'may' (based on historical precedence) only lead to >>> burning witches and people that don't look like the tribal >>> patriarch. >>> >> >> By contract, I am not allowed to specify which of my customers are >> running what. If you've ever been a consultant, you should be aware >> of non-disclosure agreements; they are a standard part of almost >> every consulting contract I've ever signed. > > I'm familiar with the concepts - and won't indulge in juvenile urinary > sports that don't further the basic contention of what is an is not a > demonstrable fact. > It is a demonstrable fact. Just not one to YOUR liking. >> >> But that does not mean they are not jumping ship. > > > Agreed. Nor does plans for fighting an invasion of Martians. The only > relevance is that they are both speculation of what is allegedly > possible - conflated with likely, and having no relevance to *2.* > Once again you dismiss my posts because I can't name specific companies to YOUR liking. That does not mean it is not happening. >> > 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and > duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it > overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of > systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do > know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of > instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other > distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice > lost users - quite the reverse. > These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. >>> >>> Citation? "These" is a, um, little vague. >>> >> >> As I said - contracts forbid me from giving specifics. But I'm sure >> you'll use that to say they don't exist. They do, however. > > Like secret attorneys and Santa Claus. I don't/won't cite clients with > similar contractual obligations because:- > ; it's not relevant > ; it's unsubstantiated-able (probably not a work, I'm jet-lagged) > ; it denigrates those without a financial consideration as a major > factor in their motivations > According to you it IS relevant. Unless I name those companies, it is "unsubstantiated". And I said NOTHING about "those without a financial consideration". So it denigrates NO ONE. >> Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. >>> >>> Is
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 08:18 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: And while Wheezy will still be supported for a couple of years, it's not necessarily the answer. While many people don't want the "latest and greatest", they also don't want the "oldest and baddest". Sounds like your customers need to either pay for their software or donate large sums to Debian, to have it the way they want it. You have "stable" and "testing" and "non-stable", take your pick. If you want fries with that, expect to pay for them. :/ Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54737583.8060...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/24/2014 10:52 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 25/11/14 01:57, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying. It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many companies I know of who have looked at jessie. 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice lost users - quite the reverse. These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see the way Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll probably end up on BSD. Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as hard. At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even staying with sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the handwriting on the wall - whether you agree with it or not. Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done the "Debian Way" - and I have every confidence they will continue to do so And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized pre-packaged) software to the system? Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind. Agreed (also fs guidelines) Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the basic: download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar ./configure; make; make install and "checkinstall" Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of software they create? No, I expect the admin to 'try' and do that (e.g. checkinstall) or install the upstream package to the appropriate place where it *will* withstand upgrade. But not everyone follows BP (e.g. ITIL, PCI, and whatever relevant guidelines apply to their use-case). I don't know what your use-case is... These are system admins who have either started with Unix in the 1980's, or people who learned from those sysadmins. Back then you did put stuff in /bin and/or /sbin, for instance. And the company is not changing. Well, just to be accurate, most folks who started with Unix in the 80s install local stuff into /usr/... and /usr/local/ and there's also /opt And most well-formed source trees that I've come across are designed to download into /usr/local/src and make into /usr/local by default. Cheers, 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/54737407.4090...@meetinghouse.net
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying. It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many companies I know of who have looked at jessie. 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice lost users - quite the reverse. These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see the way Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll probably end up on BSD. Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as hard. At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even staying with sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the handwriting on the wall - whether you agree with it or not. Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done the "Debian Way" - and I have every confidence they will continue to do so And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized pre-packaged) software to the system? Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind. Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the basic: download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar ./configure; make; make install Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of software they create? It doesn't happen - and is not going to happen. It's much faster to just copy the files to the appropriate directories. And since they have complete control over the code, they know when changes are made and what has to be done when the code is updated. Not sure what you're arguing about here Jerry. Alien, checkinstall, and equivs are ways to incorporate unpackaged software into the apt ecosystem - for tracking and updating purposes, ./configure, make, install is standard installation from source, bypassing the packaging system. -- 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/5473723e.50...@meetinghouse.net
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 25/11/14 03:36, Curt wrote: > On 2014-11-24, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> >>> Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. >> >> Is that a reference to a term used in a television show about the >> fictitious "Wild West"? I can only apologise of my ignorance of "popular >> culture" (long story - I haven't watched "television" in several decades >> - did I miss something important?). >> > > I think you're confusing holdups and hideouts (people who commit the > former repair to the latter) with holdouts. > > Thank your Curt - I know little of popular (media) culture and banditry (so little time for entertainment). My gratitude for your help in understanding "Jerry Stuckle's" frame of reference - I believe it's related to something called "preppers" and "trooffers" (see I can be hip and with-it!). Don't let the grey hair and wrinkles on wrinkles fool you - I'm as hep as any of them young-uns. Time for my nap, then I'll be rappin and ropping. Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54736ec9.5000...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 25/11/14 03:26, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/24/2014 10:52 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> On 25/11/14 01:57, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>> >>> Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of >>> software they create? >> >> No, I expect the admin to 'try' and do that (e.g. checkinstall) or >> install the upstream package to the appropriate place where it *will* >> withstand upgrade. But not everyone follows BP (e.g. ITIL, PCI, and >> whatever relevant guidelines apply to their use-case). I don't know what >> your use-case is... >> > > These are system admins who have either started with Unix in the 1980's, > or people who learned from those sysadmins. Back then you did put stuff > in /bin and/or /sbin, for instance. And the company is not changing. Good luck with that (whoever you really are). The triumph of optimism over experience will no doubt be one hell of a party. Shame I'll likely not have an invite. Historically "Overcome (difficulties) and Adapt (to change)" works for survivors. > >>> >>> It doesn't happen - and is not going to happen. It's much faster >> >> Convenience is the antipathy of security? (security also mean reliability). >> > > It is reliable. Imagine that I used a time machine to make the same point previously (whoever you really are). > And has been for many years. That's what testing is > all about. Apropos of what? You (whoever you are) shouldn't be running Testing if you want stability (Stable). I'm unable to conceive of how any minimally qualified "Veteran UNIX Administrator" doesn't "get that" (though admittedly I have been accused of lacking imagination). Please stop shifting goal posts - you'll not only hurt your back but also blow your cover. > > And even if they did create .deb files for everything, that would not > negate the need for testing. Agreed - I'm glad you (who ever you are) have finally grasped some of the basics of the "Debian Way", and also, basic "change control". My only question is - what is your point? (aside from argument for the sake of argument). I am pleased that some to what I've said earlier has helped your understanding - it somewhat compensates for my time. Yours in Debian solidarity. -- 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/54736ce3.4090...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 24/11/14 16:30, The Wanderer wrote: I do not have links to specific messages, since I don't habitually work with or enjoy browsing through Web archives of mailing lists, and since I've never understood (or even understood how to make practical use of) the "message links" - looking outwardly similar to complicated E-mail addresses - which people sometimes use to identify a particular E-mail message. Those "message links" use the Message-ID header, which is supposed to contain a globally unique identifier which can be used to unambiguously refer to the message in question, without worrying about different archives using different sequence numbers etc. Mail user agents should provide some means of viewing the Message-ID field of individual messages, and should also provide a means of searching locally archived mail for a specific Message-ID. The Debian mail archive also has a by-Message-ID search facility available at https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/ I presume that you will be able to find the thread in your own local archive of recent messages from debian-devel. I wouldn't make that presumption myself, because I wouldn't expect others to keep a local archive of debian-devel given that I don't do so myself. -- 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/54736a21.2050...@zen.co.uk
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 25/11/14 03:13, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/24/2014 10:05 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> On 25/11/14 00:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will > lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. > Possibly another fork, or possibly another distro. But > Debian will lose users. 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying. >>> >>> It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people >>> (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are >>> many companies I know of who have looked at jessie. >> >> 1. Like most things, that's relative. In this instance to the >> number of readers and "users":- https://lwn.net/Articles/620441/ >> and, see my comments further down about "churn" (if I was overly >> tired and emotional I might write "they're your ball, you know >> where your home is?", "empty promises", and, "what's second >> prize?". But I'm not 'that' tired and emotional). >> >> 2. Fore-telling the future, especially when the basis for future >> extrapolation is *not* based on *any* (supplied and confirm-able) >> facts - is assumption (not presumption - which generally, >> pre-supposes 'some' evidence, of which you provide none (which >> doesn't preclude the possibility you will at a later stage). >> "Presumption" is distinct from "assumptions". (not to imply you are >> cognitively impaired, just in awareness that this is not a 1:1 >> communication) >> > > It is not an assumption nor a presumption or prediction. Several > people here (including me) have already indicated they are > abandoning Debian for another distro or BSD. So have most of my > customers who are currently using Debian. It is a fact. Lacking evidence - it remains *not* a fact. Feel free to amnend the world's dictionaries to adjust to you "stated belief". > >> 3. "companies" that you 'know '"have looked at Jessie" (which is >> not yet a Stable release) is like "secret attorneys" - not >> demonstrable facts and of dubious relevance. An unintentional >> oversight on your part I 'suspect'. I may be alone in the desire >> to not start jumping at shadows (or hanging monkeys in sailor >> suits) - that 'may' (based on historical precedence) only lead to >> burning witches and people that don't look like the tribal >> patriarch. >> > > By contract, I am not allowed to specify which of my customers are > running what. If you've ever been a consultant, you should be aware > of non-disclosure agreements; they are a standard part of almost > every consulting contract I've ever signed. I'm familiar with the concepts - and won't indulge in juvenile urinary sports that don't further the basic contention of what is an is not a demonstrable fact. > > But that does not mean they are not jumping ship. Agreed. Nor does plans for fighting an invasion of Martians. The only relevance is that they are both speculation of what is allegedly possible - conflated with likely, and having no relevance to *2.* > >>> 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice lost users - quite the reverse. >>> >>> These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. >> >> Citation? "These" is a, um, little vague. >> > > As I said - contracts forbid me from giving specifics. But I'm sure > you'll use that to say they don't exist. They do, however. Like secret attorneys and Santa Claus. I don't/won't cite clients with similar contractual obligations because:- ; it's not relevant ; it's unsubstantiated-able (probably not a work, I'm jet-lagged) ; it denigrates those without a financial consideration as a major factor in their motivations > >>> Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last >>> holdouts. >> >> Is that a reference to a term used in a television show about the >> fictitious "Wild West"? I can only apologise of my ignorance of >> "popular culture" (long story - I haven't watched "television" in >> several decades - did I miss something important?). >> > > No, it has nothing to do with TV. Then it just doesn't translate into English English. > >> Never-the-less I suspect what you refer[*1] to is what is called >> "churn". Tyre-kickers, testers, those that don't want to/don't >> have the time/capacity to learn sufficient skills, those that lack >> the motivation/capacity to decide for them selves an
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 2014-11-24, Scott Ferguson wrote: > >> Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. > > Is that a reference to a term used in a television show about the > fictitious "Wild West"? I can only apologise of my ignorance of "popular > culture" (long story - I haven't watched "television" in several decades > - did I miss something important?). > I think you're confusing holdups and hideouts (people who commit the former repair to the latter) with holdouts. -- 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/slrnm76nkt.25d.cu...@einstein.electron.org
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 11:01 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 25/11/14 02:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/24/2014 8:58 AM, Martin Read wrote: >>> On 24/11/14 13:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized pre-packaged) software to the system? >>> >>> As far as I can tell, the obvious things that go into the "Debian way" >>> for installing custom software are: >>> >>> 1) If your software isn't installed via Debian's packaging system, avoid >>> conflicts with the packaging system by installing it in places that >>> Debian's packaging system is not supposed to manipulate (e.g. /usr/local) >>> >> >> Sometimes. Often, though, they go in places like /bin or /sbin - as was >> done in Unix 25 years ago. > > (newsflash?) > UNIX != Linux > Yes, I know. However, that does not change the fact they started with Unix years ago. And Linux was basically built to be a free replacement for Unix. > and,dist-upgrades won't over-ride binaries or scripts *unless* the sys > admin has failed (BP and admin 101) by installing packages with names > that conflict with regular distro supplied binaries/scripts. > Dependencies for custom installs *should* be catered for by the > "installing admin" - apt is good, but it's not magical (neither is any > package manager). i.e. expect the impossible and prepare for failure > (and don't expect professional credits). > As I said - their custom code does not have packages associated with them. And the code is nowhere in any repository - Debian or otherwise - except in their own systems. >> >>> 2) If your software needs an "init script", make sure that your script >>> includes a correct LSB header and supports at least the "standard" verbs >>> with their expected meanings. >>> >>> >> >> Some do, some don't. Many times they are just simple scripts to start a >> daemon because they don't depend on another system daemon starting. > > Agreed - but not useful in 'this' context. Does not parse. Please expand > - specifics would be useful (pretend you're writing a use-case for > change control). Your time is not less or more valuable than any one > else's (an hour is worth exactly one hour). > They are useful in that they do their job, and someone doesn't have to learn LSB headers (or pass it off to another programmer who does understand the headers). All that is needed is some basic dash skills. And that saves company time and money. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54735da2.2040...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 at 10:37 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 25/11/14 00:53, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 11/24/2014 at 02:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>> It's illogical to upgrade and not expect change - even when >>> electing (as Debian allows) to retain the same init system. >> >> It's illogical to upgrade and not expect *improvement*, > > Good luck with that (expecting experience to triumph over optimism > might be difficult to reconcile with so many posts from those > opposed to a new default init). I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. My point was simply to disagree with your assertion about what it is and is not logical to expect from an upgrade. Among possibly other things, that's partly a philosophical point, and partly one about the definitions of words. > I'd recommend weighting the outcomes before embarking on an > adventure with expectations. e.g. I admin systems that still run > old-stable because the "advantages" of moving to Wheezy do not > provide a compelling argument to do so. YMMV. Everyone has an > opinion, no one "owns" facts. And I'm sure I don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm at least as confused by this as you seem to have been by parts of my own post. >> That depends on what you (or they) count as a "hit". >> They will certainly > > hopefully, be doing a "little" research before banging the enter > key... Please note that dist-upgrade requires more action on the part > of the user than just that. ...by what definition of "requires"? It is certainly possible to dist-upgrade by simply running 'apt-get dist-upgrade' and hitting Enter repeatedly. Thus, dist-upgrade does not - in the literal sense - "require" any more action than that. >>> Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file >>> bug reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they >>> change init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported >>> customisations done the "Debian Way" - and I have every >>> confidence they will continue to do so >> >> Is this impacted in any way by the discussion recently on (I think) >> debian-devel about things under /etc which are now symlinks to >> configuration files (some of them I think systemd-related) under >> /lib or /usr/lib, which latter will be overwritten on upgrade even >> if local modifications have been made? > > It's late, I'm tired, I cannot parse that. Perhaps if you replace "I > thing" with "I know" e.g. a reference, preferably to something > relevant to when Jessie becomes stable, I'll endeavour to answer > that question I apologize. I presumed that anyone who is as invested in the systemd-related discussions as you plainly are would be following the various mailing lists where this might have been mentioned, and thus would have already read this discussion just as recently as I have. The discussion occurred on debian-devel, in the thread entitled "init system policy". The suggestion for a possible way to mitigate the problem was made by Philip Hands, on November 22nd, in response to a post by me on the same date. I do not have links to specific messages, since I don't habitually work with or enjoy browsing through Web archives of mailing lists, and since I've never understood (or even understood how to make practical use of) the "message links" - looking outwardly similar to complicated E-mail addresses - which people sometimes use to identify a particular E-mail message. I presume that you will be able to find the thread in your own local archive of recent messages from debian-devel. > - until then it's (unintentionally?) a little too "Glenn Beck/Duane > Gish". I am insulted at being compared to Glenn Beck. (Though I don't know who Duane Gish is, unless she's the referent for the phrase "Gish Gallop" - and even then, I don't have more than a vague idea of what that is.) >> At a glance, it certainly looks to me as if "the Debian Way" of >> customizing things may now have changed at least somewhat > > What were you "glancing" at? (it would be helpful so I can respond > to your question - assuming you are asking a non-rhetorical > question). At the discussion to which I had been referring, and at the related parts of my own installed Debian system. -- 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: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 10:52 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 25/11/14 01:57, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will >> lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly >> another fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will >> lose users. > 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to > Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us > "engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying. > It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many companies I know of who have looked at jessie. > 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and > duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it > overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of > systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do > know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of > instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other > distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice > lost users - quite the reverse. > These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see the way Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll probably end up on BSD. >> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be >> hit as hard. > At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. > > But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. > I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even staying with sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the handwriting on the wall - whether you agree with it or not. > Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should > file bug reports if those customisations are not supported *if* > they change init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported > customisations done the "Debian Way" - and I have every > confidence they will continue to do so > And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized pre-packaged) software to the system? >>> >>> Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind. > > Agreed (also fs guidelines) > >>> >>> Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the >>> basic: download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar ./configure; make; >>> make install > > and "checkinstall" >>> >>> >> >> Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of >> software they create? > > No, I expect the admin to 'try' and do that (e.g. checkinstall) or > install the upstream package to the appropriate place where it *will* > withstand upgrade. But not everyone follows BP (e.g. ITIL, PCI, and > whatever relevant guidelines apply to their use-case). I don't know what > your use-case is... > These are system admins who have either started with Unix in the 1980's, or people who learned from those sysadmins. Back then you did put stuff in /bin and/or /sbin, for instance. And the company is not changing. >> >> It doesn't happen - and is not going to happen. It's much faster > > Convenience is the antipathy of security? (security also mean reliability). > It is reliable. And has been for many years. That's what testing is all about. And even if they did create .deb files for everything, that would not negate the need for testing. >> to just copy the files to the appropriate directories. And since >> they have complete control over the code, > > Complete control over the code? Are you sure you mean what you wrote? If > so don't conflate "complete control over the code" with "no control over > whether the code will continue to function" - as it would contradict > your previous complaints. > Yes, complete control. This is code they have written themselves and/or contracted out. They have complete control over the code. When there is an upgrade to their code, they know about it and install it. And when there is an upgrade to the underlying OS and/or tools, there is also extensive testing to see that the code will continue to work. If it doesn't, either the code changes or the upgrade is cancelled and a new solution is looked for. Most of the time it's only a matter of recompiling the code (new libs, etc.). But there is much more concern with them now. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54735c1a.40...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 10:05 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 25/11/14 00:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. >>> >>> 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy >>> Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer >>> types" place little stock in soothsaying. >>> >> >> It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people >> (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many >> companies I know of who have looked at jessie. > > 1. Like most things, that's relative. In this instance to the number of > readers and "users":- > https://lwn.net/Articles/620441/ > and, see my comments further down about "churn" (if I was overly tired > and emotional I might write "they're your ball, you know where your home > is?", "empty promises", and, "what's second prize?". But I'm not 'that' > tired and emotional). > > 2. Fore-telling the future, especially when the basis for future > extrapolation is *not* based on *any* (supplied and confirm-able) facts > - is assumption (not presumption - which generally, pre-supposes 'some' > evidence, of which you provide none (which doesn't preclude the > possibility you will at a later stage). > "Presumption" is distinct from "assumptions". (not to imply you are > cognitively impaired, just in awareness that this is not a 1:1 > communication) > It is not an assumption nor a presumption or prediction. Several people here (including me) have already indicated they are abandoning Debian for another distro or BSD. So have most of my customers who are currently using Debian. It is a fact. > 3. "companies" that you 'know '"have looked at Jessie" (which is not yet > a Stable release) is like "secret attorneys" - not demonstrable facts > and of dubious relevance. An unintentional oversight on your part I > 'suspect'. > I may be alone in the desire to not start jumping at shadows (or hanging > monkeys in sailor suits) - that 'may' (based on historical precedence) > only lead to burning witches and people that don't look like the tribal > patriarch. > By contract, I am not allowed to specify which of my customers are running what. If you've ever been a consultant, you should be aware of non-disclosure agreements; they are a standard part of almost every consulting contract I've ever signed. But that does not mean they are not jumping ship. >> >>> 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and >>> duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it >>> overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd >>> will attract more users (and more instances - you do know that >>> many "administrators" manage large numbers of instances, right?). >>> There is no evidence to show that other distros and projects that >>> adopted systemd as the *only* choice lost users - quite the >>> reverse. >>> >> >> These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. > > Citation? "These" is a, um, little vague. > As I said - contracts forbid me from giving specifics. But I'm sure you'll use that to say they don't exist. They do, however. >> Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. > > Is that a reference to a term used in a television show about the > fictitious "Wild West"? I can only apologise of my ignorance of "popular > culture" (long story - I haven't watched "television" in several decades > - did I miss something important?). > No, it has nothing to do with TV. > Never-the-less I suspect what you refer[*1] to is what is called > "churn". Tyre-kickers, testers, those that don't want to/don't have the > time/capacity to learn sufficient skills, those that lack the > motivation/capacity to decide for them selves and "go with the flow" (of > the noisiest) - as some might say - like dead fish. None of which would > be clients of your "business" - though admittedly I'm guessing at your > business model and mean no undue disrespect to you as a Veteran Unix > Administrator. (it's late, I'm tired, please forgive any clumsy wording > and a total lack of editorial review, be assured I've endeavoured to > extend the same courtesy). > It is not churn. Companies don't change distros on a whim; it is very expensive to install and test new software. If they have to train people on that new software, the cost increases. Therefore, every software installation is carefully examined before even attempting to install it. For instance - in the case of upgrading a Debian package, it means looking at the documentation with that package and, in the case of release changes to the base product, the documentation to those changes. It them means installing on a test system and running a long series of tests. And when the system is being upgraded,
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 25/11/14 02:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/24/2014 8:58 AM, Martin Read wrote: >> On 24/11/14 13:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized >>> pre-packaged) software to the system? >> >> As far as I can tell, the obvious things that go into the "Debian way" >> for installing custom software are: >> >> 1) If your software isn't installed via Debian's packaging system, avoid >> conflicts with the packaging system by installing it in places that >> Debian's packaging system is not supposed to manipulate (e.g. /usr/local) >> > > Sometimes. Often, though, they go in places like /bin or /sbin - as was > done in Unix 25 years ago. (newsflash?) UNIX != Linux and,dist-upgrades won't over-ride binaries or scripts *unless* the sys admin has failed (BP and admin 101) by installing packages with names that conflict with regular distro supplied binaries/scripts. Dependencies for custom installs *should* be catered for by the "installing admin" - apt is good, but it's not magical (neither is any package manager). i.e. expect the impossible and prepare for failure (and don't expect professional credits). > >> 2) If your software needs an "init script", make sure that your script >> includes a correct LSB header and supports at least the "standard" verbs >> with their expected meanings. >> >> > > Some do, some don't. Many times they are just simple scripts to start a > daemon because they don't depend on another system daemon starting. Agreed - but not useful in 'this' context. Does not parse. Please expand - specifics would be useful (pretend you're writing a use-case for change control). Your time is not less or more valuable than any one else's (an hour is worth exactly one hour). > > Jerry > > Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5473566a.2090...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 25/11/14 01:57, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will > lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly > another fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will > lose users. 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying. >>> It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people >>> (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are >>> many companies I know of who have looked at jessie. >>> 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice lost users - quite the reverse. >>> These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came >>> to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see >>> the way Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll >>> probably end up on BSD. >>> > Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be > hit as hard. At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. >>> I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even >>> staying with sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the >>> handwriting on the wall - whether you agree with it or not. >>> Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done the "Debian Way" - and I have every confidence they will continue to do so >>> And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT >>> customized pre-packaged) software to the system? >>> >>> >> >> Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind. Agreed (also fs guidelines) >> >> Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the >> basic: download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar ./configure; make; >> make install and "checkinstall" >> >> > > Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of > software they create? No, I expect the admin to 'try' and do that (e.g. checkinstall) or install the upstream package to the appropriate place where it *will* withstand upgrade. But not everyone follows BP (e.g. ITIL, PCI, and whatever relevant guidelines apply to their use-case). I don't know what your use-case is... > > It doesn't happen - and is not going to happen. It's much faster Convenience is the antipathy of security? (security also mean reliability). > to just copy the files to the appropriate directories. And since > they have complete control over the code, Complete control over the code? Are you sure you mean what you wrote? If so don't conflate "complete control over the code" with "no control over whether the code will continue to function" - as it would contradict your previous complaints. Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5473543f.8080...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 25/11/14 00:53, The Wanderer wrote: > On 11/24/2014 at 02:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > >> On 24/11/14 13:20, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >>> On 11/23/2014 8:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote: > Like what?? I first installed systemd back when it was announced. I have yet to have a single problem with it. >>> >>> What about all of those people with custom software running >>> which relies on sysv init for starting? >> >> They should continue using sysv, don't you think? >> >> It's illogical to upgrade and not expect change - even when >> electing (as Debian allows) to retain the same init system. > > It's illogical to upgrade and not expect *improvement*, Good luck with that (expecting experience to triumph over optimism might be difficult to reconcile with so many posts from those opposed to a new default init). I'd recommend weighting the outcomes before embarking on an adventure with expectations. e.g. I admin systems that still run old-stable because the "advantages" of moving to Wheezy do not provide a compelling argument to do so. YMMV. Everyone has an opinion, no one "owns" facts. > > That depends on what you (or they) count as a "hit". And whether the batter is swinging a fickle stick? > > They will certainly hopefully, be doing a "little" research before banging the enter key... Please note that dist-upgrade requires more action on the part of the user than just that. >> Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file >> bug reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they >> change init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported >> customisations done the "Debian Way" - and I have every >> confidence they will continue to do so > > Is this impacted in any way by the discussion recently on (I > think) debian-devel about things under /etc which are now symlinks > to configuration files (some of them I think systemd-related) under > /lib or /usr/lib, which latter will be overwritten on upgrade even > if local modifications have been made? It's late, I'm tired, I cannot parse that. Perhaps if you replace "I thing" with "I know" e.g. a reference, preferably to something relevant to when Jessie becomes stable, I'll endeavour to answer that question - until then it's (unintentionally?) a little too "Glenn Beck/Duane Gish". > > At a glance, it certainly looks to me as if "the Debian Way" of > customizing things may now have changed at least somewhat What were you "glancing" at? (it would be helpful so I can respond to your question - assuming you are asking a non-rhetorical question). Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/547350af.9090...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 25/11/14 00:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a >>> lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another >>> fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. >> >> 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy >> Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer >> types" place little stock in soothsaying. >> > > It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people > (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many > companies I know of who have looked at jessie. 1. Like most things, that's relative. In this instance to the number of readers and "users":- https://lwn.net/Articles/620441/ and, see my comments further down about "churn" (if I was overly tired and emotional I might write "they're your ball, you know where your home is?", "empty promises", and, "what's second prize?". But I'm not 'that' tired and emotional). 2. Fore-telling the future, especially when the basis for future extrapolation is *not* based on *any* (supplied and confirm-able) facts - is assumption (not presumption - which generally, pre-supposes 'some' evidence, of which you provide none (which doesn't preclude the possibility you will at a later stage). "Presumption" is distinct from "assumptions". (not to imply you are cognitively impaired, just in awareness that this is not a 1:1 communication) 3. "companies" that you 'know '"have looked at Jessie" (which is not yet a Stable release) is like "secret attorneys" - not demonstrable facts and of dubious relevance. An unintentional oversight on your part I 'suspect'. I may be alone in the desire to not start jumping at shadows (or hanging monkeys in sailor suits) - that 'may' (based on historical precedence) only lead to burning witches and people that don't look like the tribal patriarch. > >> 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and >> duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it >> overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd >> will attract more users (and more instances - you do know that >> many "administrators" manage large numbers of instances, right?). >> There is no evidence to show that other distros and projects that >> adopted systemd as the *only* choice lost users - quite the >> reverse. >> > > These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Citation? "These" is a, um, little vague. > Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. Is that a reference to a term used in a television show about the fictitious "Wild West"? I can only apologise of my ignorance of "popular culture" (long story - I haven't watched "television" in several decades - did I miss something important?). Never-the-less I suspect what you refer[*1] to is what is called "churn". Tyre-kickers, testers, those that don't want to/don't have the time/capacity to learn sufficient skills, those that lack the motivation/capacity to decide for them selves and "go with the flow" (of the noisiest) - as some might say - like dead fish. None of which would be clients of your "business" - though admittedly I'm guessing at your business model and mean no undue disrespect to you as a Veteran Unix Administrator. (it's late, I'm tired, please forgive any clumsy wording and a total lack of editorial review, be assured I've endeavoured to extend the same courtesy). > But they see the way Debian is going also, and don't like it. Objection - remains supposition *until* you supply evidence. I don't doubt you don't "like it" (shades of Fffacefriend and primary school??)But... there are many things I don't like, *I*'ll spare you, and other readers further expansion on them. > They'll probably end up on BSD. Not necessarily a bad thing. BSD (a generic for a diversity of distributions, can use love - providing that those disenfranchised refugees that you refer to:- ;exist ;provide love > >>> >>> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit >>> as hard. >> >> At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. >> >> But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. >> > > I never said it was the entire Debian user base. Nor did I say you did. Please don't put words in my mouth. > But even staying with sysv is only a temporary situation. In your "prediction" of *future* events. Which is dependant on "Debian" ceasing to do what Debian has done for more than two decades - overcome difficulties and adapt to change (an instructive guide to coping, and profiting from change, don't you think?) > They see the handwriting on the wall Daniel[*2] or Omar Khayyám? [confused, but still keen to learn] > - whether you agree with it or not. For the record - 'I' don't. On the basis of I've seen no evidence, in spite of extensive research and carefully open-minded view, of any factual support for
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 8:58 AM, Martin Read wrote: > On 24/11/14 13:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized >> pre-packaged) software to the system? > > As far as I can tell, the obvious things that go into the "Debian way" > for installing custom software are: > > 1) If your software isn't installed via Debian's packaging system, avoid > conflicts with the packaging system by installing it in places that > Debian's packaging system is not supposed to manipulate (e.g. /usr/local) > Sometimes. Often, though, they go in places like /bin or /sbin - as was done in Unix 25 years ago. > 2) If your software needs an "init script", make sure that your script > includes a correct LSB header and supports at least the "standard" verbs > with their expected meanings. > > Some do, some don't. Many times they are just simple scripts to start a daemon because they don't depend on another system daemon starting. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5473485d.4080...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. >>> 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose >>> Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types" >>> place little stock in soothsaying. >>> >> It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people >> (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many >> companies I know of who have looked at jessie. >> >>> 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and >>> duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it overlooks the >>> possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more >>> users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators" >>> manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to show >>> that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* >>> choice lost users - quite the reverse. >>> >> These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came to >> Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see the way >> Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll probably end up on BSD. >> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as hard. >>> At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. >>> >>> But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. >>> >> I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even staying with >> sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the handwriting on the >> wall - whether you agree with it or not. >> >>> Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug >>> reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change init >>> systems. >>> Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done the "Debian Way" - >>> and I have every confidence they will continue to do so >>> >> And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized >> pre-packaged) software to the system? >> >> > > Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind. > > Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the basic: > download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar > ./configure; make; make install > > Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of software they create? It doesn't happen - and is not going to happen. It's much faster to just copy the files to the appropriate directories. And since they have complete control over the code, they know when changes are made and what has to be done when the code is updated. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5473474f.4080...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 24/11/14 13:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized pre-packaged) software to the system? As far as I can tell, the obvious things that go into the "Debian way" for installing custom software are: 1) If your software isn't installed via Debian's packaging system, avoid conflicts with the packaging system by installing it in places that Debian's packaging system is not supposed to manipulate (e.g. /usr/local) 2) If your software needs an "init script", make sure that your script includes a correct LSB header and supports at least the "standard" verbs with their expected meanings. -- 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/54733990.1010...@zen.co.uk
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying. It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many companies I know of who have looked at jessie. 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice lost users - quite the reverse. These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see the way Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll probably end up on BSD. Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as hard. At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even staying with sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the handwriting on the wall - whether you agree with it or not. Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done the "Debian Way" - and I have every confidence they will continue to do so And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized pre-packaged) software to the system? Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind. Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the basic: download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar ./configure; make; make install -- 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/547338a6.7010...@meetinghouse.net
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 at 02:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 24/11/14 13:20, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 11/23/2014 8:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote: >>> Like what?? I first installed systemd back when it was announced. >>> I have yet to have a single problem with it. >> >> What about all of those people with custom software running which >> relies on sysv init for starting? > > They should continue using sysv, don't you think? > > It's illogical to upgrade and not expect change - even when electing > (as Debian allows) to retain the same init system. It's illogical to upgrade and not expect *improvement*, but "improvement" is much more narrow than "change". An upgrade can bring "it runs faster", "it doesn't crash in situations where it would have crashed before", "it can now do things which it could not previously do" (AKA new features) - and all of those things are unambiguously improvements. Many projects - bash, grep, less, X, nano, just to name a few - consistently provide only improvements on upgrade; to do anything else would be considered a regression. However, not all upgrades are limited to providing improvements. Some of them also provide things which are not unambiguously improvements, but which either are only arguably improvements, or are simple changes. systemd seems to fall within that latter category. Debian itself has not historically managed to achieve "provide only improvements on upgrade" AFAIK - even for upgrades between stable releases, much less upgrades within one - and it's not necessarily reasonable to expect that it should, given the scope of the project and the limited manpower available. However, it has come reasonably close in some ways, and I think that the goal (for all software projects) should be to be as close to achieving that as possible. The transition to systemd, in its current form, seems to me to take Debian farther away from that goal - if only because of the cases in which systemd behaves differently from sysvinit in ways which are not unambiguously better. Maybe that's inevitable, but if so it should at least be recognized and acknowledged regretfully as such. Sneering at people whose preferred / expected upgrade model is "improvements only" as being illogical does not do that. >> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit >> as hard. > > At all. That depends on what you (or they) count as a "hit". They will certainly be hit with the change in boot-messages behavior, unless they have previously removed Debian's default "quiet" from their kernel command line, or they take extra action (beyond just "only run software in .deb packages") to explicitly retain the existing behavior. They may very well be hit with the change in expectations about the contents of /etc/fstab (in terms of when noauto or nofail is required). Et cetera. You may not count such things as a "hit", but other people might, and it might not be unreasonable for them to do so. > And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. > > But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. > > Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug > reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change > init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done > the "Debian Way" - and I have every confidence they will continue to > do so Is this impacted in any way by the discussion recently on (I think) debian-devel about things under /etc which are now symlinks to configuration files (some of them I think systemd-related) under /lib or /usr/lib, which latter will be overwritten on upgrade even if local modifications have been made? At a glance, it certainly looks to me as if "the Debian Way" of customizing things may now have changed at least somewhat, based on differences in the way systemd expects / requires things to be done. Previously, if you edit a config file under /etc, your edits will not be automatically overwritten on upgrade; at the moment, those edits may be transparently passed through to a config file in some other location, and then automatically overwritten there on upgrade. There have been suggestions made to mitigate that by setting these symlinked-to config files as a-w, and modifying any editors that don't already do so to warn (with requirement for override) on an attempt to write to a read-only file, even if running as a user which could actually do so (i.e., as root). Though it seems unlikely that that would catch all possible editors that someone might reasonably use or want to use for such a purpose, and it could not catch cases where a file is replaced by mv or cp or the like... -- 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: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of >> dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or >> possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. > > 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose > Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types" > place little stock in soothsaying. > It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many companies I know of who have looked at jessie. > 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and > duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it overlooks the > possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more > users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators" > manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to show > that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* > choice lost users - quite the reverse. > These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see the way Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll probably end up on BSD. >> >> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as >> hard. > > At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. > > But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. > I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even staying with sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the handwriting on the wall - whether you agree with it or not. > Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug > reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change init > systems. > Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done the "Debian Way" - > and I have every confidence they will continue to do so > And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized pre-packaged) software to the system? Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/547331ca.7000...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/23/2014 11:25 PM, Ric Moore wrote: > On 11/23/2014 09:20 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/23/2014 8:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote: >>> On 11/23/2014 12:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> That is the huge majority of Debian users. Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as expected. >>> >>> Like what?? I first installed systemd back when it was announced. I have >>> yet to have a single problem with it. >>> >> >> What about all of those people with custom software running which relies >> on sysv init for starting? There are a lot of those systems out there - >> and every one of them will need work to conform to systemd. Many of >> those users will find it less time consuming and costly to change to >> another distro. It can be very expensive to bring someone up to speed >> on the systemd, then change and test all of their custom software (or >> pay a consultant to do it for you). >> Many will be able to fix those problems - but at a cost of time and manpower. Others will have neither the time nor the money to fix the problems, and still others will not have the technical expertise to do so. >>> >>> And yet the Linux community continues to lurch from pillar to post, as >>> always, surviving by our collective wits. That is our strength. That >>> part you just don't seem to appreciate, that nothing is ever static and >>> that change that is inherent within our little meritocracy and is our >>> greatness. >>> >> >> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of >> dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or >> possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. > > > How will Debian lose users? Debian is one of the LAST distros to adopt > systemd. Wheezy is good for another couple of years and it's still > running systemv. You're not suggesting that your user base will run > Jessie anytime soon? > >> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as >> hard. But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. > > Again, if you stick with wheezy, you have zero immediate concerns for > your scripts and customers. > > There are other distros which don't use systemd, such as Gentoo. Then there is always BSD. And while Wheezy will still be supported for a couple of years, it's not necessarily the answer. While many people don't want the "latest and greatest", they also don't want the "oldest and baddest". Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54733023.3070...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:16:29AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: systemd supports sysvinit init scripts (that have the LSB headers which are already mandatory in wheezy) just fine. Not doing so would be a bug, of course. I have initscripts without LSB headers working just fine. There are warnings, but it works. Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Stephan Seitz E-Mail: s...@fsing.rootsland.net | | Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html | smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 24/11/14 13:20, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/23/2014 8:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote: >> On 11/23/2014 12:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> That is the huge majority of Debian users. >>> Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as >>> expected. Apropos of what? That "surprise" from unexpected results through failure to read release notes (adequately prepare) is no "surprise". It's always been the case - and ever will be. >> >> Like what?? I first installed systemd back when it was announced. I have >> yet to have a single problem with it. >> > > What about all of those people with custom software running which relies > on sysv init for starting? They should continue using sysv, don't you think? It's illogical to upgrade and not expect change - even when electing (as Debian allows) to retain the same init system. I'll be upgrading to Jessie on my main workstation and retaining systemv - but before that I will:- ;expect change ;read the release notes ;read authoritative posts to Debian User ;plan for the worst case scenarios ;carefully weight up the possible benefits against the possible losses I expect to get from the exercise what I put into it - and I am only *certain* that I won't know the results until I've completed the exercise as I lack psychic abilities (or the psychosis that is mistaken for them) or the concrete facts from which to accurately deduct the outcome in my specific instance and particular "fit-for-purpose". >> > > Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of > dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or > possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying. 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice lost users - quite the reverse. > > Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as > hard. At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done the "Debian Way" - and I have every confidence they will continue to do so > > Jerry > > Kind regards -- "The pure and simple truth is the truth is rarely pure and never simple" -- 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/5472e494.8050...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 09:20:52PM -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > What about all of those people with custom software running which relies > on sysv init for starting? There are a lot of those systems out there - > and every one of them will need work to conform to systemd. Some may well work without further modifications. > Many of those users will find it less time consuming and costly to change to > another distro. I'm sure you're right, there will be people who think installing a new distro is less work than "apt-get install sysvinit-core". I'm not sure they're right, but they're free to do what they wish. -- 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/20141124074722.gc1...@chew.redmars.org
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 06:20:42PM -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > This isn't only about patches to Debian packages. This is also about > custom code many people have installed and set up to work with sysv > init. These will fail with systemd, These *might* fail with systemd. -- 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/20141124074508.gb1...@chew.redmars.org
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
Le dimanche, 23 novembre 2014, 21.20:52 Jerry Stuckle a écrit : > On 11/23/2014 8:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote: > > On 11/23/2014 12:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > That is the huge majority of Debian users. > > > >> Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't > >> work as expected. > > > > Like what?? I first installed systemd back when it was announced. I > > have yet to have a single problem with it. > > What about all of those people with custom software running which > relies on sysv init for starting? systemd supports sysvinit init scripts (that have the LSB headers which are already mandatory in wheezy) just fine. Not doing so would be a bug, of course. Please avoid spreading false rumours, that doesn't help. OdyX -- 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/2048231.4DZMdN81Fu@gyllingar
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 05:25:58AM CET, Ric Moore said: > On 11/23/2014 09:20 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >On 11/23/2014 8:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote: > >>On 11/23/2014 12:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> That is the huge majority of Debian users. > >>>Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as > >>>expected. > >> > >>Like what?? I first installed systemd back when it was announced. I have > >>yet to have a single problem with it. > >> > > > >What about all of those people with custom software running which relies > >on sysv init for starting? There are a lot of those systems out there - > >and every one of them will need work to conform to systemd. Many of > >those users will find it less time consuming and costly to change to > >another distro. It can be very expensive to bring someone up to speed > >on the systemd, then change and test all of their custom software (or > >pay a consultant to do it for you). > > > >>>Many will be able to fix those problems - but at a cost of time and > >>>manpower. Others will have neither the time nor the money to fix the > >>>problems, and still others will not have the technical expertise to do > >>>so. > >> > >>And yet the Linux community continues to lurch from pillar to post, as > >>always, surviving by our collective wits. That is our strength. That > >>part you just don't seem to appreciate, that nothing is ever static and > >>that change that is inherent within our little meritocracy and is our > >>greatness. > >> > > > >Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of > >dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or > >possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. > > > How will Debian lose users? Debian is one of the LAST distros to adopt > systemd. Wheezy is good for another couple of years and it's still running > systemv. You're not suggesting that your user base will run Jessie anytime > soon? There are alternatives in BSD. And since the systelmd team REFUSES to produce migration doc... -- 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/20141124064123.ga4...@rail.eu.org
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/23/2014 09:20 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/23/2014 8:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote: On 11/23/2014 12:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: That is the huge majority of Debian users. Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as expected. Like what?? I first installed systemd back when it was announced. I have yet to have a single problem with it. What about all of those people with custom software running which relies on sysv init for starting? There are a lot of those systems out there - and every one of them will need work to conform to systemd. Many of those users will find it less time consuming and costly to change to another distro. It can be very expensive to bring someone up to speed on the systemd, then change and test all of their custom software (or pay a consultant to do it for you). Many will be able to fix those problems - but at a cost of time and manpower. Others will have neither the time nor the money to fix the problems, and still others will not have the technical expertise to do so. And yet the Linux community continues to lurch from pillar to post, as always, surviving by our collective wits. That is our strength. That part you just don't seem to appreciate, that nothing is ever static and that change that is inherent within our little meritocracy and is our greatness. Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. How will Debian lose users? Debian is one of the LAST distros to adopt systemd. Wheezy is good for another couple of years and it's still running systemv. You're not suggesting that your user base will run Jessie anytime soon? Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as hard. But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. Again, if you stick with wheezy, you have zero immediate concerns for your scripts and customers. -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5472b356.2020...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/23/2014 8:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote: > On 11/23/2014 12:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > That is the huge majority of Debian users. >> Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as >> expected. > > Like what?? I first installed systemd back when it was announced. I have > yet to have a single problem with it. > What about all of those people with custom software running which relies on sysv init for starting? There are a lot of those systems out there - and every one of them will need work to conform to systemd. Many of those users will find it less time consuming and costly to change to another distro. It can be very expensive to bring someone up to speed on the systemd, then change and test all of their custom software (or pay a consultant to do it for you). >> Many will be able to fix those problems - but at a cost of time and >> manpower. Others will have neither the time nor the money to fix the >> problems, and still others will not have the technical expertise to do >> so. > > And yet the Linux community continues to lurch from pillar to post, as > always, surviving by our collective wits. That is our strength. That > part you just don't seem to appreciate, that nothing is ever static and > that change that is inherent within our little meritocracy and is our > greatness. > Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as hard. But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54729604.9040...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/23/2014 11:43 AM, John Hasler wrote: Andrew McGlashan writes: You will never see the full picture of the problem if you only listen to what is allowed to be received via the debian-user list... What makes you think debian-user is my only source of information? ...and you are deluded if you think the problem only concerns a small limited number of people. What makes you think I believe that? I *still* do not want to see your emotional rants here (nor those of your opponents). Are you unaware of the fact that many people support Systemd solely because they have decided that all the opponents are raving lunatics? I am one of them. Purely out of spite for polluting the list. Imagine finding out that it works so well! That's a two-fer. :) Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54728e5b.4080...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/23/2014 12:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: That is the huge majority of Debian users. Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as expected. Like what?? I first installed systemd back when it was announced. I have yet to have a single problem with it. Many will be able to fix those problems - but at a cost of time and manpower. Others will have neither the time nor the money to fix the problems, and still others will not have the technical expertise to do so. And yet the Linux community continues to lurch from pillar to post, as always, surviving by our collective wits. That is our strength. That part you just don't seem to appreciate, that nothing is ever static and that change that is inherent within our little meritocracy and is our greatness. Oh the other hand, we have a replay of the Hartlepool Monkey where pig ignorant fishermen and peasants hung a monkey thinking it was a French spy. "The fishermen apparently questioned the monkey and held a beach-based trial. Unfamiliar with what a Frenchman looked like they came to the conclusion that this monkey was a French spy and should be sentenced to death. The unfortunate creature was to die by hanging, with the mast of a fishing boat (a coble) providing a convenient gallows." http://www.thisishartlepool.co.uk/history/thehartlepoolmonkey.asp -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54728d21.4020...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/23/2014 5:29 PM, seeker5528 wrote: > > On 11/23/2014 1:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> We're not talking non-technical people here. We are talking companies >> with ITcd departments managing multiple servers and desktops. We are >> talking small companies who contract their IT services. We are talking >> individual users running their own servers and desktops. But even for >> them, waiting 2-3 months is NOT going to fix their problems. Neither >> is waiting 2-3 years, because the problem is incompatibility with >> previous Debian releases. > > Seems unlikely that the Debian devs will change from systemd as the > default init. > But the options for sticking with sysv init have been discussed plenty. > > In spite of the fact that the option for sticking with sysv init in a > new install happens in a way some people object to, the option does > exist, so that gives time for the Debian devs to sort out among > themselves how sysv init will be handled in the future. > > It will also provide time to see how many people with the required > knowledge care enough to supply patches to Debian devs in cases where > things are broken when sysv init is being used to bring up the system. > > It will also provide the time to see how things develop with > alternatives in cases where upstream requires parts of systemd for > certain features to work. > > I'm not in this for the debate, so I don't have anything to say beyond > this. > > Later, Seeker > > This isn't only about patches to Debian packages. This is also about custom code many people have installed and set up to work with sysv init. These will fail with systemd, and since they aren't Debian packages, people will be on their own to try to make them work with systemd. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54726bca.5040...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/23/2014 1:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: We're not talking non-technical people here. We are talking companies with ITcd departments managing multiple servers and desktops. We are talking small companies who contract their IT services. We are talking individual users running their own servers and desktops. But even for them, waiting 2-3 months is NOT going to fix their problems. Neither is waiting 2-3 years, because the problem is incompatibility with previous Debian releases. Seems unlikely that the Debian devs will change from systemd as the default init. But the options for sticking with sysv init have been discussed plenty. In spite of the fact that the option for sticking with sysv init in a new install happens in a way some people object to, the option does exist, so that gives time for the Debian devs to sort out among themselves how sysv init will be handled in the future. It will also provide time to see how many people with the required knowledge care enough to supply patches to Debian devs in cases where things are broken when sysv init is being used to bring up the system. It will also provide the time to see how things develop with alternatives in cases where upstream requires parts of systemd for certain features to work. I'm not in this for the debate, so I don't have anything to say beyond this. Later, Seeker -- 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/54725fc9.7040...@comcast.net
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/23/2014 2:20 PM, seeker5528 wrote: > > On 11/23/2014 9:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> What I see missing in these discussions is the vast number of people >> who don't monitor the lists. That is the huge majority of Debian >> users. Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things >> don't work as expected. > > That's how it works with every major OS release, and some minor ones > too. Often with other software too. Once in a while I still run into > someone who buys a new computer and is surprised there is no place to > plug in their parallel printer. > The change in init systems is the biggest change for users in the last 10 years or more. It will affect many more users than any previous upgrade I've seen in Debian in that time. > This is what release notes are for, highlighting changes and known issues. > In some cases not working as expected is a bug, in others it's by design. > Which does not change the fact that it will affect many people. > The situation with Windows XP is evidence enough that many people are > willing to spend excessive amounts of money keeping systems alive that > are well past their DNR date to stick with something they know. > If I wanted Windows XP, I would be running Windows XP. The same with my customers. >> Many will be able to fix those problems - but at a cost of time and >> manpower. Others will have neither the time nor the money to fix the >> problems, and still others will not have the technical expertise to do >> so. Jerry > > For non technical people it is always good to recommend waiting a bit > before upgrading to something new, I would normally say 2-3 months to > let additional issues get uncovered, work a rounds to be found, fixes to > be released ,etc... > We're not talking non-technical people here. We are talking companies with IT departments managing multiple servers and desktops. We are talking small companies who contract their IT services. We are talking individual users running their own servers and desktops. But even for them, waiting 2-3 months is NOT going to fix their problems. Neither is waiting 2-3 years, because the problem is incompatibility with previous Debian releases. > With the amount of time between new Debian releases there is some time > to sort things out in point releases and make some decisions on how > things are to be for the next major release. > > Later, Seeker > > Which takes time, talent and money. Many are short of one or more. I'm already being asked what I recommend for another distro. I can't answer that because I don't know where I'm going myself, yet. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54724e60.5020...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/23/2014 1:15 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 23 nov 14, 12:17:00, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> What I see missing in these discussions is the vast number of people who >> don't monitor the lists. That is the huge majority of Debian users. > > I agree that they are the majority. > >> Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as >> expected. > > Well, I will assert that those users also don't customize their systems > in ways that would matter for the Wheezy -> Jessie upgrade switch to > systemd[1]. > I think that's a false assumption. Virtually every server I'm familiar with has some customization for individual needs. Very few are running stock Wheezy packages only. But that's probably because one of the things I do is device drivers, and virtually every system I write them for is special purpose for one reason or another. Even though my experience shows the opposite, I will admit that experience is a small part of the entire Linux installation base. However, I still don't believe you can make that assumption. >> Many will be able to fix those problems - but at a cost of time and >> manpower. Others will have neither the time nor the money to fix the >> problems, and still others will not have the technical expertise to do so. > > As with any major transition. And your point is? > > [1] assuming this will happen, as it's still not decided yet. > > Kind regards, > Andrei > This is a much bigger change than any release in about the last 10 years. With other upgrades, virtually everything custom ran fine. The biggest problem I saw was when the device driver interface changed and I had to rewrite a bunch of drivers. But even that was minimal compared to this change - which will affect many more users. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54724cef.9050...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/23/2014 9:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: What I see missing in these discussions is the vast number of people who don't monitor the lists. That is the huge majority of Debian users. Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as expected. That's how it works with every major OS release, and some minor ones too. Often with other software too. Once in a while I still run into someone who buys a new computer and is surprised there is no place to plug in their parallel printer. This is what release notes are for, highlighting changes and known issues. In some cases not working as expected is a bug, in others it's by design. The situation with Windows XP is evidence enough that many people are willing to spend excessive amounts of money keeping systems alive that are well past their DNR date to stick with something they know. Many will be able to fix those problems - but at a cost of time and manpower. Others will have neither the time nor the money to fix the problems, and still others will not have the technical expertise to do so. Jerry For non technical people it is always good to recommend waiting a bit before upgrading to something new, I would normally say 2-3 months to let additional issues get uncovered, work a rounds to be found, fixes to be released ,etc... With the amount of time between new Debian releases there is some time to sort things out in point releases and make some decisions on how things are to be for the next major release. Later, Seeker -- 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/5472336d.7080...@comcast.net
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 24/11/2014 4:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/23/2014 11:43 AM, John Hasler wrote: >> Andrew McGlashan writes: >>> You will never see the full picture of the problem if you only listen to >>> what is allowed to be received via the debian-user list... >> >> What makes you think debian-user is my only source of information? >> >>> ...and you are deluded if you think the problem only concerns a small >>> limited number of people. >> >> What makes you think I believe that? I *still* do not want to see your >> emotional rants here (nor those of your opponents). >> >> Are you unaware of the fact that many people support Systemd solely >> because they have decided that all the opponents are raving lunatics? > > Anyone who has done that instead of making decisions on technical > grounds deserves what he/she gets. > > What I see missing in these discussions is the vast number of people who > don't monitor the lists. That is the huge majority of Debian users. > Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as > expected. > > Many will be able to fix those problems - but at a cost of time and > manpower. Others will have neither the time nor the money to fix the > problems, and still others will not have the technical expertise to do so. Exactly, well said Jerry. A. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iF4EAREIAAYFAlRyL2wACgkQqBZry7fv4vsj2QD/YVLHdLG/2WZkfFP1Y8oVKUus Q/2ApXKSIkb4xrfX/lAA/R9qMVzgvd2xTC1A8EqsWGbR8/MQzzmHvBabNRlX9zBQ =TV92 -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/54722f6d.4000...@affinityvision.com.au
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 24/11/2014 3:38 AM, John Hasler wrote: > Andrew McGlashan writes: >> I DO NOT WANT SYSTEMD ON ANY SYSTEM THAT I ADMINISTRATE ... is >> that so hard to understand? > > What's hard to understand is why I should give a damn. Ditto on why I should give a damn about your position. I would like to see Debian move forward, but I see the systemd situation as a clear backwards step. The future of Debian will mean, as it stands today, that systemd will be more important and likely become a necessity even though today "we are not forced to use it" ... and that's just part of the problem. I would prefer Linux kernel with traditional Debian userland with stability and security as major focuses, not the init system or anything else that comes along with systemd lock-in coming in the not too distant future. A. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iF4EAREIAAYFAlRyLmwACgkQqBZry7fv4vutPAD/efPbFZzZNXR0oC3wTNIfCfG3 gt5ywQ30+S/gYyTosdkA/j4hEA0fD/aIn+/ypxUxh4QpciPe0ndIYYUpA71qa+LR =QtTR -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/54722e6e.1070...@affinityvision.com.au
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On Du, 23 nov 14, 12:17:00, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > What I see missing in these discussions is the vast number of people who > don't monitor the lists. That is the huge majority of Debian users. I agree that they are the majority. > Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as > expected. Well, I will assert that those users also don't customize their systems in ways that would matter for the Wheezy -> Jessie upgrade switch to systemd[1]. > Many will be able to fix those problems - but at a cost of time and > manpower. Others will have neither the time nor the money to fix the > problems, and still others will not have the technical expertise to do so. As with any major transition. And your point is? [1] assuming this will happen, as it's still not decided yet. 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: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/23/2014 11:43 AM, John Hasler wrote: > Andrew McGlashan writes: >> You will never see the full picture of the problem if you only listen to >> what is allowed to be received via the debian-user list... > > What makes you think debian-user is my only source of information? > >> ...and you are deluded if you think the problem only concerns a small >> limited number of people. > > What makes you think I believe that? I *still* do not want to see your > emotional rants here (nor those of your opponents). > > Are you unaware of the fact that many people support Systemd solely > because they have decided that all the opponents are raving lunatics? > Anyone who has done that instead of making decisions on technical grounds deserves what he/she gets. What I see missing in these discussions is the vast number of people who don't monitor the lists. That is the huge majority of Debian users. Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as expected. Many will be able to fix those problems - but at a cost of time and manpower. Others will have neither the time nor the money to fix the problems, and still others will not have the technical expertise to do so. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5472168c.9080...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
Andrew McGlashan writes: > You will never see the full picture of the problem if you only listen to > what is allowed to be received via the debian-user list... What makes you think debian-user is my only source of information? > ...and you are deluded if you think the problem only concerns a small > limited number of people. What makes you think I believe that? I *still* do not want to see your emotional rants here (nor those of your opponents). Are you unaware of the fact that many people support Systemd solely because they have decided that all the opponents are raving lunatics? -- 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/87lhn16f5z@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
Andrew McGlashan writes: > I DO NOT WANT SYSTEMD ON ANY SYSTEM THAT I ADMINISTRATE ... is that so > hard to understand? What's hard to understand is why I should give a damn. -- 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/87ppcd6fen@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:01:44AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > I DO NOT WANT SYSTEMD ON ANY SYSTEM THAT I ADMINISTRATE ... is that so > hard to understand? Loud and clear - So DON'T INSTALL it then! You're ranting because of philisophical differences, and that my friend isn't for -user. You want the advocacy channel. -- 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/20141123155123.GA10514@stephen-desktop
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 23/11/2014 7:53 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > How many people subscribe to this list? > How many people follow the various reposting of this list? Sorry Scott, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The assumptions you are making are ridiculous. I've given many good reasons why I don't support systemd and none of them need me to do anything that /supports/ systemd, such as using it. I DO NOT WANT SYSTEMD ON ANY SYSTEM THAT I ADMINISTRATE ... is that so hard to understand? It's not about conspiracy, it's not about a lot of things that you assume. Please, if you don't understand my position, then read all my posts on the matter -- if you don't want to read all my posts, then stop making false assumptions and accusations. A. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iF4EAREIAAYFAlRx2rYACgkQqBZry7fv4vsP4AD/ej8zebpgKate+kDgp/p49ph2 N8xQAsyZZrNhXlKzpGUA/RmlhaCluUe33E/onyKwHhCIMBkSNqIkEnAgasy62T6K =skYr -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/5471dab8.1090...@affinityvision.com.au
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 23/11/14 19:07, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 23/11/2014 11:14 AM, John Hasler wrote: >> Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI writes: >>> But they are anathema to the "We are systemd of Borg, resistance is >>> futile" crowd. > >> And then there is the "Systemd is the Borg! Kill! Kill!" crowd who jump >> into every mention of Systemd to piss and moan about the other crowd, >> which then retaliates. While I can and will killfile you others >> evidently can't or won't and so every attempt at a rational discussion >> of anything Systemd related gets disrupted. I don't care for Systemd >> but I am going to have to live with it and so I want to hear about it's >> bugs, misfeatures, and workarounds. I do *not* want to hear about your >> conspiracy theories nor do I want to hear any more sneering ridicule of >> anyone who questions Systemd. Both "crowds" should just STFU. You are >> doing nothing but antagonizing people. Well said John, and thanks (for the record, I'm *not* pro-systemd, nor anti - just keeping my mind carefully open, as I did with the introduction of devfs and udev). > > Not to mention the fact that the list is NOT seeing the breadth of the > problems with systemd -- the views of the not so few are being squashed > time and time again with post moderation. > > You will never see the full picture of the problem if you only listen to > what is allowed to be received via the debian-user list ... and you are > deluded if you think the problem only concerns a small limited number of > people. > > A. > How many people subscribe to this list? How many people follow the various reposting of this list? While there may be a large number of people who have "problems" with systemd, many of which are Debian Users - most of them are polite, and present their objections/queries in a rational manner (you would do well to learn from them). May I respectfully suggest that context is everything - only a very small number of people*[*1]*, like yourself, make persistent, bullying, vague claims about "problems" with systemd - while continually ignoring that it is *not* forced on them. To suggest that you represent the silent majority is the height of arrogance (and delusion?) - don't you think. Likewise the "belief" that anyone who patiently tries to help you solve the problems you continually refuse to *define* and *substantiate* as fanbois or part of a "conspiracy" - does little to give credulence to your claims. It does nothing gain you respect, divides the community upon which *you* feed, and drowns out the legitimate concerns of others due to your incessant bad behaviour. Your behaviour, not surprisingly, irritates and offends users in general - to which you then claim is evidence of persecution. There's a term for that - a classification even. If you want fair hearing be respectful and intelligent - resorting the hyberbole implies that your "argument" is short on facts. List your *specific* problems with systemd and put them up *once* for people to read and reply to. Twice implies lack of forethought, three times implies? And you've ranted[*2 how many times? Likewise your *half-dozen* similarly behaved "Veteran Unix Administrators". There are many who have "concerns" about systemd - you and your behaviour do not represent them. This is a community of "users" - most who don't code or package, some of which make a "contribution" in terms of reportbug. Those that code and package make a "commitment" (it's an "eggs and bacon" thing if you need an analogy). Developers and packages would not cease to exist if user did, the opposite is the opposite. Clearly you haven't considered that - please do. [*1]https://lwn.net/Articles/620441/ [*2]] a term I apply *after* continually, and exhaustively, assuming best intentions on your part. Time I could have spent trying to help people with non-organic problems. Kind regards (sincerely - try and embrace the difference instead of trying to destroy those things 'you' don't 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/5471a07b.1040...@gmail.com
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 23/11/2014 11:14 AM, John Hasler wrote: > Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI writes: >> But they are anathema to the "We are systemd of Borg, resistance is >> futile" crowd. > > And then there is the "Systemd is the Borg! Kill! Kill!" crowd who jump > into every mention of Systemd to piss and moan about the other crowd, > which then retaliates. While I can and will killfile you others > evidently can't or won't and so every attempt at a rational discussion > of anything Systemd related gets disrupted. I don't care for Systemd > but I am going to have to live with it and so I want to hear about it's > bugs, misfeatures, and workarounds. I do *not* want to hear about your > conspiracy theories nor do I want to hear any more sneering ridicule of > anyone who questions Systemd. Both "crowds" should just STFU. You are > doing nothing but antagonizing people. Not to mention the fact that the list is NOT seeing the breadth of the problems with systemd -- the views of the not so few are being squashed time and time again with post moderation. You will never see the full picture of the problem if you only listen to what is allowed to be received via the debian-user list ... and you are deluded if you think the problem only concerns a small limited number of people. A. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iF4EAREIAAYFAlRxlawACgkQqBZry7fv4vsH2QD+N4fJ0Y4RMs9isqOvTuryBT3d w9h8jLd2/voVqPd4DMIA/3vQ7TZpP4iqOUj8kFC+eJrMQ70/1tyPM3ztYJ38IzMp =NrPA -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/547195ad.1010...@affinityvision.com.au
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On Sb, 22 nov 14, 22:49:48, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > At the moment I have removed systemd from my jessie system. It is, > despite the absence of systemd, a Debian Jessie system. Sure. > In fact, refracta, one of the so-called forks that avoids systemd, > actuallu uses Debian's own Jessie package repositories. It isn't a fork, > but more a different way of using Jessie from that installed by default > by the current Jessie installer. I'll have to disagree here. If refracta would use *only* unmodified Debian packages then it would be called a Debian Pure Blend[1]. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends Asking questions about any derivative or systems using it would not work out so well for simple practical reasons: for a Debian users there is no way to tell whether the problem applies to Debian or is specific to that specific derivative. The fact that a derivative may or may not use systemd is completely irrelevant to this fact. > It is still Jessie, and as far as I can tell, ... > a Jessie syste taht uses systemv init is still a Jessie system. This is true, and users of a Debian Jessie system will receive support here, whether it runs sysvinit or not. > But it is absurd to say that discussing these real problems faced by > Debian users, and their potential remedies, is off topic in the debian- > user mailing list. How about "a waste of resources"? Imagine a thread like this: A: I have $problem, please help B: Sure, do $this or $that A: $this fails and I can't install package $foo to do $that B: That's strange, both work fine here, but maybe try $other A: $other fails as well [several more mails] B: (desperate): This can't happen on a Debian system! A: But, I'm running $derivative, not Debian B: ... > There are lots of topics on this list that aren't relevant to me. But if > they are relevant to other users I' not going to declare them off topic. Sure, let's just merge all mailing lists[2] into one, why have separate mailing lists for all these different topics? All you have to do is delete the stuff that doesn't interest you :) [2] https://lists.debian.org/completeindex.html 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: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI writes: > But they are anathema to the "We are systemd of Borg, resistance is > futile" crowd. And then there is the "Systemd is the Borg! Kill! Kill!" crowd who jump into every mention of Systemd to piss and moan about the other crowd, which then retaliates. While I can and will killfile you others evidently can't or won't and so every attempt at a rational discussion of anything Systemd related gets disrupted. I don't care for Systemd but I am going to have to live with it and so I want to hear about it's bugs, misfeatures, and workarounds. I do *not* want to hear about your conspiracy theories nor do I want to hear any more sneering ridicule of anyone who questions Systemd. Both "crowds" should just STFU. You are doing nothing but antagonizing people. -- 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/87y4r26aei@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:49:48 + (UTC) Hendrik Boom wrote: > But it is absurd to say that discussing these real problems faced by > Debian users, and their potential remedies, is off topic in the debian- > user mailing list. Of course they are not. But they are anathema to the "We are systemd of Borg, resistance is futile" crowd. So they try to silence dissent by bleating "off-topic", which is their way of making sure no-one raises a voice against systemd, exposes its weaknesses, of bring to light the high-handed manner in which it was made the "default"(*). Cheers, Ron. PS Waht is now the politically correct term for "defailt" ? -- Keep your mouth shut and people may think you stupid; Open it and you remove all doubt. -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141122201652.37688...@ron.cerrocora.org
