Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:52:56 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > Thank you very much +1; I see some other features there too that can > > be handy, eg. subject RegExp simplification. > > Okay, the CCs have been removed; to anyone else wondering how to do, > you can tick the box of the field (here: CC) you want to drop and then > leave the textbox empty, that way clicking on "All" will not CC people. > > Now I really hope the amount of people not aware of replies is small... If they do, it's their fault. Posting a question to this list and not bothering to wait for a response is just plain rude, especially when people go to the trouble of trying to help. I'm not saying that is how all lists work, on some the CC makes sense, but this list isn't like that, so thank you for recognising it and conforming to the accepted behaviour. -- Neil Bothwick "I teleported home one night With Ron and Sid and Meg. Ron stole Meggie's heart away And I got Sidney's leg." signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
Tanstaafl wrote: > On 3/21/2014 5:57 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: >> How does one send email to*THIS* list, without being subscribed in >> the first place? A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter. > > I think that is the main and primary point. > > I loathe lists that allow posts from non subscribers > (libreoffice users), because it creates this exact problem. > > But in those cases, it should be on those who wish to leech (ask > questions/get help from the list without having to subscribe) to > proactively get their answers, by reading the archives on the web, etc. > > The burden absolutely should NEVER be on the list participants to try > to figure out who needs to be individually CC'd on replies and who > doesn't. > > Of course, if someone asks a question on such a list, and they > specifically mention they are not subscribed and ask to be directly > CC'd, then that is the one case when doing so is ok. But to blindly do > this to everyone on the list just to insure that your oh-so-valuable > reply makes it to the OP is just the height of arrogance and conceit. > > Exactly. I been on this list about a decade now. In that time, I have seen maybe a handful of people that requested a CC. I seem to vaguely recall one that couldn't access his regular email program, using different computer or something I guess, and didn't want to subscribe with the email addy he was currently using. The folks that were helping him did CC him since in that case, he needed it. That was a really long time ago. In recent history tho, I don't recall anyone requesting a CC at all. If they did, it was on a thread that I did not read. I usually at least try to read the first post to see if I can be of help. It seems that after burning a few bridges tho, this one finally understood the point. Time will tell I guess. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:38:54 +0100 Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:28:25 -0300 > luis jure wrote: > > > > > el 2014-03-22 a las 15:50 Tom Wijsman escribió: > > > > > How to set this up per folder? > > > > rigth-click on the folder, "Properties..." -> "Compose" -> "default > > to:" > > Thank you very much +1; I see some other features there too that can > be handy, eg. subject RegExp simplification. Okay, the CCs have been removed; to anyone else wondering how to do, you can tick the box of the field (here: CC) you want to drop and then leave the textbox empty, that way clicking on "All" will not CC people. Now I really hope the amount of people not aware of replies is small... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:28:25 -0300 luis jure wrote: > > el 2014-03-22 a las 15:50 Tom Wijsman escribió: > > > How to set this up per folder? > > rigth-click on the folder, "Properties..." -> "Compose" -> "default > to:" Thank you very much +1; I see some other features there too that can be handy, eg. subject RegExp simplification. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
el 2014-03-22 a las 15:50 Tom Wijsman escribió: > How to set this up per folder? rigth-click on the folder, "Properties..." -> "Compose" -> "default to:"
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:35:50 -0400 Tanstaafl wrote: > On 3/21/2014 5:57 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > How does one send email to*THIS* list, without being subscribed in > > the first place? A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter. > > I think that is the main and primary point. > > I loathe lists that allow posts from non subscribers > (libreoffice users), because it creates this exact > problem. We could fix *THIS* list to not allow that to exist; given that change, I'm fine with dropping CC on every mail on *THIS* list. Furthermore, I've asked in another mail how to set this per folder in my mail client; which should allow me to conform to the wishes of a list. > But in those cases, it should be on those who wish to leech (ask > questions/get help from the list without having to subscribe) to > proactively get their answers, by reading the archives on the web, > etc. People participate in more than just this list; at that point, there's a lot to check up with. It creates an information overflow; or rather, too much to check up on. This is why notifications were invented on various new and modern websites; though, given that mailing list archives date from a while ago, such notifications are not yet present on such services. Up to a point that the user is unaware of that; even when using the web form where they had to fill in their mail, 'cause why did they have to fill in their mail there anyway? > The burden absolutely should NEVER be on the list participants to try > to figure out who needs to be individually CC'd on replies and who > doesn't. But given the technical difficulties, there is such a burden on us; that's why it is part of the mailing list etiquette that I follow and are requested to follow by other Gentoo developers. > Of course, if someone asks a question on such a list, and they > specifically mention they are not subscribed and ask to be directly > CC'd, then that is the one case when doing so is ok. If they are aware; but see my response to leeching, are they aware? > But to blindly do this to everyone on the list just to insure that > your oh-so-valuable reply makes it to the OP is just the height of > arrogance and conceit. This isn't done blindly; I check up the rules and FAQ prior to do doing it, as well as listen to participants that warn me early. In this case, for the Gentoo mailing lists, the mailing list etiquette was brought to my attention and therefore I have been CC-ing for hundreds of e-mails without any remarks (and most people just repsond), to be surprised that a whole discussion about it is started here. It isn't arrogance or conceit; rather, it is being consistent and following etiquette. You should note that the early part of this discussion is based on one or two individuals that appear as inconsistent; however, given there are more people that voice this now, _I am concerned_ to change it specifically for those who request it and we could solve the technical difficulty by reducing the problem by requesting off-list replies to be disallowed and/or adapting the mail to new subscribers to mention that if they want to be CC-ed that they should explicitly mention that. Yes, I am inconsistent with *THIS* mailing list; let's change things to make such inconsistency unnecessary, to fix this forever and always. Otherwise we'll continue to get responses like these http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/273297 while we could just make those "do not ..." no longer necessary. Sorry for the hassle and thanks for the understanding. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:56:17 + Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:15:49 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > Here's something that works for the both of us: Request someone to > > not CC you in a follow-up mail when you catch them do it, they'll > > respect that; that's a guarantee that we can be certain that you > > are subscribed. > > I tried that, you cc'd your response to me... Well, it is new; this response has no CC. > You are using Claws-Mail, it is easy to set up per-folder > configurations. I hit Reply, th reply goes to the list, I have to take > the specific step of using Reply to All to send you to copies of the > email. How to set this up per folder? -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:00:59 + thegeezer wrote: > [...] so my point over 5 weeks ago was not about the difficulty in > _finding_ the changes, Ah, thanks; I see. > but about keeping track of those changes and implementing htem. Here, I would agree with if you have a lot of other things to do; I don't see this as a problem though for someone whom puts time apart to do such a fork, keeping track is as easy as following two git logs. Granted, understanding and implementing the changes is another story, in which I again agree with you; I just wanted to point out they're not hidden, they're just not announced, but it appears we agree on that. > if you read the rest of the thread you will see that in a whole i was > arguing that it is disingenuous to suggest that gnome does not > require logind. There is indeed an URL brought up early on, with which I agree with: https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/ There's also a more recent post that I think hasn't been brought up: https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/02/03/my-thoughts-on-the-default-init-system-for-debian-discussion > if you don't see that perhaps you could volunteer to add logind api > features to openRC ? Well, I wish I could accomplish all these things; but I have other work that I'm committing myself to, I've been thinking about a proof of concept to point out it is possible but I haven't had the time to do it. My past commits were spent on bringing MATE to the Portage tree; if I would work on a logind implementation, there wouldn't be MATE. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 3/21/2014 5:57 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: How does one send email to*THIS* list, without being subscribed in the first place? A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter. I think that is the main and primary point. I loathe lists that allow posts from non subscribers (libreoffice users), because it creates this exact problem. But in those cases, it should be on those who wish to leech (ask questions/get help from the list without having to subscribe) to proactively get their answers, by reading the archives on the web, etc. The burden absolutely should NEVER be on the list participants to try to figure out who needs to be individually CC'd on replies and who doesn't. Of course, if someone asks a question on such a list, and they specifically mention they are not subscribed and ask to be directly CC'd, then that is the one case when doing so is ok. But to blindly do this to everyone on the list just to insure that your oh-so-valuable reply makes it to the OP is just the height of arrogance and conceit.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 03/22/2014 01:00 PM, thegeezer wrote: > On 03/20/2014 06:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 + >> thegeezer wrote: >> >>> the difficulty is that without knowing >> It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a >> short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly); >> that's really not too much asked for if you forked logind. >> >> It is even quite common practice and scriptable: >> >> git fetch ... ; git log ... ; git diff ... >> >> In a similar way, I know Portage will get highlighting and a ^ indicator; >> without that being announced until release, here's a copy paste (note >> that what is above ^ would be colored in red, unwrapped to unbreak it): >> >> dev-lang/perl:0 >> >> (dev-lang/perl-5.18.2:0/5.18::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled >> in by >> =dev-lang/perl-5.18* required by (virtual/perl-IO-1.280.0:0/0::gentoo, >> ebuild scheduled for merge) >> ^ ^ >> >> >> >> (dev-lang/perl-5.16.3:0/5.16::gentoo, installed) pulled in by >> dev-lang/perl:0/5.16=[-build(-)] required by >> (dev-perl/IO-Socket-SSL-1.967.0:0/0::gentoo, installed) >> >> >> =dev-lang/perl-5.16* required by >> (virtual/perl-libnet-1.230.0:0/0::gentoo, installed) >> ^ ^ >> >> (and 19 more with the same problems) >> >> And of course, that's not the only change happening; dependency >> resolution will become faster, some slot operator bug fixes happened >> but caused regressions in released versions and thus more of such fixes >> will be done, some "no parents" messages during slot conflict output >> were nuked, ... >> >> If I can type that as part of this mail, people could follow logind. >> > On 03/20/2014 06:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 + >> thegeezer wrote: >> >>> the difficulty is that without knowing >> It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a >> short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly); >> that's really not too much asked for if you forked logind. >> >> It is even quite common practice and scriptable: >> >> git fetch ... ; git log ... ; git diff ... >> > there's a slight misunderstanding here. > in a previous link on this list there was gnome developer that basically > said something like "we can't document everything that gnome uses in > systemd/logind because the developers are ahead of us, so in case of > difference the source code is correct". > gnome is big. really big. > so you'd have to diff logind to check for new features and then diff > gnome to find how gnome is using those features. > > so my point over 5 weeks ago was not about the difficulty in _finding_ > the changes, but about keeping track of those changes and implementing htem. > if you read the rest of the thread you will see that in a whole i was > arguing that it is disingenuous to suggest that gnome does not require > logind. > > if you don't see that perhaps you could volunteer to add logind api > features to openRC ? > > btw, why did you reply to me cc the list instead of replying to list ? > i'm on the list already and so because of that my reply-to-list is broken. > it's easy enough to copy and paste the email address but please don't do > that again. > > sorry for the double length and content email. an accident with the copy and paste.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 03/22/2014 12:15 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > That way; you respect that I want to spent my time to be guaranteed to > be useful, I respect that you don't want to be CC-ed in follow-up > mails. Similarly; if someone is off-list; it takes a single mail to > keep me from sending additional mails. As it clarifies a > disengagement; that unsubscribing is meant to be a disengagement, I > can't find that rule... equally we all want our time spent to be guaranteed useful. i've just gone through 40+ messages twice. please stop CC'ing - just send it to the list. if someone unsubscribes from the list and thus doesn't see their answer there are other ways they can find it. it is their issue if they do not see the answer, it is easy enough to send an email to the list saying "so long thanks for the fish, btw please send answers to x...@y.com"
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 03/20/2014 06:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 + > thegeezer wrote: > >> the difficulty is that without knowing > It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a > short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly); > that's really not too much asked for if you forked logind. > > It is even quite common practice and scriptable: > > git fetch ... ; git log ... ; git diff ... > > In a similar way, I know Portage will get highlighting and a ^ indicator; > without that being announced until release, here's a copy paste (note > that what is above ^ would be colored in red, unwrapped to unbreak it): > > dev-lang/perl:0 > > (dev-lang/perl-5.18.2:0/5.18::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in > by > =dev-lang/perl-5.18* required by (virtual/perl-IO-1.280.0:0/0::gentoo, > ebuild scheduled for merge) > ^ ^ > > > > (dev-lang/perl-5.16.3:0/5.16::gentoo, installed) pulled in by > dev-lang/perl:0/5.16=[-build(-)] required by > (dev-perl/IO-Socket-SSL-1.967.0:0/0::gentoo, installed) > > > =dev-lang/perl-5.16* required by > (virtual/perl-libnet-1.230.0:0/0::gentoo, installed) > ^ ^ > > (and 19 more with the same problems) > > And of course, that's not the only change happening; dependency > resolution will become faster, some slot operator bug fixes happened > but caused regressions in released versions and thus more of such fixes > will be done, some "no parents" messages during slot conflict output > were nuked, ... > > If I can type that as part of this mail, people could follow logind. > On 03/20/2014 06:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 + > thegeezer wrote: > >> the difficulty is that without knowing > It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a > short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly); > that's really not too much asked for if you forked logind. > > It is even quite common practice and scriptable: > > git fetch ... ; git log ... ; git diff ... > there's a slight misunderstanding here. in a previous link on this list there was gnome developer that basically said something like "we can't document everything that gnome uses in systemd/logind because the developers are ahead of us, so in case of difference the source code is correct". gnome is big. really big. so you'd have to diff logind to check for new features and then diff gnome to find how gnome is using those features. so my point over 5 weeks ago was not about the difficulty in _finding_ the changes, but about keeping track of those changes and implementing htem. if you read the rest of the thread you will see that in a whole i was arguing that it is disingenuous to suggest that gnome does not require logind. if you don't see that perhaps you could volunteer to add logind api features to openRC ? btw, why did you reply to me cc the list instead of replying to list ? i'm on the list already and so because of that my reply-to-list is broken. it's easy enough to copy and paste the email address but please don't do that again.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:15:49 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > Here's something that works for the both of us: Request someone to not > CC you in a follow-up mail when you catch them do it, they'll respect > that; that's a guarantee that we can be certain that you are subscribed. I tried that, you cc'd your response to me... You are using Claws-Mail, it is easy to set up per-folder configurations. I hit Reply, th reply goes to the list, I have to take the specific step of using Reply to All to send you to copies of the email. -- Neil Bothwick The road to HAL is paved with good intentions. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 06:08:35 -0500 Dale wrote: > To the point about folks unsubscribing, if they do unsubscribe from > the list, it may be because they got what they want and do NOT want > any more messages. Or it may be because they are tired of the flow of mails, but yet they are still awaiting a reply; the only respectful guarantee that works for the both of us is if the user states a solution was found and/or addresses me to send no further emails, that gives guarantees. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:57:40 +0200 Matti Nykyri wrote: > I agree. I think it is arrogant to disturb lots of people that have > done nothing to deserve it. People should be let to choose them self > what they wanna do with their lives. If they wish to disengage some > conversation, let them. Don't send them spam. spam is send to a large number of recipients; I don't see how what is discussing here is doing that, apart from extending this discussion. It's not arrogant; it's a technical difference, which sets up different approaches. That's why developers are requested to follow the etiquette. > The ones who wish to participate will stay on the list and the ones > seeking for an answer can browse the archives. People that participate maybe are on the list and the ones seeking for an answer might browse the archives. > Please respect other people. Here's something that works for the both of us: Request someone to not CC you in a follow-up mail when you catch them do it, they'll respect that; that's a guarantee that we can be certain that you are subscribed. That way; you respect that I want to spent my time to be guaranteed to be useful, I respect that you don't want to be CC-ed in follow-up mails. Similarly; if someone is off-list; it takes a single mail to keep me from sending additional mails. As it clarifies a disengagement; that unsubscribing is meant to be a disengagement, I can't find that rule... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:34:53 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: > I disagree. Can we agree to disagree? > Your default position on things seems to be to favour the theoretical > position over the reality. I'm the opposite, being a sysadmin and not > a developer I'm a realist and not a theoretician. I work with the way > things are and really only look at the theory when stuff is proven > broken. That I want my time to be spent useful is reality, not just theory; until you can show me the invisible subscription state as well as the Reply-To mungling are features, I keep my mailer fixed to unbreak that. > What is currently happening is you are sending mails directly > addressed to me so they do not get filtered and end up cluttering my > already full inbox. That is because you address me about this matter; if you weren't, I wouldn't have sent you a single mail. Or perhaps one in a hundred days; I consider the meta discussion brought up here to be more cluttering than that uncertain single mail. > You are breaking my filters. Why do you filters allow list messages in your inbox? > I do want you to fix your mailer so that you stop inconveniencing me. > And I would *really* prefer not to have to tweak my filters to > accommodate you. I'd rather you do that heavy lifting (on account of > you causing it). That list messages land in your inbox is caused by your filter and mail client; as you can see per the example procmail rule, as well as my mail client, neither of both do that here. > Do you see what I'm getting at? No; I don't see why I should stop following the mailing list etiquette, start relying on possibly wasting time as well as break what is fixed. But yes; for convenience, I've dropped you from CC. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
Matti Nykyri wrote: > On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:34, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> On 22/03/2014 01:46, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:34:55 +0200 >>> Alan McKinnon wrote: >>> 2. A discussion forum. For these you do munge Reply-To: to be the list so all discussion happens on-list and is visible to all gentoo-user has always been the latter and all discussion always takes place on-list. If some doc somewhere says otherwise, change the doc to reflect reality. >>> http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml mentions it is about support >>> too, and people that are here to be supported don't necessarily want to >>> follow the discussion that comes along as well; thus unsubscribe >>> before an answer or not subscribe at all in the first place, they then >>> instead rely on receiving a mail regardless of that. >>> >>> CC-ing ensures that the minutes spent on the answer make it reach the >>> person; relying on that they are (still) subscribed, I can waste time. >>> >>> See the most recent mail I sent before this for details. >>> >> >> I disagree. >> >> Your default position on things seems to be to favour the theoretical >> position over the reality. I'm the opposite, being a sysadmin and not a >> developer I'm a realist and not a theoretician. I work with the way >> things are and really only look at the theory when stuff is proven broken. >> >> What is currently happening is you are sending mails directly addressed >> to me so they do not get filtered and end up cluttering my already full >> inbox. You are breaking my filters. >> >> I do not want to receive list mail from you addressed directly to me, I >> want it addressed to the list. >> >> I do want you to fix your mailer so that you stop inconveniencing me. >> And I would *really* prefer not to have to tweak my filters to >> accommodate you. I'd rather you do that heavy lifting (on account of you >> causing it). >> >> Do you see what I'm getting at? > I agree. I think it is arrogant to disturb lots of people that have done > nothing to deserve it. People should be let to choose them self what they > wanna do with their lives. If they wish to disengage some conversation, let > them. Don't send them spam. The ones who wish to participate will stay on the > list and the ones seeking for an answer can browse the archives. > > Please respect other people. > +1 to both Matti and Alan. If he decides to change this and does, let me know. I'll consider removing the blacklist. There is no need making no telling how many people change their settings just because one person refuses too. To the point about folks unsubscribing, if they do unsubscribe from the list, it may be because they got what they want and do NOT want any more messages. I don't recall EVER sending a email to someone offlist unless I was asked to or had to send some large attachement that the other person wanted and I didn't want to send to the list. If I unsubscribed from this list, I would expect emails regarding this list to stop. At least I know now why folks told me what they did when I first joined. I'm just glad I wasn't so thick headed to not listen. I adjusted my settings and been here ever since. < insert thumbs up here > Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:34, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 22/03/2014 01:46, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:34:55 +0200 >> Alan McKinnon wrote: >> >>> 2. A discussion forum. For these you do munge Reply-To: to be the list >>> so all discussion happens on-list and is visible to all >>> >>> gentoo-user has always been the latter and all discussion always takes >>> place on-list. If some doc somewhere says otherwise, change the doc to >>> reflect reality. >> >> http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml mentions it is about support >> too, and people that are here to be supported don't necessarily want to >> follow the discussion that comes along as well; thus unsubscribe >> before an answer or not subscribe at all in the first place, they then >> instead rely on receiving a mail regardless of that. >> >> CC-ing ensures that the minutes spent on the answer make it reach the >> person; relying on that they are (still) subscribed, I can waste time. >> >> See the most recent mail I sent before this for details. >> > > > I disagree. > > Your default position on things seems to be to favour the theoretical > position over the reality. I'm the opposite, being a sysadmin and not a > developer I'm a realist and not a theoretician. I work with the way > things are and really only look at the theory when stuff is proven broken. > > What is currently happening is you are sending mails directly addressed > to me so they do not get filtered and end up cluttering my already full > inbox. You are breaking my filters. > > I do not want to receive list mail from you addressed directly to me, I > want it addressed to the list. > > I do want you to fix your mailer so that you stop inconveniencing me. > And I would *really* prefer not to have to tweak my filters to > accommodate you. I'd rather you do that heavy lifting (on account of you > causing it). > > Do you see what I'm getting at? I agree. I think it is arrogant to disturb lots of people that have done nothing to deserve it. People should be let to choose them self what they wanna do with their lives. If they wish to disengage some conversation, let them. Don't send them spam. The ones who wish to participate will stay on the list and the ones seeking for an answer can browse the archives. Please respect other people. -- -Matti
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 22/03/2014 01:46, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:34:55 +0200 > Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> 2. A discussion forum. For these you do munge Reply-To: to be the list >> so all discussion happens on-list and is visible to all >> >> gentoo-user has always been the latter and all discussion always takes >> place on-list. If some doc somewhere says otherwise, change the doc to >> reflect reality. > > http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml mentions it is about support > too, and people that are here to be supported don't necessarily want to > follow the discussion that comes along as well; thus unsubscribe > before an answer or not subscribe at all in the first place, they then > instead rely on receiving a mail regardless of that. > > CC-ing ensures that the minutes spent on the answer make it reach the > person; relying on that they are (still) subscribed, I can waste time. > > See the most recent mail I sent before this for details. > I disagree. Your default position on things seems to be to favour the theoretical position over the reality. I'm the opposite, being a sysadmin and not a developer I'm a realist and not a theoretician. I work with the way things are and really only look at the theory when stuff is proven broken. What is currently happening is you are sending mails directly addressed to me so they do not get filtered and end up cluttering my already full inbox. You are breaking my filters. I do not want to receive list mail from you addressed directly to me, I want it addressed to the list. I do want you to fix your mailer so that you stop inconveniencing me. And I would *really* prefer not to have to tweak my filters to accommodate you. I'd rather you do that heavy lifting (on account of you causing it). Do you see what I'm getting at? -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
Mick wrote: > On Saturday 22 Mar 2014 00:28:04 Dale wrote: >> Alan McKinnon wrote: >>> Judging by replies so far, I'd guess not many at all. You can't >>> possibly know how many will or will not plonk someone. In the meantime >>> Dale, I think you are projecting. Chill out brother, chill out. Plenty >>> stuff in the world more deserving of attention than this. >> >> I fixed it now. No more problems. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) > > Some of us read all, but reply only where we think we can add value and when > time allows. > > There is no need really on this list for verbal abuse, especially when a > contributor has offered well considered advice and carefully articulated > opinion. > > Nevertheless, I also find personally addressed emails annoying, but it can be > fixed by setting up a filter on most mail clients to drop them in the > corresponding M/L. This may be a more civil way than alienating people who > want to join this community. I'm just saying ... > If a person sends html messages to this list, there is quite a few that will block because they can't read them. Same as with quite a few other things that is not liked on this list. Folks don't like html and don't like getting two copies of the same message. My point was and still is, if he doesn't want to conform to what this list expects, he will be blacklisted by people on this list. Period. It's nothing personal about it since I would inform anyone else of the same thing. It's really that simple. I still remember when I first joined this list. I was told the same thing about my email program sending html. If I had not conformed to the requests of people on this mailing list, I would have been blacklisted by a large group of people and was told that I would by some of the very ones that would do it. When joining a community, you conform to what is expected. You don't join and then force everyone else to conform to what you want. All Tom had to do is not CC everyone. Real simple. No harder than me telling my software to send text only message to gentoo.org. It seemed to me that Tom refused the request of quite a few people even after several asked him to change. Based on that, I blacklisted him. That is something I rarely do but hey, it is what it is. I fixed his problem for him. I suspect others have done the same. BTW, I have yet to see him add much of anything to any discussion. I've seen his posts on -dev as well. I won't now but still. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Saturday 22 Mar 2014 00:28:04 Dale wrote: > Alan McKinnon wrote: > > Judging by replies so far, I'd guess not many at all. You can't > > possibly know how many will or will not plonk someone. In the meantime > > Dale, I think you are projecting. Chill out brother, chill out. Plenty > > stuff in the world more deserving of attention than this. > > I fixed it now. No more problems. > > Dale > > :-) :-) Some of us read all, but reply only where we think we can add value and when time allows. There is no need really on this list for verbal abuse, especially when a contributor has offered well considered advice and carefully articulated opinion. Nevertheless, I also find personally addressed emails annoying, but it can be fixed by setting up a filter on most mail clients to drop them in the corresponding M/L. This may be a more civil way than alienating people who want to join this community. I'm just saying ... -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:41:03 -0500 > Dale wrote: > >> FYI. Most people don't say anything, they just blacklist you. After >> that, you don't exist to them. > Yes, that's up to those few; it could happen, but most respond instead. I just read the last message from you Tom. Good bye. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
Alan McKinnon wrote: > Judging by replies so far, I'd guess not many at all. You can't > possibly know how many will or will not plonk someone. In the meantime > Dale, I think you are projecting. Chill out brother, chill out. Plenty > stuff in the world more deserving of attention than this. I fixed it now. No more problems. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:34:55 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: > 2. A discussion forum. For these you do munge Reply-To: to be the list > so all discussion happens on-list and is visible to all > > gentoo-user has always been the latter and all discussion always takes > place on-list. If some doc somewhere says otherwise, change the doc to > reflect reality. http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml mentions it is about support too, and people that are here to be supported don't necessarily want to follow the discussion that comes along as well; thus unsubscribe before an answer or not subscribe at all in the first place, they then instead rely on receiving a mail regardless of that. CC-ing ensures that the minutes spent on the answer make it reach the person; relying on that they are (still) subscribed, I can waste time. See the most recent mail I sent before this for details. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:57:07 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > How does one send email to *THIS* list, without being subscribed in > the first place? You can do that on sites like GMANE; similarly, given a message ID, you can request that specific from the mailing list daemon to land in your inbox, which allows you even do a signed reply to it. As you can see; there are people that want to participate only when they are interested in it, rather than flood their mailing program. Let's say you have a bug when you unmount a filesystem; so, you go look on the LKML if there's something known about it. You'll find: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1671264 The thing is; you're not subscribed as you found it, yet you want to reply to it without subscribing to its flood, what do? You send off a single reply; then you expect someone that responds to CC you if that person wants to tell / ask you something, otherwise you wouldn't know. > But I'm not aware of any such mechanism on this list. If someone is > involved in a thread here, then they've obviously subscribed here. > So the CC: is redundant. Invisible things are hard to be aware of; you assume that the person is CC-ed, however, the person may have found the thread through GMANE _or_ the person might have been unsubscribed by the moment you make a reply. We see similar things happen on IRC; someone asks a question, 2 or 3 minutes later they are gone. Sometimes they ask a question, but receive no answer so they are gone 20 or 30 minutes later. Similarly; we're now a month later in this ML thread, who says people are still subscribed? On IRC, if you pay notice to the many join/part/quits and don't filter them, you can still spot that with awareness; however, on ML you can't. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 21/03/2014 23:57, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:29:48PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote > >> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Procmail >> >> "The mailing list etiquette requires people to CC all the people >> involved in a particular thread in replies to the mailing list, in case >> any of them is not subscribed." > > How does one send email to *THIS* list, without being subscribed in > the first place? A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter. A web > form bug submission goes to a list, which the submitter is probably not > subscribed to. Developers do need to CC their replies to the original > submitter to let them know what's happening. But I'm not aware of any > such mechanism on this list. If someone is involved in a thread here, > then they've obviously subscribed here. So the CC: is redundant. > > Speaking of procmail+formail, I use them to tame the lists that follow > Chip Rosenthal's ideas. E.g., if this list did that, I would use... > > :0 fhw > * ^X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org > * !^Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org > | formail -i "Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org (Gentoo users)" > > I do this to the few lists I run into that I want/need, which blindly > follow Chip's ideas. > Chip Rosenthal? yeah, he's the "Reply-To munging considered harmful" fellow Trouble is, he argues from a theoretical position and ignores what people actually do with lists. There's two main uses: 1. a distribution mechanism to reach all subscribers and/or where you don;t have to be subscribed to post. For these you really don't want to munge Reply-To 2. A discussion forum. For these you do munge Reply-To: to be the list so all discussion happens on-list and is visible to all gentoo-user has always been the latter and all discussion always takes place on-list. If some doc somewhere says otherwise, change the doc to reflect reality. I utterly fail to see why so many folks on the internet can't see why there's two kinds of lists... I think I'm going to compose an essay; "Chip Rosenthal and his detractors all considered harmful" -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:29:48PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote > http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Procmail > > "The mailing list etiquette requires people to CC all the people > involved in a particular thread in replies to the mailing list, in case > any of them is not subscribed." How does one send email to *THIS* list, without being subscribed in the first place? A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter. A web form bug submission goes to a list, which the submitter is probably not subscribed to. Developers do need to CC their replies to the original submitter to let them know what's happening. But I'm not aware of any such mechanism on this list. If someone is involved in a thread here, then they've obviously subscribed here. So the CC: is redundant. Speaking of procmail+formail, I use them to tame the lists that follow Chip Rosenthal's ideas. E.g., if this list did that, I would use... :0 fhw * ^X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org * !^Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org | formail -i "Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org (Gentoo users)" I do this to the few lists I run into that I want/need, which blindly follow Chip's ideas. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 21/03/2014 20:23, Dale wrote: > Tanstaafl wrote: >> On 3/21/2014 7:13 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400 >>> Tanstaafl wrote: >>> On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails. I am on the list and don't need two copies. Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete my direct email manually yourself) in your email program. >>> >>> Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email >>> program or procmail; >> >> Fuck you Tom. >> >> PLONK THE ARROGANT PRICK. >> >> > > > There goes one. Tom, you ever wonder how many people are doing the same > but not saying anything? Judging by replies so far, I'd guess not many at all. You can't possibly know how many will or will not plonk someone. In the meantime Dale, I think you are projecting. Chill out brother, chill out. Plenty stuff in the world more deserving of attention than this. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:41:03 -0500 Dale wrote: > FYI. Most people don't say anything, they just blacklist you. After > that, you don't exist to them. Yes, that's up to those few; it could happen, but most respond instead. > To my knowledge, the only emails I have not got when someone sent to > this mailing list is when the mailing list server had problems and > that was a long long time ago. You send a email to the list and the > list gets the email. There is NO need to CC everyone so that they > get dups. Period. There is a need, see the previous mails about it; the need stays as is. > We don't need a CC guarantee. I do, as I spend time on this; that time should have guaranteed results. > This is a COMMUNITY effort here and you seem to not want to be a part > of the community. If it were true, I would stop my contributions and support here and now. > If you don't want to be here by the standards set, say good bye. The etiquette is the standard that I follow, it encourages this; it is stepping away from that etiquette and thus results in "good bye": http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/273297 Consider that each time you tell some user to not CC or so on the ML, you're actually sending an extra mail to a ton of people yourself; whereas the mail telling that ignores the subject of the thread, please consider to do this in an off-list reply with positive words. > I'm trying to help you by telling you this. People will blacklist > you and never say a word about it. I suspect quite a few already > has. It would be wise to change your way of handling this list or > you will lose. And others try to help me by telling the opposite; so, when two groups of people tell you to do something that conflicts, which one would be picked? Well, pick the one that respects our etiquette; and along that, the same one guarantees that my time is spent wise. Similarly, would you spend time to keep asking this everytime it happens by one or another individual or just simply filter it once and for all? -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
Tanstaafl wrote: > On 3/21/2014 7:13 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400 >> Tanstaafl wrote: >> >>> On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>> >>> Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails. >>> >>> I am on the list and don't need two copies. >>> >>> Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete >>> my direct email manually yourself) in your email program. >> >> Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email >> program or procmail; > > Fuck you Tom. > > PLONK THE ARROGANT PRICK. > > There goes one. Tom, you ever wonder how many people are doing the same but not saying anything? Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
Poison BL. wrote: > Just my 2c as one of the others who doesn't generally reply to what, > at face value, seemed an awful lot more combative/trolling of a tone > than actually useful (disregard != compliance on the internet), > fighting on the topic of 'proper use of mailing lists' when you're > standing in stark contrast to the configuration of the mailing list > you're using to do it, and in the process, telling everyone (many of > which have been around here helping other users for many, many, years) > that they're wrong for using the list they've been using in the manner > they've been using it... when I see your name appear the first time as > long ago as last Dec., is rather on the arrogant side at the least > (I'm not certain if you've been around -dev or another longer, as I > don't believe I'm subscribed on that one). If you're really hellbent > on getting the configuration of the list changed, feel free to take it > up with the person who configures the list, rather than approaching it > by being condescending to the people who consistently use it. +1 I see Tom being on a lot of peoples black list. He's burning bridges. I been here since 2003 or 2004 if I recall correctly. When I first came here, I conformed my settings to what the people on this list wanted and expected. I was told the same thing people are telling Tom now. Failure to listen and adapt is not going to go well for Tom. It seems Tom wants everyone else to change because he refuses too and on top of that, he thinks no one will do anything if he doesn't. I'll give this a day or two. If it doesn't change, bye Tom. That won't just be for this list but also every Gentoo list you are on including -dev. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 3/21/2014 7:13 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400 Tanstaafl wrote: On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails. I am on the list and don't need two copies. Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete my direct email manually yourself) in your email program. Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email program or procmail; Fuck you Tom. PLONK THE ARROGANT PRICK.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:10:49 -0500 > Dale wrote: > >> So let's get this straight. You want most everyone on this list to >> change what they have to do to remove dups caused by you, instead of >> you changing what you do to fix the problem? > Everyone else is okay with it, as only one in a thousand speaks up > about it; the problem rather is with that 0.1% than that it is with me, > as I just use mailing lists as they are supposed to be used. FYI. Most people don't say anything, they just blacklist you. After that, you don't exist to them. >> To put it another way, you want to inconvenience everyone else >> instead of doing things the way everyone else does it and has done it >> for a long time? > That's what the Reply-To header mungling does; it makes you unable to > tell me through the Reply-To header what you want, and as a result I > need to use the default than to be able to automatically respect it. > > As can be seen, that is an automatic guarantee that it will reach you. > > Just as well as the automatic guarantee that the same Message ID is the > same message; and thus, your mail client should be filtering duplicates. > To my knowledge, the only emails I have not got when someone sent to this mailing list is when the mailing list server had problems and that was a long long time ago. You send a email to the list and the list gets the email. There is NO need to CC everyone so that they get dups. Period. We don't need a CC guarantee. >> Here's a hint. I can see a LOT of people adding you to their >> blacklist. You could very well end up talking to yourself on this >> mailing list. > Here's a hint. Lots of people appear to respond to me. > This is a COMMUNITY effort here and you seem to not want to be a part of the community. When I first came here, my email program sent html. I was told that HTML is not appreciated here. Some even provided examples of why it is not appreciated. I asked how to change that, I was given the help needed to change it and I have made sure that it remained that way since. There was a point in time where I changed software and couldn't find the setting. I asked if anyone knew where it was and got the help needed to get it set back to plain text, as EVERYONE else does on this list. If you don't want to be here by the standards set, say good bye. I'm trying to help you by telling you this. People will blacklist you and never say a word about it. I suspect quite a few already has. It would be wise to change your way of handling this list or you will lose. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
J. Roeleveld wrote: > I filter on the server, using SIEVE-scripts. Please provide the > correct syntax I need to do this. You are the only one causing > duplicate emails, all others on this list do NOT cause duplicate > emails. This means the cause is on your side and the solution should > then also be on your side. >> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html > I disagree with those. Seen those arguments before along with the opposite > versions. Mailing lists where a reply does not work are broken. Mailing > lists where I always end up with duplicate replies don't stay used by > myself for very long. > +1 This is no different than a person sending a HTML email. This mailing list doesn't like them and it is the sender that should change their settings to stop it from happening. We may make exceptions for those using cell phones who can not change it but when it can be changed by the sender, it should be changed by them. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:06:12 +0100 "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > Is that one included in the Cyrus ebuild? In Cyrus it is an actual feature, see the (first) FAQ[1] entry about Duplicate Delivery Surpression; in imapd.conf you can do duplicatesuppression: 1 to enable this. It might be that because this is an actual feature that the extension isn't implemented; unpacking the source tarball, then insensitive case grepping for 'dupl', I only find the above feature. [1]: https://cyrusimap.org/mediawiki/index.php/FAQ > I ONLY want duplicates that would end up in my inbox to be filtered. > If an email is sent to 2 or more mailing lists, they should end up in > each relevant mailing list folder. The procmail filter we have neatly does this by checking the List-Id header; maybe this can be mimicked in a Sieve rule, the rule is simple. > With LKML, most people don't stay subscribed for very long as their > mailboxes overflow. On this list, the general consensus is that you > reply to list only unless specifically requested otherwise. It's possible to stay subscribed with strict filtering, its reading volume to me is in terms of unread mail currently 5 times as much as this ML; however, I scroll more through the mails there than I do here which makes the effort to process both nearly equal. With a higher amount of mailing lists to follow I don't keep a list of exceptions; and therefore, to keep it simple, do the same everywhere. Information overflow stays manageable for me if I keep things simple; if I however would start to add manual matching techniques to that, it would become much more unmanageable as instead of being effective I suddenly start doing something what our software is supposed to do. > I am subscribed, so no need to add me to the CC. As said above, I could put this on a list; but I'll forget about it. > If I am really interested in the reply and I would not be in the > list, I would check the archives, which are updated fast enough for > the purpose. That is only so if you expect and/or are aware of the reply. > The goal only makes sense when replying to emails that are still > relevant. A discussion that is over a month old is usually no longer > relevant. Not much has changed since then; and thus, it is still recent enough. > Filtering out your emails fully also would avoid this happening. It is quite effective. > > As for the river / sea, there's no way to convince the river / sea > > to go away; it'll be there, even if you could use a bucket to > > remove me, there'll be another person or so tomorrow. > > On this list, you (people who insist on CC-ing the world) are the > minority. On this world, this list (where people that I can count on my fingers insist on not being CC-ed) is a minority. Regardless of both being a minority, they'll continue to be present. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, March 21, 2014 14:20, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:41:54 +0100 > "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > >> On Fri, March 21, 2014 12:59, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100 >> > "J. Roeleveld" wrote: >> > >> >> Tom, >> >> >> >> Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list. >> > >> > Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this. >> >> I filter on the server, using SIEVE-scripts. >> Please provide the correct syntax I need to do this. > > The vnd.dovecot.duplicate extension can be used to do this, RFC: > > > http://hg.rename-it.nl/dovecot-2.1-pigeonhole/raw-file/tip/doc/rfc/spec-bosch-sieve-duplicate.txt > > It is designed exactly for this purpose, quote from the introduction: > > Duplicate deliveries are a common side-effect of being subscribed > to a mailing list. > > Example correct syntax: > > require ["vnd.dovecot.duplicate", "fileinto", "mailbox"]; > > if duplicate { > fileinto :create "Trash/Duplicate"; > } Is that one included in the Cyrus ebuild? > This will move duplicates to Trash/Duplicate, given that you enable the > vnd.dovecot.duplicate extension; I use a similar rule in procmail. I ONLY want duplicates that would end up in my inbox to be filtered. If an email is sent to 2 or more mailing lists, they should end up in each relevant mailing list folder. >> You are the only one causing duplicate emails, all others on this >> list do NOT cause duplicate emails. > > That's because some people here are users that don't commonly use > bigger mailing lists and thus have no such filter in place; however, > when you get to participate in bigger mailing lists, you will get such > duplicate mails by design if you don't have a filter. Take for example > the LKML, where it is common practice that relevant mailing lists as > well as individuals are CC-ed; you'll get a dupe as one of either. With LKML, most people don't stay subscribed for very long as their mailboxes overflow. On this list, the general consensus is that you reply to list only unless specifically requested otherwise. > Being the sender of a message, however, some mailing lists allow you to > control whether you want to be CC-ed; this can be done by setting a > "Reply-To header", but in this case it is always overridden which > removes the ability to guarantee you'll receive the message. I am subscribed, so no need to add me to the CC. If I am really interested in the reply and I would not be in the list, I would check the archives, which are updated fast enough for the purpose. > There are other participants on the Gentoo mailing lists that > participate in other mailing lists too; and when met with Reply-To > mungling, they do the same approach. eg. MichaŠGórny (mgorny) > >> This means the cause is on your side and the solution should then >> also be on your side. > > The goal is to ensure people receive their mail; if I were to make a > solution on my sight, it voids that goal as the guarantee is gone. The goal only makes sense when replying to emails that are still relevant. A discussion that is over a month old is usually no longer relevant. Especially if the email only contains information that already was sent. >> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >> > http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html >> >> I disagree with those. Seen those arguments before along with the >> opposite versions. Mailing lists where a reply does not work are >> broken. Mailing lists where I always end up with duplicate replies >> don't stay used by myself for very long. > > Given a present filter, I use any mailing list; I don't let technical > differences in the software being used overcome the ability to state > something on a mailing list, and if a technical difference does matter > to someone (0.1% in this case) I expect them to adapt. This ain't a > place where "One True Way" is to be enforced; as you can see, I very > well consider the standard reply button to be broken... Still waiting for a filter that works on my server. >> >> Also, no need to reopen a closed mail >> > >> > A thread can't be closed by its individuals; you can choose to not >> > reply, but that doesn't withhold the ability for others to reply. >> >> True, but a mail-thread that hasn't had a reply for over a month is >> usually considered closed. It's nice that you decide to catch up with >> your emails, but please then take care not to flood inboxes as well. > > Similar to above, right click and "ignore thread" could be used as > well as "sort / group by thread"; as without both features, there's no > dam in place to avoid the flood from happening. Filtering out your emails fully also would avoid this happening. > As for the river / sea, there's no way to convince the river / sea to > go away; it'll be there, even if you could use a bucket to remove me, > there'll be another person or so tomorrow. On this list, you (people who insist on
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:13:27 -0400 "Poison BL." wrote: > fighting on the topic of 'proper use of mailing lists' when you're > standing in stark contrast to the configuration of the mailing list > you're using to do it, Which fight? It is a short notice as to why it is being done, as well as what can be done to make a change. Convincing individually isn't. > and in the process, telling everyone (many of which have been around > here helping other users for many, many, years) that they're wrong > for using the list they've been using in the manner they've been > using it... Words are being turned around here, I've never said someone is wrong; however, I provided filtering as an option to them to consider. > when I see your name appear the first time as long ago as > last Dec., is rather on the arrogant side at the least (I'm not > certain if you've been around -dev or another longer, as I don't > believe I'm subscribed on that one). There are more mailing lists and communication mediums; the reason I've not replied much in this one since last year, is because I've let this inbox grow to ~1000 unread mails or so which I'm progressing now. > If you're really hellbent on getting the configuration of the list > changed, feel free to take it up with the person who configures the > list, rather than approaching it by being condescending to the people > who consistently use it. That's for those that have a problem with it to do; as well a getting it confirmed that a certain way of responding is required, there's been nothing said about it when mails of mine went out to persons from the infrastructure team on the gentoo-dev ML and neither by other devs. Developers recommend each other to use a rule, and everyone uses it; it might be a side effect of procmail being available on our dev SSH, but in any case it works out well for every developer, see this link: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Procmail "The mailing list etiquette requires people to CC all the people involved in a particular thread in replies to the mailing list, in case any of them is not subscribed." -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:41:54 +0100 "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > On Fri, March 21, 2014 12:59, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100 > > "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > > > >> Tom, > >> > >> Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list. > > > > Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this. > > I filter on the server, using SIEVE-scripts. > Please provide the correct syntax I need to do this. The vnd.dovecot.duplicate extension can be used to do this, RFC: http://hg.rename-it.nl/dovecot-2.1-pigeonhole/raw-file/tip/doc/rfc/spec-bosch-sieve-duplicate.txt It is designed exactly for this purpose, quote from the introduction: Duplicate deliveries are a common side-effect of being subscribed to a mailing list. Example correct syntax: require ["vnd.dovecot.duplicate", "fileinto", "mailbox"]; if duplicate { fileinto :create "Trash/Duplicate"; } This will move duplicates to Trash/Duplicate, given that you enable the vnd.dovecot.duplicate extension; I use a similar rule in procmail. > You are the only one causing duplicate emails, all others on this > list do NOT cause duplicate emails. That's because some people here are users that don't commonly use bigger mailing lists and thus have no such filter in place; however, when you get to participate in bigger mailing lists, you will get such duplicate mails by design if you don't have a filter. Take for example the LKML, where it is common practice that relevant mailing lists as well as individuals are CC-ed; you'll get a dupe as one of either. Being the sender of a message, however, some mailing lists allow you to control whether you want to be CC-ed; this can be done by setting a "Reply-To header", but in this case it is always overridden which removes the ability to guarantee you'll receive the message. There are other participants on the Gentoo mailing lists that participate in other mailing lists too; and when met with Reply-To mungling, they do the same approach. eg. Michał Górny (mgorny) > This means the cause is on your side and the solution should then > also be on your side. The goal is to ensure people receive their mail; if I were to make a solution on my sight, it voids that goal as the guarantee is gone. > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html > > I disagree with those. Seen those arguments before along with the > opposite versions. Mailing lists where a reply does not work are > broken. Mailing lists where I always end up with duplicate replies > don't stay used by myself for very long. Given a present filter, I use any mailing list; I don't let technical differences in the software being used overcome the ability to state something on a mailing list, and if a technical difference does matter to someone (0.1% in this case) I expect them to adapt. This ain't a place where "One True Way" is to be enforced; as you can see, I very well consider the standard reply button to be broken... > >> Also, no need to reopen a closed mail > > > > A thread can't be closed by its individuals; you can choose to not > > reply, but that doesn't withhold the ability for others to reply. > > True, but a mail-thread that hasn't had a reply for over a month is > usually considered closed. It's nice that you decide to catch up with > your emails, but please then take care not to flood inboxes as well. Similar to above, right click and "ignore thread" could be used as well as "sort / group by thread"; as without both features, there's no dam in place to avoid the flood from happening. As for the river / sea, there's no way to convince the river / sea to go away; it'll be there, even if you could use a bucket to remove me, there'll be another person or so tomorrow. In comparison, on the LKML you will get replies one or more months later; if you there then reply claiming a thread is closed, it'll be perceived as everything but that... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:27:09 + > Neil Bothwick wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:13:28 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> >> > > Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, >> > > delete my direct email manually yourself) in your email program. >> > >> > Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your >> > email program or procmail; these requests aren't remembered, given >> > that email programs don't provide a function to do this selectively. >> >> Don't they? Then why did you only get one copy of this reply, via the >> list? Most posters here do not have this problem, > > Did I receive a reply? Who says I am even subscribed to the list? > >> Of course, if you don't want people to bother reading your mails, >> continue to piss them off. > > All I'm doing is making sure this message gets to you; every notion you > give to it beyond that, is what that 0.1% thinks of it. Not my problem. > > -- > With kind regards, > > Tom Wijsman (TomWij) > Gentoo Developer > > E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org > GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D > GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D Just my 2c as one of the others who doesn't generally reply to what, at face value, seemed an awful lot more combative/trolling of a tone than actually useful (disregard != compliance on the internet), fighting on the topic of 'proper use of mailing lists' when you're standing in stark contrast to the configuration of the mailing list you're using to do it, and in the process, telling everyone (many of which have been around here helping other users for many, many, years) that they're wrong for using the list they've been using in the manner they've been using it... when I see your name appear the first time as long ago as last Dec., is rather on the arrogant side at the least (I'm not certain if you've been around -dev or another longer, as I don't believe I'm subscribed on that one). If you're really hellbent on getting the configuration of the list changed, feel free to take it up with the person who configures the list, rather than approaching it by being condescending to the people who consistently use it. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:27:09 + Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:13:28 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > > Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, > > > delete my direct email manually yourself) in your email program. > > > > Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your > > email program or procmail; these requests aren't remembered, given > > that email programs don't provide a function to do this selectively. > > Don't they? Then why did you only get one copy of this reply, via the > list? Most posters here do not have this problem, Did I receive a reply? Who says I am even subscribed to the list? > Of course, if you don't want people to bother reading your mails, > continue to piss them off. All I'm doing is making sure this message gets to you; every notion you give to it beyond that, is what that 0.1% thinks of it. Not my problem. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:10:49 -0500 Dale wrote: > So let's get this straight. You want most everyone on this list to > change what they have to do to remove dups caused by you, instead of > you changing what you do to fix the problem? Everyone else is okay with it, as only one in a thousand speaks up about it; the problem rather is with that 0.1% than that it is with me, as I just use mailing lists as they are supposed to be used. > To put it another way, you want to inconvenience everyone else > instead of doing things the way everyone else does it and has done it > for a long time? That's what the Reply-To header mungling does; it makes you unable to tell me through the Reply-To header what you want, and as a result I need to use the default than to be able to automatically respect it. As can be seen, that is an automatic guarantee that it will reach you. Just as well as the automatic guarantee that the same Message ID is the same message; and thus, your mail client should be filtering duplicates. > Here's a hint. I can see a LOT of people adding you to their > blacklist. You could very well end up talking to yourself on this > mailing list. Here's a hint. Lots of people appear to respond to me. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, March 21, 2014 12:59, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100 > "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list. > > Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this. I filter on the server, using SIEVE-scripts. Please provide the correct syntax I need to do this. You are the only one causing duplicate emails, all others on this list do NOT cause duplicate emails. This means the cause is on your side and the solution should then also be on your side. > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html I disagree with those. Seen those arguments before along with the opposite versions. Mailing lists where a reply does not work are broken. Mailing lists where I always end up with duplicate replies don't stay used by myself for very long. >> Also, no need to reopen a closed mail > > A thread can't be closed by its individuals; you can choose to not > reply, but that doesn't withhold the ability for others to reply. True, but a mail-thread that hasn't had a reply for over a month is usually considered closed. It's nice that you decide to catch up with your emails, but please then take care not to flood inboxes as well. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:13:28 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete > > my direct email manually yourself) in your email program. > > Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email > program or procmail; these requests aren't remembered, given that email > programs don't provide a function to do this selectively. Don't they? Then why did you only get one copy of this reply, via the list? Most posters here do not have this problem, Of course, if you don't want people to bother reading your mails, continue to piss them off. -- Neil Bothwick C Error #011: First C Program, huh? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400 > Tanstaafl wrote: > >> On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> >> Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails. >> >> I am on the list and don't need two copies. >> >> Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete >> my direct email manually yourself) in your email program. > Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email > program or procmail; these requests aren't remembered, given that email > programs don't provide a function to do this selectively. > > For more insight: > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html > So let's get this straight. You want most everyone on this list to change what they have to do to remove dups caused by you, instead of you changing what you do to fix the problem? To put it another way, you want to inconvenience everyone else instead of doing things the way everyone else does it and has done it for a long time? Here's a hint. I can see a LOT of people adding you to their blacklist. You could very well end up talking to yourself on this mailing list. Why not send messages in html while at it? That should finish off you getting your messages read. Just something to think about. Dale :-) :-) P. S. CC this message to me and I get a dup, I won't get the next one. I can fix the issue for you on a more permanent basis. -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100 "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > Tom, > > Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list. Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html > Also, no need to reopen a closed mail A thread can't be closed by its individuals; you can choose to not reply, but that doesn't withhold the ability for others to reply. > thread with replies that re-iterate already mentioned information. > Canek said the same in his replies. Yes, I saw that after sending this mail; for most replies I do I check up on it in advance, in this case I missed and/or forgot. Sorry. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 21 March 2014 12:24:04 CET, Tom Wijsman wrote: >On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:54:55 +0100 >"J. Roeleveld" wrote: > >> On Sun, February 16, 2014 22:16, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann >> > wrote: >> >> oh? I can pipe that output into cat or any any daemon I like? >> >> Doesn't look like so. >> > >> > But it does, you can "cat" with journalctl; it's one of its output >> > options: >> > >> >-o, --output= >> >cat >> >generates a very terse output only showing the >actual >> > message of each journal entry with no meta data, not even a >> > timestamp. >> >> As I do not have systemd installed on any machine, I can't check the >> man-pages. > >http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/man > >> But, if that is the only method to get parseable text from >journalctl, >> then that is less then useless. > >Why? There are other output methods. See the man pages... > >> I would expect an export option providing the same detail level as I >> currently find in /var/log/messages. > >That's what you can control with the various options of -o. > >> A timestamp is a minimum required for logging system output. > >Depends on how you are processing that output. Tom, Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list. Also, no need to reopen a closed mail thread with replies that re-iterate already mentioned information. Canek said the same in his replies. -- Joost -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 07:57:06 -0500 Tanstaafl wrote: > Getting the Gentoo Council behind this idea, and providing an > officially supported - or maybe a better term is *mandated* - process > whereby systemd proponents can create and then maintain new systemd > versions of any existing profiles. > > I guess maybe it is time to go open a bug about this? > > I would be happy to do this, but maybe it would be better if someone > who has much more knowledge of the inner workings of the Gentoo > Council and whatever process governs things like this to do it? Wait on the gentoo-project ML for a mail gathering agenda items; once that happens, reply to it clearly explaining your request and what you would want them to discuss or vote on. Then you can watch and/or participate in the next meeting (they announce when that is there) and/or read up about their decision in the log and/or summary as they come online; for further details, you can read up here: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:00:43 +0400 "Yuri K. Shatroff" wrote: > I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated > into any existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility > or just practical uselessness? A lot of it is being integrated in some as we speak; however, other init systems are slow to catch up. In the last two months; as you can see, there haven't been meaningful commits to OpenRC other than small documentation fixes. The shortlog allows me to see the entire last year. http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/openrc.git;a=log http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/openrc.git;a=shortlog -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:50:07 +0100 "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > It all sounds too much like the MS Windows Event-viewer to me. > Too many events with no usefull logging information (And I am > referring to OS-level messages as to why default services are not > starting) The MS Windows Event-viewer has very nice filtering capabilities; beyond that, the detailed information gives you the error code that you can look up in the documentation. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:54:55 +0100 "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > On Sun, February 16, 2014 22:16, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann > > wrote: > >> oh? I can pipe that output into cat or any any daemon I like? > >> Doesn't look like so. > > > > But it does, you can "cat" with journalctl; it's one of its output > > options: > > > >-o, --output= > >cat > >generates a very terse output only showing the actual > > message of each journal entry with no meta data, not even a > > timestamp. > > As I do not have systemd installed on any machine, I can't check the > man-pages. http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/man > But, if that is the only method to get parseable text from journalctl, > then that is less then useless. Why? There are other output methods. See the man pages... > I would expect an export option providing the same detail level as I > currently find in /var/log/messages. That's what you can control with the various options of -o. > A timestamp is a minimum required for logging system output. Depends on how you are processing that output. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:32:28 + Neil Bothwick wrote: > A login daemon should be started by the init system, not be an > integral part of it. What happens when logind no longer fulfils > developers needs, as is the case with ConsoleKit now, how can it be > replaced with an improved service when it is so closely tied to the > init system. It is started by the init system, as evidenced by the presence of systemd-logind.service as well as there being a separate systemd-logind executable; it is simply replaced by not starting the service, instead, starting another service that fits those needs. Also: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/configure.ac#n798 -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400 Tanstaafl wrote: > On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails. > > I am on the list and don't need two copies. > > Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete > my direct email manually yourself) in your email program. Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email program or procmail; these requests aren't remembered, given that email programs don't provide a function to do this selectively. For more insight: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:23:05 -0400 Tanstaafl wrote: > On 3/20/2014 4:00 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:53:51 +0400 > > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > >> OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will be. > > > Do you have a source that backs up this claim? > > Are you seriously challenging the FACT that OpenRC is the default > init system in gentoo? Depends on how you define "default"; because as far as can be seen, it is by consequence rather than by decision. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:22:22 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > Well, running systemd now I can reboot into OpenRC; it just works. > > How is this done? Simply by booting without init=. although some packages have been built with USE="systemd" they still work when booting using openrc. Of course, systemd is still present on the system, even if the PID1 process is not running. Incidentally, I discovered today that Linux Mint Debian Edition uses classic init, but has systemd installed. All you need to switch over is add the init= kernel option. -- Neil Bothwick A. Top posters. Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 3/20/2014 4:00 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:53:51 +0400 Andrew Savchenko wrote: OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will be. Do you have a source that backs up this claim? Are you seriously challenging the FACT that OpenRC is the default init system in gentoo?
Re: Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 20/03/2014 22:33, Tom Wijsman wrote: > Good, as you describe after this (cut out), I get the impression that > the opposite is the case and there are not enough; a solution to that > exists elwhere, in Funtoo, check out their Flavors and Mix-ins: > > http://www.funtoo.org/Flavors_and_Mix-ins > > Would be nice to have this on Gentoo. Oooh, like in Django? Yes, I like that idea a lot. I think of mix-ins like I think of java interfaces - wonderful idea, easy to use, really hard to get them wrong -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails. I am on the list and don't need two copies. Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete my direct email manually yourself) in your email program.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 02:27:11 +0600 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:00:27 +0100 Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will > > > be. > > > > Do you have a source that backs up this claim? > > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1&chap=6 That is documentation; it being listed as a default there is by the consequence of it having been present there, whether it is decided to be the default is another story (not found grepping council meetings). > > It comes as part of > > stage3, but a systemd stage3 is being worked on[1]; however, it has > > only temporarily been in the @system set (due to functions.sh[2] > > which is now split) and will soon be removed from it. > > > > [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482702 > > If these stage will be alternative, I'm OK with this. If it will be > the only one available, many people will have to say Gentoo good > bye. Yes, alternative. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:22:22 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 20/03/2014 20:57, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > Well, running systemd now I can reboot into OpenRC; it just works. > > How is this done? Here, two GRUB entries; alternatively, eselect init to switch symlinks. > > It's happening, `find /usr/portage/profiles/ -name '*systemd*'`; > > does it have any consequences that are worth thinking through? > > As it stands now exactly, none. I only checked one profile: Good, as you describe after this (cut out), I get the impression that the opposite is the case and there are not enough; a solution to that exists elwhere, in Funtoo, check out their Flavors and Mix-ins: http://www.funtoo.org/Flavors_and_Mix-ins Would be nice to have this on Gentoo. > > Well, running NVIDIA now I can reboot with a simple script[1] put > > in /etc/local.d/nvidia.start (with execute permission); this works > > for me on both OpenRC and systemd, I'd say it is easy to do. > > Perhaps it can even be made more easy by rewriting the Xorg > > configuration to be device aware and therefore not needing the > > steps shown in this script. > > > > [1]: https://gist.github.com/TomWij/a13abacfb74999c10957 > > Yeah, you'd really need to make it work with one unchanging xorg.conf. Haven't tried; but given it works, it's something that I delay doing. > And that first line of code - relying on "-nvidia" being in > /proc/cmdline - wtf is that? :-) Magic. :D > Such, um, butcher hacks work OK on your machine but sure ain't > > production ready Maybe you mean packaging ready; as for production on your own servers and desktops, I think it is ready enough. But YMMV. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:00:27 +0100 Tom Wijsman wrote: > > OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will be. > > Do you have a source that backs up this claim? http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1&chap=6 > It comes as part of > stage3, but a systemd stage3 is being worked on[1]; however, it has only > temporarily been in the @system set (due to functions.sh[2] which is now > split) and will soon be removed from it. > > [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482702 If these stage will be alternative, I'm OK with this. If it will be the only one available, many people will have to say Gentoo good bye. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko pgpTdDzBnqsa_.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 20/03/2014 20:57, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:46:42 +0200 > Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> eselect manages config options between different implementation of a >> thing. Usually by tweaking symlinks. Switching init OpenRC <-> SystemD >> involves resetting uSE flags and recompiling some fundamental stuff. >> That exercise is unlikely to ever go into eselect. > > Well, running systemd now I can reboot into OpenRC; it just works. How is this done? > >> The devs on gentoo-dev already nuked the idea of a gentoo profile as >> such, it's not worth the effort and causes an explosion of profiles. > > It's happening, `find /usr/portage/profiles/ -name '*systemd*'`; does > it have any consequences that are worth thinking through? As it stands now exactly, none. I only checked one profile: default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/kde/ and that consists of one file - parent. It lists .. and targets/systemd as parents. Which is easy enough as long as the idea of systemd with kde stays exactly like that - the strict union of kde and systemd profiles. Right now, a few line script can create those profiles, will it always be that way? What are the chances of LXDE and/or XFCE getting their own profiles like Gnome and KDE? If they do, and they warrant a systemd sub-profile, then the number of updates increases quite a lot. I've seen this kind of thing happen many times where the number opf combinations quickly gets out of control and becomes scary maintenance. It's a pity Gentoo doesn't support multiple profiles (just keep enabling extra till you get what you want or portage finds a conflict). That would make new profile settings much easier. It's probably not supported for the same reason most languages don;t go multiple inheritance. Oh well >> Conceptually, it is rather similar to switching between nouveau and >> nvidia. That doesn't have eselect support[1] or profiles. > > Well, running NVIDIA now I can reboot with a simple script[1] put > in /etc/local.d/nvidia.start (with execute permission); this works for > me on both OpenRC and systemd, I'd say it is easy to do. Perhaps it can > even be made more easy by rewriting the Xorg configuration to be device > aware and therefore not needing the steps shown in this script. > > [1]: https://gist.github.com/TomWij/a13abacfb74999c10957 Yeah, you'd really need to make it work with one unchanging xorg.conf. And that first line of code - relying on "-nvidia" being in /proc/cmdline - wtf is that? :-) Such, um, butcher hacks work OK on your machine but sure ain't production ready -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:50:24 -0500 Tanstaafl wrote: > All myself and others have been insisting on is that systemd > proponents be prevented from unilaterally creating some kind of > dependenc[y][ies] whereby, through that backdoor, they create a > situation where the *current* *default* init system must be switched. It are the consumers that do, sometimes even the packagers; because some neat future that fits them is provided by one implementation, they adopt that and given limited manpower they expect other implementations to follow. This is whilst stating "However, long term hopefully gnome-session can die and such code in systemd." in the following blog post by a GNOME foundation as well as GNOME release team member: https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/ On Gentoo, we indeed prevent such dependencies where manpower allows us; for example, to give an opposite example, we've even removed sys-apps/openrc from several package dependencies to allow for its removal. The same is actively guarded for sys-apps/systemd; but for both, you'll be able to find an exception to it here or there. The same is said by one of the Gentoo Council members in a comment on another blog post here, worth reading: https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/02/03/my-thoughts-on-the-default-init-system-for-debian-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-782 > And your preference for systemd doesn't obligate your distro of > choice to change to it as the *default* init system. What is a default in a distro with meta choices anyway? Yes, choice: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482702 > Again, we are just insisting that systemd proponents be prevented > from forcing gentoo into a situation where we are *forced* to switch > to systemd for the *default* init system. While it is something to worry about; however, it's only happened once and temporarily for GNOME (decided on by our maintainers), this has no implication that this will happen much more beyond that. There are people that are going to actively prevent that if it does happen. > > Hence the general case above. If you want to use foo without using > > bar, but the upstream and package maintainers of foo want to use > > bar, then it's _your_ responsibility to make foo work without bar. > > PERIOD. > > I agree... so, if *you* want to use systemd, it is *your* > reponsibility to make systemd work without impacting existing gentoo > users The impact, if any, is kept as minimal as possible; Gentoo, as stated by it philosophy, about page and documentation is a meta distribution which implies we attempt to support choices. Sometimes this means that minimal adjustments need to be made to support multiple choices. > *or* the fact that gentoo has selected OpenRC as it's default init > system. It's rather a consequence than a fact; for it to be a fact, there needs to be an accepted motion from an higher instance stating it to be so. > This isn't about individual packages. It is about one of the choices > that *Distro's* must make - in this case, regarding something very > significant (the choice of what to use as the default init system). Both (separate stage3's), or none at all (stage<3); are also options. :) > We, again, are simply insisting that it is the responsibility of the > developers of systemd to *not* create situations where they *force* > other distro's into *impossible* *situations* where they are *forced* > to switch their init systems or have basic system packages stop > working. It are the consumers, to some extent even the packagers, that do this. > The best way for gentoo, as a distro, to protect its users and it's > ecosystem, is to provide a sane, managed approach for systemd > proponents to get systemd added to gentoo as a formally supported > *optional* init system. +1 > Then, and only then, can it be judged on its *merits*, +1 > and then and *only* then should it (imnsho) ever be considered as a > potential candidate for being made a new *default*. -1; unless, well, it has lost its "controversial" status in the future. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:53:51 +0400 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > Gnome required systemd without alternative. Coincidence? I don't > believe in them. I trust probabilities and statistics. Gnome doesn't have such requirement; alternatives are possible, it's not coincidence. I trust actual words from those that were involved: https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts > OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will be. Do you have a source that backs up this claim? It comes as part of stage3, but a systemd stage3 is being worked on[1]; however, it has only temporarily been in the @system set (due to functions.sh[2] which is now split) and will soon be removed from it. [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482702 [2]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219 > Thus anyone willing to use something else should do an appropriate > job. It is actively being worked on from what can be seen. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:33:43 + thegeezer wrote: > Personally i'm most likely to stay with openRC, because the switch is > non-trivial and have no faith in the xinetd-style socket arbitrator. It should be trivial, it is here. > but would eselect be able to script the following: > .. new kernel coptions Most of which you have already; beyond that, it's some minor functionality that doesn't stop the switch itself from working afaik. Only needs to be done once, not every time. > .. new grub2 command line A new entry with init=/usr/lib/systemd/system suffices and doesn't need to be switchable; unless you want one entry and switch at runtime, alternatively it is possible to emerge sys-apps/systemd-sysv-utils, or simply change the symlink of /sbin/init and similar files yourself. > .. install dbus (use=-systemd) _then_ systemd Only needs to be done once, not every time. > .. would be nice to use an import for localed and hostnamed and > timedated .. importing openrc services and runlevels to targets Would be nice to have. Only needs to be done once, not every time. > .. pamd logind entires Only needs to be done once, not every time. > .. syslogd changes to accomodate systemd Is this necessary? I don't remember doing this. > .. setting systemd to log to syslog to make transitions smoother (as > logs are lost on reboot by default) If this were to be done, this could be done in the systemd package. Out of all what is mentioned; you either need two GRUB entries or a single symlink that eselect controls, other than that there's nothing here to be made as part of eselect. Some of these things already are made the way they are by default, other things can happen as part of emerging a package; the other first install things are documented. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:46:42 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: > eselect manages config options between different implementation of a > thing. Usually by tweaking symlinks. Switching init OpenRC <-> SystemD > involves resetting uSE flags and recompiling some fundamental stuff. > That exercise is unlikely to ever go into eselect. Well, running systemd now I can reboot into OpenRC; it just works. > The devs on gentoo-dev already nuked the idea of a gentoo profile as > such, it's not worth the effort and causes an explosion of profiles. It's happening, `find /usr/portage/profiles/ -name '*systemd*'`; does it have any consequences that are worth thinking through? > Conceptually, it is rather similar to switching between nouveau and > nvidia. That doesn't have eselect support[1] or profiles. Well, running NVIDIA now I can reboot with a simple script[1] put in /etc/local.d/nvidia.start (with execute permission); this works for me on both OpenRC and systemd, I'd say it is easy to do. Perhaps it can even be made more easy by rewriting the Xorg configuration to be device aware and therefore not needing the steps shown in this script. [1]: https://gist.github.com/TomWij/a13abacfb74999c10957 -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 + thegeezer wrote: > the difficulty is that without knowing It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly); that's really not too much asked for if you forked logind. It is even quite common practice and scriptable: git fetch ... ; git log ... ; git diff ... In a similar way, I know Portage will get highlighting and a ^ indicator; without that being announced until release, here's a copy paste (note that what is above ^ would be colored in red, unwrapped to unbreak it): dev-lang/perl:0 (dev-lang/perl-5.18.2:0/5.18::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by =dev-lang/perl-5.18* required by (virtual/perl-IO-1.280.0:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) ^ ^ (dev-lang/perl-5.16.3:0/5.16::gentoo, installed) pulled in by dev-lang/perl:0/5.16=[-build(-)] required by (dev-perl/IO-Socket-SSL-1.967.0:0/0::gentoo, installed) =dev-lang/perl-5.16* required by (virtual/perl-libnet-1.230.0:0/0::gentoo, installed) ^ ^ (and 19 more with the same problems) And of course, that's not the only change happening; dependency resolution will become faster, some slot operator bug fixes happened but caused regressions in released versions and thus more of such fixes will be done, some "no parents" messages during slot conflict output were nuked, ... If I can type that as part of this mail, people could follow logind. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:09:42 -0500 Tanstaafl wrote: > I totally get XFCE *supporting* the use of logind, but why should it > ever support *only* logind? That would seem insane to me. If it were a decision, and other decisions were possible without cost, yes; however, this often happens as the result of a lack of manpower to support multiple systems. Others aren't stopped from forking and/or wrapping XFCE to (also) support other login facilities than logind; well, under the assumption that they would limit their support... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:06:33 +0400 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > Real world code without mistakes and larger than "Hello, world!" > exercises is not possible. Large systems must have error suppression > and correction techniques, modular and replaceable design is one of > them, KISS is another one. Systemd has none known to me. systemd does have both, see myths #6 and #29 of the biggest myths. [1]: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html > This depends on what bug at what component occurred. Just imagine > pid 1 segfault on medical life support equipment. With systemd going > into embedded this is not just pure speculation, though, of course > medical stuff should have extra safeguards. But any FT or at > least HA setup is a combination of multiple layers. I do not want to > allow badly broken core component on mine setups even if its faults > may be compensated by other means. That's assuming the target public of systemd is medical life support equipment; however, that is certainly not the case which makes that an irrelevant example in this context. When talking about life critical support, you'll need to have proper specification and checks to have a guarantee; we've seen the APL language and Z notation early on in this field, as well as evolutions from and beside that. Most life critical systems are based on such things; throwing whatever thing on such a system, like the first open-source project you can find, is is not how such systems are made. Faults, if they happen at all, being compensated imo suffices for non life critical systems; if you want more, you know the languages, notations, checking tools and other practices are out there to benefit from. An init system and/or service manager based on life critical support standards would definitely have my interest; however, I am wondering if there's anyone that wants to spend his free time on that. > Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I ask > to respect mine as well. That's why I propose a separate systemd > profile for those willing to use it. They are there, `find /usr/portage/profiles/ -name '*systemd*'`. > > >> Sorry, but it's you who doesn't know the matter at hand: kdbus > > >> was (and is) written by Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus' right hand, > > >> and who works for the Linux Foundation. > > > > > > Lol, he seems to start to use the arguments like "You even do not > > > know my elder brother/acquaintance from the street nearby who can > > > easily hit you down!" > > > > If you don't think Greg's words have any weight in a Linux-related > > technical discussion, then I'm afraid we will need to agree to > > disagree on any technical subject. > > You know, common sense should always override person's prestige. > History knows many examples. Sir Isaac Newton enforced corpuscular > point of view on the light's nature. And while he was genius in other > physical aspects, he was mistaken here. Albert Einstein was rejective > to probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and even proposed an > entangled particles paradox as an example of its "flawed" nature. > Though as we know these days such systems exist and are quite well > used in numerous experiments. My point is simple: do not blindly > adhere to someone's words, even if this person has high authority. > Common sense must prevail. Period. +1 -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:56:53 +0200 Gevisz wrote: > No, by arguing that fixing bugs in a 200K line program is as easy as > fixing a bug in 20 10K line programs. It is just not true, just the > opposite. So, as systemd is modular per the biggest myth #6[1]; that means that, PID 1 being something like a 10K line program, is easy to fix. [1] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:05:03 +0200 Gevisz wrote: > How can you be sure if something is "large enough" if, as you say > below, you do not care about probabilities? Statistics. > If you do not care (= do not now anything) about probabilities > (and mathematics, in general), you just unable to understand > that debugging a program with 200K lines of code take > > 20!/(1!)^20 > > more time than debugging of 20 different programs with 10K lines of > code. You can try to calculate that number yourself but I quite sure > that if the latter can take, say, 20 days, the former can take > millions of years. Assuming PID 1 is 200K lines; however, it's a lot smaller than that. > It is all the probability! Or, to be more precise, combinatorics. That's too precise; both of these are just a part of something bigger, that big thing is called statistics, in theory you can hold yourself on to probabilities, but in practice statistics will give you guarantees. > Have you ever tried forex? If yes, you should have been warned > that "no past performance guarantee the future one." > > And if you do not believe that (and do not care about probability > and all the stuff like that), you should visit any of the forex forums > where you will be suggested a magical money winning strategy that, in > the past, behaved very well and earned 200 or even 500% a month. Same could be said about the opposite; seeing it in one way you would want to ditch statistics with this statement, seeing it the other way you would want to accept statistics with the opposite statement. It effectively makes the statement lose its meaning in this context; as said, statistics and the acceptance thereof is far more practical. If you consider a segfault in PID1 or the kernel to be the end of the world like losing tons of money, unless you run a critical appliance, then you could reconsider the stability of the rest of your system. Because in the end, you've put all your money in PID1 / kernel; whereas the full picture includes a lot more than that (eg. core libraries), so, a good winning strategy is to spare money for the rest out there. (Where "winning" means preventing your world from falling apart) -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:52:55 +0400 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 15:16:36 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann > > wrote: > > > Am 16.02.2014 21:08, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: > > >> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann > > >> wrote: > > >> [ snip ] > > >>> or it is an idiotic decision. Because features means complexity. > > >> Yeah, like the kernel. > > >> > > >>> Complexity means bugs. > > >> Bugs get reported, bugs get fixes. Life goes on. > > > > You didn't answered this, did you? > > Bugs are different. Bugs in the critical system components are > critical to the whole system. If Libreoffice or browser > segfaults, some data may be lost and inconvenience created, but the > system will continue to run. If PID 1 segfaults — everything is > lost, you have a kernel panic. That's why critical components should > be as simple and clean as possible. If it does, but does it? We have run it for ages without a segfault. > SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains > about 13 000 lines, systemd — about 200 000 lines. That is an unfair comparison, be fair and consider PID 1's code size. > Even assuming systemd code is as mature as sysvinit or openrc (though > I doubt this) you can calculate probabilities of segfaults yourself > easily. Practical statistics are more reliable than theoretical probabilities. > > >> All of them are different tools providing one capability to > > >> systemd as a whole. So systemd is a collection of tools, where > > >> each one does one thing, and it does it well. > > >> > > >> By your definition, systemd perfectly follows "the unix way". > > >> > > > > > > no, it isn't. > > > > > > How are those binaries talk to each other? > > > > dbus, which is about to be integrated into the kernel with kdbus. > > And this is a very, very bad idea. Looks like you don't know matter at > all: to begin with kdbus protocol is NOT compatible dbus and special > converter daemon will be needed to enable dbus to talk to kdbus. That claims it to be a bad idea, but doesn't tell why; furthermore, no technical reasoning as to why it is incompatible is given. Do you know? > The whole kdbus technology is very questionable itself (and was > forcefully pushed by RH devs), anyway it is possible to disable this > stuff in kernel and guess what will be done on my systems. Similar claims again, without any weight; that is subjective opinion. > > > Looks broken. Broken by design. The worst form of broken. > > > > By your opinion, not others. > > That is not just an opinion. It is due to the lack of science and experience in your response. > And all that science was ignored during systemd architecture process > if there was any at all. For it to be claimed as "ignored", you need to know about the process; given that you don't even know its presence, such claim can't be made. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Friday 28 Feb 2014 13:45:12 Stroller wrote: > On Fri, 28 February 2014, at 8:05 am, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > This must be a US -only thing since I've never even heard of AOL > > desktop/suite before, even while lived through the 90's and the bulletin > > board times (as being a SysOp myself ;-) > > I'm in the UK, myself. > > The AOL software is browser, email, IM and ads, all wrapped up in a single > Windows application. > > http://i.imgur.com/bUin2ki.png > > I doubt there's anyone on this list who wouldn't find it obnoxious, but > there are people who are really happy with it. I think it also comes with its own (branded) antivirus, since most of its users couldn't be trusted to set up or keep up with updates on their PC. I can't recall if it also turns on and runs MSWindows Updates too. :-p -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 28 February 2014, at 8:05 am, Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> … >>> * Netscape (under AOL) aimed at becoming a pseudo-OS on top of Windows. >>> We know how that turned out. >> You appear to be underestimating it - whilst the AOL suite was hated by many >> of those "forced to use it" (I guess in the late 90's or early 00's), it is >> / was so massively popular with grannies that it is still available today. >> >> ... >> AOL's desktop suite has certainly not been a failure for the company. > > This must be a US -only thing since I've never even heard of AOL > desktop/suite before, even while lived through the 90's and the bulletin > board times (as being a SysOp myself ;-) I'm in the UK, myself. The AOL software is browser, email, IM and ads, all wrapped up in a single Windows application. http://i.imgur.com/bUin2ki.png I doubt there's anyone on this list who wouldn't find it obnoxious, but there are people who are really happy with it. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 28/02/14 08:47, Stroller wrote: > On Wed, 26 February 2014, at 8:29 pm, Walter Dnes > wrote: >> … >> * Netscape (under AOL) aimed at becoming a pseudo-OS on top of Windows. >> We know how that turned out. > You appear to be underestimating it - whilst the AOL suite was hated by many > of those "forced to use it" (I guess in the late 90's or early 00's), it is / > was so massively popular with grannies that it is still available today. > > Dial-up division is still AOL's most profitable division, earning them $500m > per year,[1] and I would attribute the popularity of the AOL desktop suite to > this. > > I've seen this profitability attributed to "misinformed customers" who "don't > know they no-longer need AOL now they have DSL", but having been told by a > number of people that all they want out of their computer is their AOL, I > find it had to agree with that characterisation. > > AOL's desktop suite has certainly not been a failure for the company. > > Stroller. > > > > > [1] http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/02/18/aol-dial-up-profits/ > > This must be a US -only thing since I've never even heard of AOL desktop/suite before, even while lived through the 90's and the bulletin board times (as being a SysOp myself ;-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Wed, 26 February 2014, at 8:29 pm, Walter Dnes wrote: > … > * Netscape (under AOL) aimed at becoming a pseudo-OS on top of Windows. > We know how that turned out. You appear to be underestimating it - whilst the AOL suite was hated by many of those "forced to use it" (I guess in the late 90's or early 00's), it is / was so massively popular with grannies that it is still available today. Dial-up division is still AOL's most profitable division, earning them $500m per year,[1] and I would attribute the popularity of the AOL desktop suite to this. I've seen this profitability attributed to "misinformed customers" who "don't know they no-longer need AOL now they have DSL", but having been told by a number of people that all they want out of their computer is their AOL, I find it had to agree with that characterisation. AOL's desktop suite has certainly not been a failure for the company. Stroller. [1] http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/02/18/aol-dial-up-profits/
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:32:32AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote > Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it > remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax? The (d)evolution of perl reminds me of what's happened to Firefox, GNOME, and KDE. To paraphrase the emacs joke, perl is a mediocre operating system that lacks a lightweight text-manipulation utility. WTF does every simple program try to become an OS? * The original "Practical Extraction and Reporting Language" PERL has become a pseudo-OS. Believe it or not, it was a lightweight practical text-parsing and report-generating utility back in the day. * Netscape (under AOL) aimed at becoming a pseudo-OS on top of Windows. We know how that turned out. * I'm old enough to remember the days of the "Phoenix" betas (later Firebird then Firefox). A lean/mean fast web-browser. Now it's turned into a bloated monstrosity, complete with relational database, that's being used as the basis for Firefox-OS phones. * Google's Chrome/Chromium came from Chrome-OS, so it's not too surprising that it demands dbus and udev to build. * I remember when KDE and GNOME were zippy on machines with 64 megs of RAM. The sad part is that the GNOME desktop had more features then than it has now as it moves towards becoming GNOME-OS. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: Gentoo+Gnome requires systemd, but Gnome itself does not? Why? - WAS: Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 25/02/2014 14:40, Tanstaafl wrote: >> On 2014-02-24 4:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >>> In Gentoo you need systemd, but that's a decision from the Gentoo >>> maintainers. They do the job, they make the choices. >> >> Interesting. Now I have to spin off a new thread as to why this decision >> was made if it isn't forced by GNOME itself... > > Gnome uses logind, Canek has consistently stated that for months now. That is true; but no one have to trust me on anything. The code is out there ([1], [2]); anyone can go and check what dependencies GNOME exactly require. > logind is part of systemd (AIUI it's more "bundled" than "a chunk of a > monolothic lump") and replaces consolekit. I'm not so sure about this anymore. It seems that logind actually uses many of systemd features, and therefore is really difficult to implement independently of it. For a high overview discussion of this, you can check [3], where Ryan Lortie says: """ Some interfaces provided by systemd are less awesome. Even at the D-Bus level, the interface for PID 1 or logind are so complicated and implementation-specific that they could never be reasonably independently implemented. These interfaces often mix multiple functionality sets into one: for the logind case, for example, only a small subset of this is ever required by a desktop environment running as a normal user. Many other calls on the same interface are only called by other operating system components. """ Ubuntu has been (and supposedly, still is) interested in having a non-systemd replacement; but AFAIK, they don't have it yet. For systemd <= 204 the code of logind was more independent of systemd features, so they just cut it from there; after 205 (when the new slices thingies were added to deal with the future cgroups API from the kernel), this is no longer possible, so they need to actually write an API compatible replacement. This hasn't come to fruition (and because of the above quote, this doesn't look easy). Perhaps a compromise could be reached where the desktop-necessary parts of logind are isolated in their own dbus API. As with everything, however, somebody should do that job. > The feature set of logind can be implemented in something else. Or, that > functionality in previous Gnome versions forward-ported to 3.10 to be > able to drop logind as a dep. In this case, the "something else" is ConsoleKit, which (AFAIK) works in the *BSD. > OpenBSD would have had little choice in this as systemd doesn't run on > OpenBSD - systemd uses many features unique to the Linux kernel. So they > would have had to do *something* about logind. Whatever they did, it > would have been a non-trivial amount of work. I don't think so; the source code I linked says (literally): if test x$enable_systemd = xyes; then [ snip ] session_tracking="systemd (with fallback to ConsoleKit)" else session_tracking=ConsoleKit fi So, it could be that is actually "trivial". The real problem is that most GNOME developers don't use the ConsoleKit code paths anymore, so the burden of works goes to the people that don't have systemd (*BSD). > I suspect the Gentoo Gnome maintainers were not prepared to, or don't > have the manpower, to do the same on Gentoo so took the easier route of > depending on systemd. Most of them don't use OpenRC anymore, so they could perhaps see that the code emerges without errors, but they would not be able to actually test it. They rather decided to support what they could test, than to give the appearance of "choice" when no one is really supporting the CK code paths. (Also, it seems undeniable that logind works so much better than CK ever did). Regards. [1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdm/tree/configure.ac#n882 [2] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-session/tree/configure.ac#n123 [3] http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2014/02/19/on-portability/ -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: Gentoo+Gnome requires systemd, but Gnome itself does not? Why? - WAS: Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 25/02/2014 14:40, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2014-02-24 4:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> In Gentoo you need systemd, but that's a decision from the Gentoo >> maintainers. They do the job, they make the choices. > > Interesting. Now I have to spin off a new thread as to why this decision > was made if it isn't forced by GNOME itself... > > > Gnome uses logind, Canek has consistently stated that for months now. logind is part of systemd (AIUI it's more "bundled" than "a chunk of a monolothic lump") and replaces consolekit. The feature set of logind can be implemented in something else. Or, that functionality in previous Gnome versions forward-ported to 3.10 to be able to drop logind as a dep. OpenBSD would have had little choice in this as systemd doesn't run on OpenBSD - systemd uses many features unique to the Linux kernel. So they would have had to do *something* about logind. Whatever they did, it would have been a non-trivial amount of work. I suspect the Gentoo Gnome maintainers were not prepared to, or don't have the manpower, to do the same on Gentoo so took the easier route of depending on systemd. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Gentoo+Gnome requires systemd, but Gnome itself does not? Why? - WAS: Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-24 4:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: In Gentoo you need systemd, but that's a decision from the Gentoo maintainers. They do the job, they make the choices. Interesting. Now I have to spin off a new thread as to why this decision was made if it isn't forced by GNOME itself...
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Monday 24 Feb 2014 21:48:39 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > At least KDE has not hardcoded a requirement for systemd as Gnome now > > has. > > GNOME has no hardcoded requirement for systemd; do your homework. I beg your pardon, I got this wrong - I extrapolated from the Gentoo state of affairs (I don't use or follow the Gnome project). -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Mick wrote: > On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 23:54:32 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mick wrote: >> >> [ snip ] >> >> > Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code, >> >> My point exactly. > > I think your point is not valid, unless you view Linux as an operating system > intended for and inviting comments only from an inspired l33t who can code and > it is *only* their user requirements that count. Of course comments can come from anyone. But it stands to reason that, in the first place, the people *writing* the code would primarily listen to people that actually know what they are talking about. In the second place, even if they *listen*, that doesn't mean they will *implement* whatever a random set of users ask for. > I understand though that it is their/their employer's choice as to how they > spend their coding time and what they spend it on. I am not ungrateful for > their generosity whether I agree with their approach or not. Glad to hear that. >> And that's the point; the people doing this changes *obviously >> understand Unix*. They understand it so well that they are able to >> look at it honestly, beyond dogma or articles of faith, and see its >> downsides, so they can try to fix them. > > You seem to have a lot of faith in their approach and choice-limiting > decisions. I have nothing even remotely close to "faith". I can read code, I can read design documents, and I follow the discussions in the different forums where systemd is the topic. It's my educated and reasonable conclusion that their approach is correct (in general terms; of course I don't agree with everything). > They have made arbitrary decisions in developing their software in > ways contrary to their predecessors. Excuse me, but where do you get the idea to call their decisions "arbitrary". Again, read the code (if you are able to), read the design documents, read the discussions. You can disagree with their decisions (I do with some of them); but I don't think there is a single one that can be called "arbitrary". > I don't know if this is because they are > cleverer than their predecessors, or more ignorant/arrogant/wrong. Not necessarily "cleverer"; they just have more software history available to determine what it works and what it doesn't. >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy >> >> This reminds me of the people that quote from religious books to argue >> about anything non theological. The "rules" and "sound bites" in the >> links you provide are there to summarize rules of thumb; they are NOT >> scripture, and they are certainly NOT the only way to get a >> technically good program that is easily maintainable. In other words, >> you can ignore most of them, or just following them to a point, and >> anyway end up with a sound design and a technically great program that >> is easy to maintain and extend. > > I agree. Glad to hear that. > This is not a religion, but a statement of design principles based > on some observations of what seemed to work (at the time) that were made after > the event. You said it: "at the time". Hardware is highly dynamic now; hard drives, sound cards, network cards, memory and even CPUs can come and go while the systems is running. SysV (and therefore, OpenRC) was *never* intended to work like that, so what it does it does badly, if at all. >> The people with coding experience (or most of them anyway) understand >> this; we are not a religion, we don't have prophets that speak the >> undeniably truth. We have highly skilled developers who can have >> opposing views on how to design and implement many different ideas, >> and that doesn't (necessarily) means that any of them are wrong. > > We agree again, except that some of these opposing ideas are limiting future > development choices and current user options. No they are not; THE CODE IS OUT THERE. Anyone can take the code at any point in time before systemd, and start a new path if this one turns out to be failing. There is no "limiting" no one and nothing; while there are people willing and able to, any design path can be explored. >> There are many ways to solve a problem of sets of problems. Having >> Emacs doesn't mean vi is "wrong", nor having GNOME means KDE is >> "wrong", nor the other way around. > > KDE took a wrong turn the moment it started emulating Gnome by hardcoding > redland a whole host of components in its pursuit of a semantic desktop, > removing choice from users who would be otherwise very happy with the KDE3 > functionality. Many users have voted with their feet - not because they can > code better or code at all, but because they still have a choice as plain > users. That's your analysis; I really don't like KDE, but I love my GNOME 3 desktop. That's subjective and has nothing to do with the topic at hand; I was talking about how different (and sometimes opposite) ways to solve a problem doesn't mean (necessarily) that one of
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 23:54:32 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mick wrote: > > [ snip ] > > > Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code, > > My point exactly. I think your point is not valid, unless you view Linux as an operating system intended for and inviting comments only from an inspired l33t who can code and it is *only* their user requirements that count. I understand though that it is their/their employer's choice as to how they spend their coding time and what they spend it on. I am not ungrateful for their generosity whether I agree with their approach or not. > And that's the point; the people doing this changes *obviously > understand Unix*. They understand it so well that they are able to > look at it honestly, beyond dogma or articles of faith, and see its > downsides, so they can try to fix them. You seem to have a lot of faith in their approach and choice-limiting decisions. They have made arbitrary decisions in developing their software in ways contrary to their predecessors. I don't know if this is because they are cleverer than their predecessors, or more ignorant/arrogant/wrong. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy > > This reminds me of the people that quote from religious books to argue > about anything non theological. The "rules" and "sound bites" in the > links you provide are there to summarize rules of thumb; they are NOT > scripture, and they are certainly NOT the only way to get a > technically good program that is easily maintainable. In other words, > you can ignore most of them, or just following them to a point, and > anyway end up with a sound design and a technically great program that > is easy to maintain and extend. I agree. This is not a religion, but a statement of design principles based on some observations of what seemed to work (at the time) that were made after the event. > The people with coding experience (or most of them anyway) understand > this; we are not a religion, we don't have prophets that speak the > undeniably truth. We have highly skilled developers who can have > opposing views on how to design and implement many different ideas, > and that doesn't (necessarily) means that any of them are wrong. We agree again, except that some of these opposing ideas are limiting future development choices and current user options. > There are many ways to solve a problem of sets of problems. Having > Emacs doesn't mean vi is "wrong", nor having GNOME means KDE is > "wrong", nor the other way around. KDE took a wrong turn the moment it started emulating Gnome by hardcoding redland a whole host of components in its pursuit of a semantic desktop, removing choice from users who would be otherwise very happy with the KDE3 functionality. Many users have voted with their feet - not because they can code better or code at all, but because they still have a choice as plain users. At least KDE has not hardcoded a requirement for systemd as Gnome now has. > >> I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns. > >> > >> Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for > >> modules? > > > > I would think that although the kernel has grown over the years, it has > > not done so like systemd. You can still *not* build modules you don't > > need in your kernel. > > This has nothing to do with "Unix principles"; it's just that someone > willing and able implemented the different options. Well, "someone willing and able implemented the different options", but did so by following the paradigm of modular development. > > The Unix design philosophy may not be globally applicable, but has served > > Linux well over the years. > > No; what has served Linux is to have developers willing and able to > write the necessary code, following whatever design they decide is the > correct one. I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. The Unix design principles inc. modularisation and extensibility make good sense when seen from the perspective of many contributors adding to and improving code in a piece meal fashion. X11 did not follow this approach and ended up with convoluted unmaintainable code that had to be broken up. Having developers able and willing to write code is of course a precondition, but not just any code. It has to be code which others can pick up, improve and extend. In other words, they have to write code which is versatile, being respectful of and keeping in mind future development effort. > > Lennart has de facto introduced a different way of > > developing his Linux code, which to others and me seems more restrictive. > > First of all, it's not only Lennart; the systemd repo has (literally) > dozens of contributors with write access. > > Second of all, calling "restrictive" the tightly integrated approach, > is exactly as constructive as calling "anarchic" the loosely > integrated one. Like "Unix principles"
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 24.02.2014 22:55, Mark David Dumlao wrote: [...] I didn't attribute anything to you you didn't say. It just so happens, though that there is a context to this conversation, which, if you ignore, just tends to perpetuate a lot of confusion. I am responding to questions and points in that context for the benefit of the larger conversation, not just for you. I'll be short. You also ignored much of what I asked, and tend to answer "that's besides the point" to things which IMO matter. If you are responding to my post, then I'm expecting you to be replying to me, rather than to the benefit of the larger conversation, if you didn't say otherwise. ;-) As for the context, I was answering to Alan's ``I've been wondering about this concept of "the*nix design principles"... `` which (as well as my answer) didn't mention systemd and openrc at all. In this thread, there's already a rattling mixture of contexts. I'm opting out of it, because I no longer see the benefit of the larger conversation here. Nevertheless, thank you for your time and answers. -- Best wishes, Yuri K. Shatroff
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: > On 24.02.2014 18:33, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > Sorry but I think I was quite clear: > > An init daemon generally does one thing well. > Following a "Unix way" design, Everything else should be done by something > else. ... >> At least with systemd the parts are cleanly split off into separate >> executables. >> Yes, it's technically not needed for pid 1 to create tempfiles for >> other programs. >> That's why systemd-tmpfiles is its own tiny program, that does one "one >> thing" >> (create tempfiles for other programs) and nothing else. Yes, it's >> technically >> not needed for pid 1 to check your filesystems. That's why systemd-fsck is >> once again, a separate utility, that does "one thing" (run fsck) well. >> Yes, >> it's technically not needed for pid 1 to remount your filesystems >> readwrite. >> Again there's a separate utilty for that, that does nothing but just that. > > > Okay, but can I take them out and substitute mine own easily? How? Is there > a well-defined standard? Is there a well-defined objective, a target at > which the systemd software set will be considered stable 'version 1.0'? I am > asking again, if a bug is found in the systemd infrastructure, is it > possible (i.e. how much effort it would take) to fix it temporarily on a > running system? > It's almost as if you don't bother reading the docs on something, then comment that they're impossible. Yes you can take them out and substitute yours, in fact I just mentioned that I could replace them with plain old init scripts. systemd services are controlled by the same unit files that control other services. >> OpenRC is often spoken of in the same breath as systemd, as if they were >> the same kind of thing. That sounds fair but think about it for a second: > > > Sorry but did I mention OpenRC? > There is a context to this conversation that you appear to be selectively ignoring, wherein openrc, sysvinit, and systemd are being compared, and only one of them is being demonized as anti-Unix. I compared systemd above _both_ to openrc and to sysvinit. The point being ethat systemd is not comparable to _just_ init, but to the whole init ball of wax. > >> openrc - as most people talk about it - isn't even pid 1. as most people >> talk about it, openrc includes the functions.sh, the net.eth0 scripts, >> the script >> for starting your /sys, /proc, mounting local and network filesystems, >> setting >> the hostname and so on. > > > Obviously. That is why OpenRC *can* be treated as a "Unix way" thing, > because the whole bunch are pretty interchangeable, independent and do their > own things well, don't they? > interchangeable: I also pointed out that the systemd parts, like openrc parts, are interchangeable, and do their own things well. I did mention, for example, that I could replace systemd-fsck with an init script. Heck I could disable it entirely if I didn't care about fsck (for instance, in a container). Likewise the mount unit the network units, etc etc can be disabled or replaced if wanted. independent: I do not think independent is an important concept for Unixness, as most of the parts of postfix, dovecot, xorg, qmail, squid, etc are not independent. What you DIDN'T and have not been able to point out is what this one thing that pid 1 is supposed to do. What you also have not been able to demonstrate is that openrc or other init systems' parts follow the same criteria. There's was a long-standing bug, for instance, in that functions.sh has not been separated from openrc. I believe Canek was one of the people pushing to have it done so - to better support systemd - something that violates "independence" and "interchangeability". > Sorry, do you mean *everything* in /etc/ is to be configured? That's a > convention to put the init stuff in /etc/. You could as well put it in /usr, > /boot, wherever. In FreeBSD, the local init stuff resides in /usr/local/etc. > In Solaris, elsewhere. In AIX, elsewhere. Why do you look at everything from > a single linux's angle? Please note, I never say the 'linux way' but the > "Unix way". /etc scripts ARE meant to be configured. At the very minimum, from the perspective of gentoo, they are treated by the conf-update tool as config files. You are expected to copy and customize init scripts for custom or local daemons. > And you might also notice, an init system does not really much depend on the > init daemon. It's pretty possible to run a SysV init daemon on a BSD system, > or the opposite, because all the init daemon does is start some init > scripts. Maybe /etc/rc, maybe /etc/init.d/* ... This is besides the point. Different programs are free to rely on different standards and different features. That openrc can't work or depend on systemd is not systemd's fault, in the same way that not all parts of postfix can work or depend on all parts of qmail. None of this says anything about the unixiness of postfix or qmail, none
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 24.02.2014 18:33, Mark David Dumlao wrote: On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: 24.02.2014 16:39, Mark David Dumlao пишет: On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: 24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote: [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a "system controller". What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do it well? An init daemon generally does one thing well. it's obvious you haven't thought this through. consider, for a moment, that the "one thing well" that an init daemon is supposed to do is "run programs that do arbitrary things to get the system to an arbitrary state". do you not see a problem? No. As you say, ``an init daemon is supposed to do is "run programs``, until here you're right, but then you start talking about things the init doesn't do but the programs do. In your wording, an init daemon is also a DBMS, an MTA, a network startup daemon, a firewall, a getty and whatever program runs on the system. Let's try to talk you through to a soft landing here. When we say init, are we just referring to pid 1, or are we referring to something else entirely? Sorry but I think I was quite clear: An init daemon generally does one thing well. Following a "Unix way" design, Everything else should be done by something else. OpenRC is often spoken of in the same breath as systemd, as if they were the same kind of thing. That sounds fair but think about it for a second: Sorry but did I mention OpenRC? openrc - as most people talk about it - isn't even pid 1. as most people talk about it, openrc includes the functions.sh, the net.eth0 scripts, the script for starting your /sys, /proc, mounting local and network filesystems, setting the hostname and so on. Obviously. That is why OpenRC *can* be treated as a "Unix way" thing, because the whole bunch are pretty interchangeable, independent and do their own things well, don't they? They may be written in a different language from pid1, but when people talk about openrc, they are talking about that whole ball of wax. From a systems perspective - they're parts of the same thing. Even discounting the parts that you think are ridiculous, like databases and loggers, there are clearly more parts in there above than can be cleanly defined as "one thing". Who gets to decide which is the "one thing" or not? You? Don't you rely on openrc to set your hostname? Load your kernel modules? Run your sysctl? Set any miscellaneous options in /sys? Mount your filesystems? Go ahead, define for everyone, once and for all, what this "one thing" is. > Does this one thing init include a subsystem for reading separate environment files per-service? Isn't this just feature creep? Can't you just edit the init scripts to add those in? I mean, they are already scripts after all. And they're in /etc, they're meant to be configured. Sorry, do you mean *everything* in /etc/ is to be configured? That's a convention to put the init stuff in /etc/. You could as well put it in /usr, /boot, wherever. In FreeBSD, the local init stuff resides in /usr/local/etc. In Solaris, elsewhere. In AIX, elsewhere. Why do you look at everything from a single linux's angle? Please note, I never say the 'linux way' but the "Unix way". And you might also notice, an init system does not really much depend on the init daemon. It's pretty possible to run a SysV init daemon on a BSD system, or the opposite, because all the init daemon does is start some init scripts. Maybe /etc/rc, maybe /etc/init.d/* ... Does this one thing include service dependencies? This depends on what one thing you want the init daemon to do. In e.g. FreeBSD, the dependencies are handled by /etc/rc. > Why sysv has gone for a LONG time without them, just a sequencing, and that works fine for almost all cases anyways. Isn't this just feature creep? Can't you just edit the init scripts to start any dependent services? > Point is - go look at any arbitrary feature that's part of your "init system" and you could cry to hell and high water that it's violating the "one thing", whatever that "one thing" is that doesn't seem to be defined. At least with systemd the parts are cleanly split off into separate executables. Yes, it's technically not needed for pid 1 to create tempfiles for other programs. That's why systemd-tmpfiles is its own tiny program, that does one "one thing" (create tempfiles for other programs) and nothing else. Yes, it's technically not needed for pid 1 to check your filesystems. That's why systemd-fsck is once again, a separate utility, that does "one thing" (run fsck) well. Yes, it's technically not needed for pid 1 to remount your filesystems readwrite. Again there's a separate utilty for that, that does nothing but just that. Okay, but can I take them out and substitute mine own easily? How? Is there a well-defined standard? Is there a well-defined objective, a target at whi
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: > > > 24.02.2014 16:39, Mark David Dumlao пишет: > >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff >> wrote: >>> >>> 24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote: [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a "system controller". What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do it well? >>> >>> >>> >>> An init daemon generally does one thing well. >> >> >> it's obvious you haven't thought this through. >> >> consider, for a moment, that the "one thing well" that an init daemon >> is supposed to do is >> "run programs that do arbitrary things to get the system to an arbitrary >> state". >> >> do you not see a problem? > > > No. As you say, ``an init daemon is supposed to do is "run programs``, until > here you're right, but then you start talking about things the init doesn't > do but the programs do. In your wording, an init daemon is also a DBMS, an > MTA, a network startup daemon, a firewall, a getty and whatever program runs > on the system. Let's try to talk you through to a soft landing here. When we say init, are we just referring to pid 1, or are we referring to something else entirely? OpenRC is often spoken of in the same breath as systemd, as if they were the same kind of thing. That sounds fair but think about it for a second: openrc - as most people talk about it - isn't even pid 1. as most people talk about it, openrc includes the functions.sh, the net.eth0 scripts, the script for starting your /sys, /proc, mounting local and network filesystems, setting the hostname and so on. They may be written in a different language from pid1, but when people talk about openrc, they are talking about that whole ball of wax. From a systems perspective - they're parts of the same thing. Even discounting the parts that you think are ridiculous, like databases and loggers, there are clearly more parts in there above than can be cleanly defined as "one thing". Who gets to decide which is the "one thing" or not? You? Don't you rely on openrc to set your hostname? Load your kernel modules? Run your sysctl? Set any miscellaneous options in /sys? Mount your filesystems? Go ahead, define for everyone, once and for all, what this "one thing" is. Does this one thing init include a subsystem for reading separate environment files per-service? Isn't this just feature creep? Can't you just edit the init scripts to add those in? I mean, they are already scripts after all. And they're in /etc, they're meant to be configured. Does this one thing include service dependencies? Why sysv has gone for a LONG time without them, just a sequencing, and that works fine for almost all cases anyways. Isn't this just feature creep? Can't you just edit the init scripts to start any dependent services? Point is - go look at any arbitrary feature that's part of your "init system" and you could cry to hell and high water that it's violating the "one thing", whatever that "one thing" is that doesn't seem to be defined. At least with systemd the parts are cleanly split off into separate executables. Yes, it's technically not needed for pid 1 to create tempfiles for other programs. That's why systemd-tmpfiles is its own tiny program, that does one "one thing" (create tempfiles for other programs) and nothing else. Yes, it's technically not needed for pid 1 to check your filesystems. That's why systemd-fsck is once again, a separate utility, that does "one thing" (run fsck) well. Yes, it's technically not needed for pid 1 to remount your filesystems readwrite. Again there's a separate utilty for that, that does nothing but just that. It's clear to me that there's an analogue between the different parts of a full openrc system - that just happen to be implemented in scripts - and the different parts of a systemd system - that just happen to be implemented in small binaries. Every time people complain about systemd having too many features, they just _casually_ forget to mention that, for instance, their init actually asks them if they want to run interactive (why do that when you can specify from the boot loader?) or checks the configuration files of their daemons to see if they're valid and prompts the user to config if not. They just _casually_ fail to mention that their init has plugins for NetworkManager and ifplugd, that it comes with scripts for setting the consolefont. Meanwhile systemd does those same things, and it's bloated, theirs isn't. Oh you're going to say that that's not fair, it's external optional stuff, it's not _really_ part of openrc, but that's not intellectually honest is it? Heck, I could do that same. I could control my bootup process so that I run my own stuff instead of systemd-fsck, systemd-tmpfiles, systemd-mount and all that jazz and run plain old init scripts in their place. Why bother? The reality is that - init scripts don't do just one thing, and don't even do it well. -- This email is:
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
24.02.2014 16:39, Mark David Dumlao пишет: On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: 24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote: [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a "system controller". What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do it well? An init daemon generally does one thing well. it's obvious you haven't thought this through. consider, for a moment, that the "one thing well" that an init daemon is supposed to do is "run programs that do arbitrary things to get the system to an arbitrary state". do you not see a problem? No. As you say, ``an init daemon is supposed to do is "run programs``, until here you're right, but then you start talking about things the init doesn't do but the programs do. In your wording, an init daemon is also a DBMS, an MTA, a network startup daemon, a firewall, a getty and whatever program runs on the system. There was a post in this thread with a link to an opinion what an `ideal init` would do: just fork and exec anything in /etc/init.d or somewhere else. In the real world, it's of course not so simple. But it doesn't mean you may imply init's responsibility for `arbitrary` tasks. If I write an ASM program with an illegal instruction, is it the init's problem? If my mail/web server is DDOSed, is it the init's problem? If my HDD dies, also the init's problem? -- Regards, Yuri K. Shatroff
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: > 24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a "system >> controller". What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do >> it well? > > > An init daemon generally does one thing well. it's obvious you haven't thought this through. consider, for a moment, that the "one thing well" that an init daemon is supposed to do is "run programs that do arbitrary things to get the system to an arbitrary state". do you not see a problem? -- This email is:[ ] actionable [ ] fyi[x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [x] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of the people that can code "better" actually like the systemd design, and would prefer to contribute to it. And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck defining what it means "the*nix design principles". I've been wondering about this concept of "the*nix design principles"... I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns. I may not be an authority, too. But please allow me to refute your arguments. Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for modules? It ain't. No monolithic chunk of code, it's configurable. Is it like X11? A huge monolithic chunk of code that has a bizarre build system for years, and took something like 5 years of hard work to get it modular? And is 20 years behind the times? And *still* requires devs to jump through hoops to get a rendered image through a compositor and back up the the GPU? It's grown to that, but in the beginning it was (striving to be) a clean system doing generally one thing (graphical client/server) and doing it well. [1] It's not X11 devs' fault that GPUs and all that multidisplay/ multimedia stuff don't work well with client/server arch because they were designed for some other, you know which, OS. I assume if the GPU vendors had their specs opened "20 years" ago, some wayland-like stuff would have been ready near that time. Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax? Perl (I suppose you know what it stands for) is great (probably the greatest) for what it was invented for: text manipulation/analysis. It could have been a good replacement for many things like awk, sed, tr etc. if the author were less ambitious to conquer the world with Perl. Is it like python? Pick ONE way to do it and stick with it dammit! You misquoted. The phrase is: "there should be one—and preferably only one—obvious way to do it", *one* meaning 'at least one', complemented with *should be* and *obvious*. Is it like php? Do whatever you feel like? Php was a Unix design? LOL. Php wasn't a design at all. It was just another personal home pages perl script. Is it like command line text processing tools that only do one narrow thing well? [1] Perfectly well. Is it like bash? I can't find a decent description of how bash came to be except it's like Vogons - wasn't designed and didn't evolve, it just sort of ... congealed Bash or sh? What about ksh, csh, zsh etc? Well, a shell actually does two things: interactive shell and scripting. Let's ponder on how they can be separated? Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's a prize of 40 internets up for the first person who can clearly and unambiguously define "Unix design principles" with specificity so that it is globally applicable. A truism: There's nothing globally applicable. Best I can come up with is "Use common sense and build stuff that can be used and maintained" which is wonderfully descriptive but really sucks as a definition. Something like this, but neither is it globally applicable. [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a "system controller". What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do it well? An init daemon generally does one thing well. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11#Principles -- Regards, Yuri K. Shatroff
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
24.02.2014 05:07, Alan McKinnon wrote: [ ...] We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially giving them message "stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me, you fix it." Doesn't sound like good design does it? Sounds more like do whatever you think you can get away with. Good design in this area gives you something conceptually along the lines of try...catch...finally (with possibly some work done to avoid throwing another exception in the finally). try...catch...finally *does* leave error handling to *the caller*. It only provides a more object-oriented way to error handling. It *does not* *handle* errors. Unix error "design" does this: exit and an error message is in $@ if you feel like looking for it Please, propose a more sound design? Take e.g. jQuery where all errors are handled by the library, it sometimes takes ages to debug why it doesn't work as expected, after a while you eagerly figure why error handling *should* be done by the caller, and the only thing the callee can do reliably is pass an error message upstream. Good error messages (and error codes, or error class hierarchy) are a different problem, but I haven't seen a more proof solution yet. Strangely, this approach is exactly why Unix took off and got such widespread adoption throughout the 70s. An engineer will understand that a well-thought out design that is theoretically correct requires an underlying design that is consistent. In the 70s, hardware consistency was a joke - every installation was different. Consistent error handling would severely limit the arches this new OS could run on. By taking a "Stuff it, you deal with it coz I'm not!" approach, the handling was fobbed off to a higher layer that was a) not really able to deal with it and b) at least in a position to try *something*. By ripping out the theoretical correctness aspects, devs were left with something that actually could compile and run. You had to bolt on your own fancy bits to make it reliable but eventually over time these things too stabilized into a consistent pattern (mostly by hardware vendors going bankrupt and their stuff leaving the playing field) And so we come to what "Unix design" probably really is: "You do what you have to to get the job done, the simpler the better, but I'm not *really* gonna hold you to that." A good design is based on: - consistency - isolation and substitution of components - component reuse - thorough documentation (a free interpretation of [1]) This almost always leads to many simple components, and that is what's called Unix design principles AFAIU. The problem of Unix is that it doesn't follow "Unix design principles" any more. But it doesn't invalidate *the principles*. I still don't like what Lennart has done with this project, but I also fail to see what design principle he has violated. As per [1], I fail to see what design principle he has followed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design#Design_concepts -- Regards, Yuri K. Shatroff
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:07:09AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote > > > >> We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the > >> point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially > >> giving them message "stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me, > >> you fix it." > > > > The developer is not going to be psychic to the point of knowing what > > the user *WANTED* to do, years after the code was written... or which > > different users were expecting which different outcomes. E.g. if > > portage encounters a problem during a build, do you *REALLY* want it to > > jump in and randomly patch source code and/or makefiles to get it > > working? NO!!! You want it to halt, with an informative error message, > > possibly including suggestions for corrective action. > > But in Unix you usually don't halt, you set errno and go on your merry way. > Actually, from everything I've seen (and it's at least true throughout what I've worked with in glibc) you *do* stop dead in your tracks, set errno, and return some (hopefully indicative of a possible error) value. In the case of standalone executables rather than library calls, you stop where you are, if you're feeling generous you output something to stderr on the way out the door, then exit(errno). The process that called *you* then goes on its merry way, handling your response of "Hey, something went wrong. Good luck." however it chooses, if it chooses to. > > If I mistakenly > > tell a system to do B, really meaning do A, that's my fault. If I tell > > it to do A, and it decides to do B, I will be extremely p'd off. > > I don't see what does that have to do with any of Alan's points. > > Regards. > -- > Canek Peláez Valdés > Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación > Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México > It ties a bit into the above, really. Concise, job specific tools that do one thing and do them well, and don't try to magic up a guess of what they think the user *wants* when it can't give what the user *specifically* asked for are going to be a lot less destructive than tools that *do* try to guess and go on their merry way (when they're wrong) than simply handing the situation back to the user (not necessarily the end user, just the user that asked for that tool, and asked it to do that one job), who knows their particular circumstances, as well as what they want in that instance. I'll add in a very specific note that I'm not chiming in on the topic of systemd itself, as I've yet to play with it anywhere. I'm just chiming in on the "go on your merry way" part. The caller goes on their merry way, not the called. All that aside, your side of the discussions on systemd have, at least, made me curious enough to throw together a vm to play with sometime this week when I get time. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 24/02/2014 01:12, Mick wrote: >> On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 22:32:32 Alan McKinnon wrote: >>> On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of the people that can code "better" actually like the systemd design, and would prefer to contribute to it. And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck defining what it means "the*nix design principles". >>> >>> I've been wondering about this concept of "the*nix design principles"... >> >> Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code, but here's a starter for >> 10: >> >> http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html >> >> http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/unix/co-unix4.html > > I really like documents like this, all airy-fairy and giving the > impression that the whole design was worked out nicely in advance. It > wasn't. the doc even quotes this fellow who had nothing to do with the > doc itself: > > "Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly." > --Henry Spencer > > Let me tell you how Unix was designed, how the whole thing took shape > once K&R had gotten C pretty much stabilized. It is most apparent in IO > error handling in early designs and it goes like this: > > We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the > point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially > giving them message "stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me, > you fix it." > > Doesn't sound like good design does it? Sounds more like do whatever you > think you can get away with. Good design in this area gives you > something conceptually along the lines of try...catch...finally (with > possibly some work done to avoid throwing another exception in the > finally). Unix error "design" does this: > > exit > and an error message is in $@ if you feel like looking for it > > Strangely, this approach is exactly why Unix took off and got such > widespread adoption throughout the 70s. An engineer will understand that > a well-thought out design that is theoretically correct requires an > underlying design that is consistent. In the 70s, hardware consistency > was a joke - every installation was different. Consistent error handling > would severely limit the arches this new OS could run on. By taking a > "Stuff it, you deal with it coz I'm not!" approach, the handling was > fobbed off to a higher layer that was a) not really able to deal with it > and b) at least in a position to try *something*. > > By ripping out the theoretical correctness aspects, devs were left with > something that actually could compile and run. You had to bolt on your > own fancy bits to make it reliable but eventually over time these things > too stabilized into a consistent pattern (mostly by hardware vendors > going bankrupt and their stuff leaving the playing field) > > And so we come to what "Unix design" probably really is: > > "You do what you have to to get the job done, the simpler the better, > but I'm not *really* gonna hold you to that." > *slow clap* -- This email is:[ ] actionable [ ] fyi[x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [x] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:07:09AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote > >> We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the >> point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially >> giving them message "stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me, >> you fix it." > > The developer is not going to be psychic to the point of knowing what > the user *WANTED* to do, years after the code was written... or which > different users were expecting which different outcomes. E.g. if > portage encounters a problem during a build, do you *REALLY* want it to > jump in and randomly patch source code and/or makefiles to get it > working? NO!!! You want it to halt, with an informative error message, > possibly including suggestions for corrective action. But in Unix you usually don't halt, you set errno and go on your merry way. > If I mistakenly > tell a system to do B, really meaning do A, that's my fault. If I tell > it to do A, and it decides to do B, I will be extremely p'd off. I don't see what does that have to do with any of Alan's points. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:07:09AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote > We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the > point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially > giving them message "stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me, > you fix it." The developer is not going to be psychic to the point of knowing what the user *WANTED* to do, years after the code was written... or which different users were expecting which different outcomes. E.g. if portage encounters a problem during a build, do you *REALLY* want it to jump in and randomly patch source code and/or makefiles to get it working? NO!!! You want it to halt, with an informative error message, possibly including suggestions for corrective action. If I mistakenly tell a system to do B, really meaning do A, that's my fault. If I tell it to do A, and it decides to do B, I will be extremely p'd off. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 24/02/2014 01:12, Mick wrote: > On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 22:32:32 Alan McKinnon wrote: >> On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >>> I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something >>> new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and >>> with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd >>> will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of >>> the people that can code "better" actually like the systemd design, >>> and would prefer to contribute to it. >>> >>> And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck >>> defining what it means "the*nix design principles". >> >> I've been wondering about this concept of "the*nix design principles"... > > Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code, but here's a starter for > 10: > > http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html > > http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/unix/co-unix4.html I really like documents like this, all airy-fairy and giving the impression that the whole design was worked out nicely in advance. It wasn't. the doc even quotes this fellow who had nothing to do with the doc itself: "Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly." --Henry Spencer Let me tell you how Unix was designed, how the whole thing took shape once K&R had gotten C pretty much stabilized. It is most apparent in IO error handling in early designs and it goes like this: We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially giving them message "stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me, you fix it." Doesn't sound like good design does it? Sounds more like do whatever you think you can get away with. Good design in this area gives you something conceptually along the lines of try...catch...finally (with possibly some work done to avoid throwing another exception in the finally). Unix error "design" does this: exit and an error message is in $@ if you feel like looking for it Strangely, this approach is exactly why Unix took off and got such widespread adoption throughout the 70s. An engineer will understand that a well-thought out design that is theoretically correct requires an underlying design that is consistent. In the 70s, hardware consistency was a joke - every installation was different. Consistent error handling would severely limit the arches this new OS could run on. By taking a "Stuff it, you deal with it coz I'm not!" approach, the handling was fobbed off to a higher layer that was a) not really able to deal with it and b) at least in a position to try *something*. By ripping out the theoretical correctness aspects, devs were left with something that actually could compile and run. You had to bolt on your own fancy bits to make it reliable but eventually over time these things too stabilized into a consistent pattern (mostly by hardware vendors going bankrupt and their stuff leaving the playing field) And so we come to what "Unix design" probably really is: "You do what you have to to get the job done, the simpler the better, but I'm not *really* gonna hold you to that." I still don't like what Lennart has done with this project, but I also fail to see what design principle he has violated. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mick wrote: [ snip ] > Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code, My point exactly. > but here's a starter for 10: > > http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html Funny you mention this; the second definition is by Robert Pike, who later said: "Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad." > http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/unix/co-unix4.html You can hear in [2] the best response to the famous quote by Henry Spencer ("Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly."): "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to quote Henry Spencer." And that's the point; the people doing this changes *obviously understand Unix*. They understand it so well that they are able to look at it honestly, beyond dogma or articles of faith, and see its downsides, so they can try to fix them. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy This reminds me of the people that quote from religious books to argue about anything non theological. The "rules" and "sound bites" in the links you provide are there to summarize rules of thumb; they are NOT scripture, and they are certainly NOT the only way to get a technically good program that is easily maintainable. In other words, you can ignore most of them, or just following them to a point, and anyway end up with a sound design and a technically great program that is easy to maintain and extend. The people with coding experience (or most of them anyway) understand this; we are not a religion, we don't have prophets that speak the undeniably truth. We have highly skilled developers who can have opposing views on how to design and implement many different ideas, and that doesn't (necessarily) means that any of them are wrong. There are many ways to solve a problem of sets of problems. Having Emacs doesn't mean vi is "wrong", nor having GNOME means KDE is "wrong", nor the other way around. >> I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns. >> >> Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for >> modules? > > I would think that although the kernel has grown over the years, it has not > done so like systemd. You can still *not* build modules you don't need in > your kernel. This has nothing to do with "Unix principles"; it's just that someone willing and able implemented the different options. >> Is it like X11? A huge monolithic chunk of code that has a bizarre build >> system for years, and took something like 5 years of hard work to get it >> modular? And is 20 years behind the times? And *still* requires devs to >> jump through hoops to get a rendered image through a compositor and back >> up the the GPU? > > The X11 devs saw the error of their ways and ended up breaking up the big > monolithic Xorg code and releasing it as a modular package since X11 7.0, if I > recall right. The X11 devs decided that X11 is crap, and therefore they are working now in Wayland. Yes, Wayland is basically written by the same people who maintains X.org. Again, see [2], it's pretty awesome. >> Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it >> remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax? >> Is it like python? Pick ONE way to do it and stick with it dammit! >> Is it like php? Do whatever you feel like? >> Is it like command line text processing tools that only do one narrow >> thing well? [1] >> Is it like bash? I can't find a decent description of how bash came to >> be except it's like Vogons - wasn't designed and didn't evolve, it just >> sort of ... congealed > > Designing a programming language is not exactly parallel with designing an OS, > although similarities exist (e.g. re-use code where you can and don't re- > invent the wheel). I'm pretty sure there are lots of people who vehemently believe that the "Unix principles" can apply to everything, even programming languages. You would be cataloged as an heretic for saying that is not exactly parallel. >> Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's a prize of 40 internets up >> for the first person who can clearly and unambiguously define "Unix >> design principles" with specificity so that it is globally applicable. > > The Unix design philosophy may not be globally applicable, but has served > Linux well over the years. No; what has served Linux is to have developers willing and able to write the necessary code, following whatever design they decide is the correct one. > Lennart has de facto introduced a different way of > developing his Linux code, which to others and me seems more restrictive. First of all, it's not only Lennart; the systemd repo has (literally) dozens of contributors with write access. Second of all, calling "restrictive" the tightly integrated approach, is exactly as constructive as calling "anarchic" the loosely integrated one. Like "Unix principles", it means nothing and it says nothing. > I am not saying that his coding is po
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 22:32:32 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something > > new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and > > with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd > > will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of > > the people that can code "better" actually like the systemd design, > > and would prefer to contribute to it. > > > > And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck > > defining what it means "the*nix design principles". > > I've been wondering about this concept of "the*nix design principles"... Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code, but here's a starter for 10: http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/unix/co-unix4.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy > I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns. > > Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for > modules? I would think that although the kernel has grown over the years, it has not done so like systemd. You can still *not* build modules you don't need in your kernel. > Is it like X11? A huge monolithic chunk of code that has a bizarre build > system for years, and took something like 5 years of hard work to get it > modular? And is 20 years behind the times? And *still* requires devs to > jump through hoops to get a rendered image through a compositor and back > up the the GPU? The X11 devs saw the error of their ways and ended up breaking up the big monolithic Xorg code and releasing it as a modular package since X11 7.0, if I recall right. > Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it > remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax? > Is it like python? Pick ONE way to do it and stick with it dammit! > Is it like php? Do whatever you feel like? > Is it like command line text processing tools that only do one narrow > thing well? [1] > Is it like bash? I can't find a decent description of how bash came to > be except it's like Vogons - wasn't designed and didn't evolve, it just > sort of ... congealed Designing a programming language is not exactly parallel with designing an OS, although similarities exist (e.g. re-use code where you can and don't re- invent the wheel). > Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's a prize of 40 internets up > for the first person who can clearly and unambiguously define "Unix > design principles" with specificity so that it is globally applicable. The Unix design philosophy may not be globally applicable, but has served Linux well over the years. Lennart has de facto introduced a different way of developing his Linux code, which to others and me seems more restrictive. I am not saying that his coding is poor (I'm not qualified to judge), or that systemd is wholesale bad. But, is this a whole new design paradigm in the development of Linux that we should applaud and follow, or just a mistake borne out of ignorance/arrogance/expedience? Time will tell. > [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a "system > controller". What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do > it well? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something >> new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and >> with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd >> will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of >> the people that can code "better" actually like the systemd design, >> and would prefer to contribute to it. >> >> And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck >> defining what it means "the*nix design principles". > > I've been wondering about this concept of "the*nix design principles"... > > I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns. Exactly. > Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for > modules? > Is it like X11? A huge monolithic chunk of code that has a bizarre build > system for years, and took something like 5 years of hard work to get it > modular? And is 20 years behind the times? And *still* requires devs to > jump through hoops to get a rendered image through a compositor and back > up the the GPU? > Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it > remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax? > Is it like python? Pick ONE way to do it and stick with it dammit! > Is it like php? Do whatever you feel like? > Is it like command line text processing tools that only do one narrow > thing well? [1] > Is it like bash? I can't find a decent description of how bash came to > be except it's like Vogons - wasn't designed and didn't evolve, it just > sort of ... congealed > > Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's a prize of 40 internets up > for the first person who can clearly and unambiguously define "Unix > design principles" with specificity so that it is globally applicable. > > Best I can come up with is "Use common sense and build stuff that can be > used and maintained" which is wonderfully descriptive but really sucks > as a definition. I reached a similar conclusion; "Unix principles" is, basically, whatever good idea you can have for a particular problem. Therefore, almost anything under the sun can be reasonably argued to be following "Unix principles". In particular, all of the examples you listed. "Unix principles" says nothing, means nothing, and helps even less to design anything. Almost all the people criticizing systemd or Wayland are Unix *users*, not *developers*. Most Unix/Linux *developers* (not package maintainers) actually like the changes introduced by systemd and/or Wayland; of those who not, most of them at least *understand* why a change was necessary (and long overdue). A minority oppose those changes vehemently; but at this point, I'm starting to question if that opposition has technical foundations, or if it's just a gut reaction to an specific set of developers and/or companies. > [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a "system > controller". What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do > it well? Control the system? Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something > new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and > with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd > will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of > the people that can code "better" actually like the systemd design, > and would prefer to contribute to it. > > And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck > defining what it means "the*nix design principles". I've been wondering about this concept of "the*nix design principles"... I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns. Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for modules? Is it like X11? A huge monolithic chunk of code that has a bizarre build system for years, and took something like 5 years of hard work to get it modular? And is 20 years behind the times? And *still* requires devs to jump through hoops to get a rendered image through a compositor and back up the the GPU? Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax? Is it like python? Pick ONE way to do it and stick with it dammit! Is it like php? Do whatever you feel like? Is it like command line text processing tools that only do one narrow thing well? [1] Is it like bash? I can't find a decent description of how bash came to be except it's like Vogons - wasn't designed and didn't evolve, it just sort of ... congealed Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's a prize of 40 internets up for the first person who can clearly and unambiguously define "Unix design principles" with specificity so that it is globally applicable. Best I can come up with is "Use common sense and build stuff that can be used and maintained" which is wonderfully descriptive but really sucks as a definition. [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a "system controller". What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do it well? -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Mick wrote: [ snip ] > I am not sure if people object to the Lennart-way of messing up Linux, under > the blessings of RHL, or if they just don't like the immediate outcome. Actually, most people that actually *try* using systemd and reads how it works have no problems with it, and of those there are many (like me) who actually quite like it. > Essentially, in his arrogance Lennart only needs to code things the way *he* > sees as useful or expedient to him and his pay masters. In doing so he throws > the *nix way of developing software out of the window and creates a convenient > for him monolith. Wherever he can't be bothered to do a neat and versatile > job he makes his own arguably option-limiting decisions and thus we have > arrived to today's flavour of systemd-udev-pulseaudio-gnome and whatever else > he will try to weld in tomorrow. He found like minds in Sievers et al and > money from RHL helped them get there. And he also found like minds in some of the kernel developers, and some people from OpenSUSE, and Arch, and Debian, and Gentoo, and even Ubuntu, and old Linux gurus like Keith Packard and Neil Brown[1]. > It ain't pretty and architecturally does not follow the *nix design > principles, but as Canek says, those who can code better should step up to the > plate and redesign systemd as it should have been done from the start for the > benefit of Linux, without making the design compromises that Lennart has > decided suit him. I don't know if forking systemd is easy, but no one has so > far decided to do so. I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of the people that can code "better" actually like the systemd design, and would prefer to contribute to it. And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck defining what it means "the*nix design principles". > Given the title of this thread I fear that those of us who can't code, will > increasingly find our choices becoming limited, because more and more > functionality is hacked inextricably into systemd and friends. It's probably > too early to call if Gentoo will remain one of the few options in Linux that > do not use systemd, but decisions taken upstream (for example initrd for > separate /usr) are affecting some us already. First of all, Gentoo uses systemd if the user so desires (like I do). Secondly, no one has proposed (AFAIK) systemd as the default init system for Gentoo, and I don't think no one will in the short term future. And to finish, the fact is that people are using systemd because it works, the design if good (it can be improved, of course; everything can), and it has attracted a really large flock of talented developers around it. No other option offers any interest for people trying to develop new cool things and design new standards; the only similar (albeit much more limited in scope) alternative was Upstart, and I personally don't think it will be maintained for much longer, except for bugs and security vulnerabilities; it will have no new features. In general the people not wanting to use systemd don't even care about its features; they only want the good old SysV (or OpenRC here in Gentoo), and that nobody touches their systems. Since OpenRC is the default in Gentoo, and I don't think that will change anytime soon, they can have that. Regards. [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/584176/ -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México