Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, zxq9 z...@zxq9.com wrote: * The old init system was complicated (in that the defaults aren't uniform). Familiarity with the system triumphed over lack of clear implementation and lack of documentation. All Linux users and developers were victims of laziness and inertia when we stuck with the mess that sysvinit scripts are for as long as we did, especially after Solaris and OS X showed the way with SMF and launchd. We should've at least moved to declarative init files with one bash/dash/sh script to start and stop daemons; we didn't and we've fortunately gone beyond that with systemd. * systemd is a huge effort that isn't doing anything to remedy the situation. One or two years after the release of EL-7, everyone'll wonder what all the anti-systemd fuss was about...
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
I'm afraid that the wholesale switch to systemd is going to leave a lot of blood on the pavement, especially for EPEL and Repoforge. I'm looking at it right now for Subversion based daemons and some Java based daemons, poking around in Fedora 19 for backporting to SL 6, and I'm wincing a lot. I'm afraid that it's going to cause a lot of environments to be very reluctant to upgrade from SL 5 to *any* more recent operating systems.
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Paul Robert Marino
prmari...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:21 PM, zxq9 z...@zxq9.com wrote:
On 07/31/2013 11:57 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM, zxq9z...@zxq9.com wrote:
On 07/30/2013 10:26 PM, Tom H wrote:
I was only commenting on the more complex and unreadable spec files.
Otherwise I'm happy about systemd and journald. In short, the kernel
has evolved, the applications have evolved, why not the init system?
Its not that the init system can't do with some modernization, its that the
new system has a severe case of featuritis that is spawning little eddies of
nonlocalized complexity all over the place. Modernizing a system and tossing
everything that's come before in the interest of a deliberately incompatible
rewrite are different things. Remember HAL?
well thats mostly due to the fact that its new and far more complex.
there was a mad rush for every one to rewrite there statup scripts and
quite a few of them weren't done very well and others weren't fully
thought out.
what I find worse is they did a ground up rewrite and didn't touch the
network configuration portion wasn't rewritten.
The network scripts are limited and problematic if you want to do any
thing advanced. for example its a long story why but on one device a
bridge I have to add a static arp entry. iproute2 has been able to do
this for as long as i can remember but there was no clean way to get
it to work was to hack the network scripts in order to add the
functionality.
Really the scripts network scripts need to have hooks added so user
defined scripts can be called at various points of the startup and
shutdown of an interface. but more than that they mostly date back to
the 2.0 Kernel and Linux's Network capabilities have change
significantly since then but for the most part these scripts keep
people stuck in the 90's.
(Couldn't you top-post like everyone else?)
There's been more than one hint on fedora-devel that the reason that
the /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/scripts haven't been adapted to
systemd is that no one wants to do the (large amount of) work that
would be required when the eventual goal is to default to NM and only
use NM; and that that goal's ever closer. (As a Fedora user, I
sometimes wish that TUV weren't so involved with GNOME and NM and that
netctl were packaged for Fedora - and in the future for EL-7 - because
it's integrated into systemd; but NM's slowly getting there for
servers.)
EL-6.4's network scripts mostly use iproute (although I don't think
that you can use PREFIX=24 instead of NETMASK=255.255.255.0 as you
can on Fedora).
The following command returns nothing on F-19, but on EL-6.4:
[root@sci6:/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts]# grep ifconfig *
ifup-ippp:/usr/bin/logger -p daemon.info -t ifup-ippp ifconfig
$DEVICE $IPADDR pointopoint $GATEWAY $netmask up
ifup-ippp:ifconfig $DEVICE $IPADDR pointopoint $GATEWAY $netmask
up /dev/null 21
ifup-isdn:/usr/bin/logger -p daemon.info -t ifup-ippp ifconfig
$DEVICE $IPADDR pointopoint $GATEWAY $netmask up
ifup-isdn:ifconfig $DEVICE $IPADDR pointopoint $GATEWAY $netmask
up /dev/null 21
ifup-plip:ifconfig ${DEVICE} ${IPADDR} pointopoint ${REMIP}
ifup-plusb:ifconfig ${DEVICE} ${IPADDR} pointopoint ${REMIP}
netmask ${NETMASK}
ifup-plusb:ifconfig ${DEVICE} ${IPADDR} pointopoint ${REMIP}
netmask ${NETMASK}
[root@sci6:/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts]#
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
I somewhat agree however I still think systemd needs an other year or two to bake before its enterprise ready.1) the scripts are still too new and most of them haven't been thoroughly thought out yet. There are a lot of things that change when you switch from simple start and stop scripts to using an active process manager which take time for the developers and system administrators to wrap their heads around. Frankly they haven't had enough time to do it well and I will have issues all over the place with 3rd party applications when RHEL 7 is released because of it.2) systemd isn't the first of its kind on Linux in fact Gentoo Linux has been doing something similar for years with its startup scripts.3) in many ways the design of systemd is very desktop centric which is great for a desktop or laptop but horrible in an enterprise. Frankly I'm horrified by the idea that if a inexperienced sysadmin does a default install instead of our standard nobase install that someone my come along and stick a WiFi dongle in a box and create a loop or security hole because it was immediately detected and the services to auto configure it were automatically started without a authorized sysadmins intervention. By the way that is a scenario that I've seen users attempt before because they needed access from their desktop and didn't want to wait for or were just too lazy to request a firewall change. For that matter I had a consultant just this past week accidentally create a loop on my network because he had made a mistake in the network configuration and NetworkManager decided to bridge several interfaces ( I never thought I'd hear my self say this but thank god for spanning tree). So auto starting and restarting services based on things like hardware event are scary to me for good reasons. Additionally if I have a service that occasionally crashes due to a bug or misconfiguration but systems keeps relaunching it I may never know I have a problem I'd rather the process crash and get a one time complaint or trouble ticket from the user and fix it than have users grumbling how my systems suck because they keep having problems but the guy in the NOC sees all green on his screen when the user calls and keeps dismissing their complaints without further investigation.-- Sent from my HP Pre3On Aug 18, 2013 9:29, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, zxq9 z...@zxq9.com wrote: * The old init system was complicated (in that the defaults aren't uniform). Familiarity with the system triumphed over lack of clear implementation and lack of documentation. All Linux users and developers were victims of laziness and inertia when we stuck with the mess that sysvinit scripts are for as long as we did, especially after Solaris and OS X showed the way with SMF and launchd. We should've at least moved to declarative init files with one bash/dash/sh script to start and stop daemons; we didn't and we've fortunately gone beyond that with systemd. * systemd is a huge effort that isn't doing anything to remedy the situation. One or two years after the release of EL-7, everyone'll wonder what all the anti-systemd fuss was about...
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
I totally disagree I love NM on my laptop but its a pox upon my servers. It causes far more problems for servers than it fixes.For one thing if I have a process bound to an IP and NM stops that interface due to a transient issue with the network such as a switch rebooting or some one accidentally unplugging the wrong cable in the patch panel for a split second. The problem is it brings the interfaces down when link is lost. However the file handle for the network socket stays in a "DELETED" state until the the service is restarted or the service detects an issue with the socket because the programmer was better than average and though about the scenario. Now the link comes back but the socket is still broken because it still points to the deleted file handle for the old link so it spears although my service is working but in reality it can't hear new connections coming in. By the way this scenario doesn't apply to things bound to the default 0.0.0.0.Also the fact that I saw it decide on its own to bridge several interfaces together last week on a CentOS 6.4 box because a consultant made a mistake I just don't trust it.In fact I've been thinking I just may scrap it all the redhat network tools and write a ground up replacement for the firewall tools I'm writing right now (yes the will be released under the GPL when they are ready).I'm thinking thinking I'll do something similar to what I did with Fedora 4 back in the day when I worked for a network secuity appliance company with an XML based config for the network interfaces. But I think I can get away with a simple set if small scripts that mostly just do XSLT transforms to create the appropriate commands for iproute2 this would mean that adding or modifying features would simply be a matter of updating a DTD or schema and the XSLT file. Also I'm thinking of possibly integrating iptables and ipset into it as well. Since I already have successfully compiled and tested ipset on RHEL 6.x and already have the tools and sysV init scripts written for them based on a slightly modified (I added to it but didn't change any thing already in it) version of the XML dumped by the ipset command.-- Sent from my HP Pre3On Aug 18, 2013 12:42, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Paul Robert Marino prmari...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:21 PM, zxq9 z...@zxq9.com wrote: On 07/31/2013 11:57 PM, Tom H wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM, zxq9z...@zxq9.com wrote: On 07/30/2013 10:26 PM, Tom H wrote: I was only commenting on the more complex and unreadable spec files. Otherwise I'm happy about systemd and journald. In short, the kernel has evolved, the applications have evolved, why not the init system? Its not that the init system can't do with some modernization, its that the new system has a severe case of featuritis that is spawning little eddies of nonlocalized complexity all over the place. Modernizing a system and tossing everything that's come before in the interest of a deliberately incompatible rewrite are different things. Remember HAL? well thats mostly due to the fact that its new and far more complex. there was a mad rush for every one to rewrite there statup scripts and quite a few of them weren't done very well and others weren't fully thought out. what I find worse is they did a ground up rewrite and didn't touch the network configuration portion wasn't rewritten. The network scripts are limited and problematic if you want to do any thing advanced. for example its a long story why but on one device a bridge I have to add a static arp entry. iproute2 has been able to do this for as long as i can remember but there was no clean way to get it to work was to hack the network scripts in order to add the functionality. Really the scripts network scripts need to have hooks added so user defined scripts can be called at various points of the startup and shutdown of an interface. but more than that they mostly date back to the 2.0 Kernel and Linux's Network capabilities have change significantly since then but for the most part these scripts keep people stuck in the 90's. (Couldn't you top-post like everyone else?) There's been more than one hint on fedora-devel that the reason that the "/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/scripts" haven't been adapted to systemd is that no one wants to do the (large amount of) work that would be required when the eventual goal is to default to NM and only use NM; and that that goal's ever closer. (As a Fedora user, I sometimes wish that TUV weren't so involved with GNOME and NM and that netctl were packaged for Fedora - and in the future for EL-7 - because it's integrated into systemd; but NM's slowly getting there for servers.) EL-6.4's network scripts mostly use iproute (although I don't think that you can use "PREFIX=24" instead of "NETMASK=255.255.255.0" as you can on Fedora). The following command returns nothing on F-19, but on EL-6.4:
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Paul Robert Marino prmari...@gmail.com wrote: I somewhat agree however I still think systemd needs an other year or two to bake before its enterprise ready. 1) the scripts are still too new and most of them haven't been thoroughly thought out yet. There are a lot of things that change when you switch from simple start and stop scripts to using an active process manager which take time for the developers and system administrators to wrap their heads around. Frankly they haven't had enough time to do it well and I will have issues all over the place with 3rd party applications when RHEL 7 is released because of it. 2) systemd isn't the first of its kind on Linux in fact Gentoo Linux has been doing something similar for years with its startup scripts. 3) in many ways the design of systemd is very desktop centric which is great for a desktop or laptop but horrible in an enterprise. Frankly I'm horrified +1 and I don't care if my servers take a few seconds longer to boot. Also, one of the first things I do when configuring a server is remove NM. When running Fedora 19 the new gnome is also too foreign to me. I much prefer xfce instead. I wish they had made that the default for rhel7. The trend towards binary log files is also a little uncomfortable. I'm so used to using simple tools to parse log files. by the idea that if a inexperienced sysadmin does a default install instead of our standard nobase install that someone my come along and stick a WiFi dongle in a box and create a loop or security hole because it was immediately detected and the services to auto configure it were automatically started without a authorized sysadmins intervention. By the way that is a scenario that I've seen users attempt before because they needed access from their desktop and didn't want to wait for or were just too lazy to request a firewall change. For that matter I had a consultant just this past week accidentally create a loop on my network because he had made a mistake in the network configuration and NetworkManager decided to bridge several interfaces ( I never thought I'd hear my self say this but thank god for spanning tree). So auto starting and restarting services based on things like hardware event are scary to me for good reasons. Additionally if I have a service that occasionally crashes due to a bug or misconfiguration but systems keeps relaunching it I may never know I have a problem I'd rather the process crash and get a one time complaint or trouble ticket from the user and fix it than have users grumbling how my systems suck because they keep having problems but the guy in the NOC sees all green on his screen when the user calls and keeps dismissing their complaints without further investigation. -- Sent from my HP Pre3 On Aug 18, 2013 9:29, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, zxq9 z...@zxq9.com wrote: * The old init system was complicated (in that the defaults aren't uniform). Familiarity with the system triumphed over lack of clear implementation and lack of documentation. All Linux users and developers were victims of laziness and inertia when we stuck with the mess that sysvinit scripts are for as long as we did, especially after Solaris and OS X showed the way with SMF and launchd. We should've at least moved to declarative init files with one bash/dash/sh script to start and stop daemons; we didn't and we've fortunately gone beyond that with systemd. * systemd is a huge effort that isn't doing anything to remedy the situation. One or two years after the release of EL-7, everyone'll wonder what all the anti-systemd fuss was about...
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:24:42AM -0400, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
well thats mostly due to the fact that its new and far more complex.
there was a mad rush for every one to rewrite there statup scripts and
quite a few of them weren't done very well and others weren't fully
thought out.
My prediction is that it is going to be like the HAL/UDEV story. Before,
if you wanted to automatically chmod a+wr /dev/ttyUSB*, you just put it
in /etc/rc.local. Now you have to write some arcane udev rules that have to
be adjusted for every new os update. Documentation and examples are absent.
Also same as the NetworkManager introduction. Something that was described
in many books is replaced with something described by a few paragraphs
in some obscure malformatted wiki. For example the fact that on SL
the NM settings are stored in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth* files
is documented (I was able to find the obscure wiki that mentions
this in passing), but documentation for the exact format and meaning
of the different entries is absent.
K.O.
what I find worse is they did a ground up rewrite and didn't touch the
network configuration portion wasn't rewritten.
The network scripts are limited and problematic if you want to do any
thing advanced. for example its a long story why but on one device a
bridge I have to add a static arp entry. iproute2 has been able to do
this for as long as i can remember but there was no clean way to get
it to work was to hack the network scripts in order to add the
functionality.
Really the scripts network scripts need to have hooks added so user
defined scripts can be called at various points of the startup and
shutdown of an interface. but more than that they mostly date back to
the 2.0 Kernel and Linux's Network capabilities have change
significantly since then but for the most part these scripts keep
people stuck in the 90's.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:21 PM, zxq9 z...@zxq9.com wrote:
On 07/31/2013 11:57 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM, zxq9z...@zxq9.com wrote:
On 07/30/2013 10:26 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcianka...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Tom Htomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, good link. I'm just concerned it's going to cause build
problems for *every single open source daemon* as their SRPM's or
.spec files need to have two sets of options, one for the older SysV
init scripts and one for systemd, or need to be split to two different
.spec files. This is going to be so much fun!
You're welcome.
Very true. Similar to some current Fedora spec files:
%if 0%{?rhel}
...
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora}
...
%endif
An eyesore and a mess; until December 2020...
tl;dr, Relevant Fedora thread first:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-October/thread.html#172159
Reminds me of a dismal post from October:
http://zxq9.com/archives/711
I was only commenting on the more complex and unreadable spec files.
Otherwise I'm happy about systemd and journald. In short, the kernel
has evolved, the applications have evolved, why not the init system?
Its not that the init system can't do with some modernization, its that the
new system has a severe case of featuritis that is spawning little eddies of
nonlocalized complexity all over the place. Modernizing a system and tossing
everything that's come before in the interest of a deliberately incompatible
rewrite are different things. Remember HAL?
--
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On 12/08/13 17:40, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: [...snip...] Also same as the NetworkManager introduction. Something that was described in many books is replaced with something described by a few paragraphs in some obscure malformatted wiki. For example the fact that on SL the NM settings are stored in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth* files is documented (I was able to find the obscure wiki that mentions this in passing), but documentation for the exact format and meaning of the different entries is absent. I find /usr/share/doc/initscripts-9.03.38/sysconfig.txt fairly informative and straight to the point - for most files in /etc/sysconfig. -- kind regards, David Sommerseth
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Konstantin Olchanski olcha...@triumf.cawrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:24:42AM -0400, Paul Robert Marino wrote: well thats mostly due to the fact that its new and far more complex. there was a mad rush for every one to rewrite there statup scripts and quite a few of them weren't done very well and others weren't fully thought out. My prediction is that it is going to be like the HAL/UDEV story. Before, if you wanted to automatically chmod a+wr /dev/ttyUSB*, you just put it in /etc/rc.local. Now you have to write some arcane udev rules that have to be adjusted for every new os update. Documentation and examples are absent. Also same as the NetworkManager introduction. Something that was described in many books is replaced with something described by a few paragraphs in some obscure malformatted wiki. For example the fact that on SL the NM settings are stored in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth* files is documented (I was able to find the obscure wiki that mentions this in passing), but documentation for the exact format and meaning of the different entries is absent. I don't necessarily disagree with your worries about the future. But I must add that the networking config scripts for our favorite distro and its cousins have been located in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts for many years, long before the advent of NetworkManager. K.O. -- -- Jeffrey Anderson| jdander...@lbl.gov Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory | Office: 50A-5104E | Mailstop 50A-5101 Phone: 510 486-4208 | Fax: 510 486-4204
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 09:56:53AM -0700, Jeffrey Anderson wrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Konstantin Olchanski olcha...@triumf.cawrote: My prediction is that it is going to be like the HAL/UDEV story ... Also same as the NetworkManager introduction ... I don't necessarily disagree with your worries about the future. But I must add that the networking config scripts for our favorite distro and its cousins have been located in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts for many years, long before the advent of NetworkManager. Now for a quick quiz. In SL6.4, how do you prevent Xorg from starting on boot? (Hint: in SL5, you comment it out in /etc/inittab) P.S. Those who answer: change run level from 5 to 3, get a second quiz: quickly, when you do this, what other services become disabled? -- Konstantin Olchanski Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow! Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada
RE: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
Q1: Start in runlevel 3
Q2: Dependent on system configuration. One way to check a little easier is:
chkconfig --list| awk '{print $1,$5,$7}' and see.
On the system this Windows VM is running under, the only service that would not
be run in runlevel 3 was spice-vdagentd. Which makes sense.
Your mileage my vary...
-Original Message-
From: owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov
[mailto:owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov] On Behalf Of Konstantin
Olchanski
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 12:13 PM
To: Jeffrey Anderson
Cc: SL Users
Subject: Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 09:56:53AM -0700, Jeffrey Anderson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Konstantin Olchanski
olcha...@triumf.cawrote:
My prediction is that it is going to be like the HAL/UDEV story ...
Also same as the NetworkManager introduction ...
I don't necessarily disagree with your worries about the future. But
I must add that the networking config scripts for our favorite distro
and its cousins have been located in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts
for many years, long before the advent of NetworkManager.
Now for a quick quiz.
In SL6.4, how do you prevent Xorg from starting on boot?
(Hint: in SL5, you comment it out in /etc/inittab)
P.S.
Those who answer: change run level from 5 to 3, get a second quiz:
quickly, when you do this, what other services become disabled?
--
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 05:22:10PM +, Kraus, Dave (GE Healthcare) wrote:
Q1: Start in runlevel 3
Q2: Dependent on system configuration. One way to check a little easier is:
chkconfig --list| awk '{print $1,$5,$7}' and see.
(I did ask for the quick answer, not the correct answer)
chkconfig does not show if X11 is started at what run level. what else does it
not show?
Hint: ls -l /etc/init
--
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada
RE: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
I did say, dependent on system configuration.
X11 is not treated as a standard service on a Red Hat box. (Debian, for
example, does.)
If you've installed services outside of Red Hat's management, then see above
re:system configuration.
-Original Message-
From: owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov
[mailto:owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov] On Behalf Of Konstantin
Olchanski
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 12:51 PM
To: Kraus, Dave (GE Healthcare)
Cc: SL Users
Subject: Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 05:22:10PM +, Kraus, Dave (GE Healthcare) wrote:
Q1: Start in runlevel 3
Q2: Dependent on system configuration. One way to check a little easier is:
chkconfig --list| awk '{print $1,$5,$7}' and see.
(I did ask for the quick answer, not the correct answer)
chkconfig does not show if X11 is started at what run level. what else does it
not show?
Hint: ls -l /etc/init
--
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On 08/13/2013 03:41 AM, Kraus, Dave (GE Healthcare) wrote: I did say, dependent on system configuration. X11 is not treated as a standard service on a Red Hat box. (Debian, for example, does.) If you've installed services outside of Red Hat's management, then see above re:system configuration. This discussion demonstrates two things: * The old init system was complicated (in that the defaults aren't uniform). Familiarity with the system triumphed over lack of clear implementation and lack of documentation. * systemd is a huge effort that isn't doing anything to remedy the situation. This echoes the history of HAL and a few other things that have come before. My whole point was that these changes are politically, not technically driven, and that's not going to end well for anyone because RH doesn't have a monopoly in market or mindshare (recall the decline of Unix in the 80's due to this very issue). A third, sidetrack point that's been demonstrated is that internet discussions have a tendency to get sidetracked.
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM, zxq9 z...@zxq9.com wrote:
On 07/30/2013 10:26 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcianka...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Tom Htomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, good link. I'm just concerned it's going to cause build
problems for *every single open source daemon* as their SRPM's or
.spec files need to have two sets of options, one for the older SysV
init scripts and one for systemd, or need to be split to two different
.spec files. This is going to be so much fun!
You're welcome.
Very true. Similar to some current Fedora spec files:
%if 0%{?rhel}
...
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora}
...
%endif
An eyesore and a mess; until December 2020...
tl;dr, Relevant Fedora thread first:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-October/thread.html#172159
Reminds me of a dismal post from October:
http://zxq9.com/archives/711
I was only commenting on the more complex and unreadable spec files.
Otherwise I'm happy about systemd and journald. In short, the kernel
has evolved, the applications have evolved, why not the init system?
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: On 07/29/2013 10:47 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote: I believe there was some relevant information in this year's Red Hat Enterprise Linux Roadmap http://videos.cdn.redhat.com/2013-summit-platform-2.mp4 at Red Hat Summit. See https://rhsummit.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/dumas_w_0120_rhel_roadmap1.pdf See slide 11. Also includes info relevant to the large filesystem thread. Seems EL7 may ship with XFS as the default filesystem if it passes validation. (Slide 17). A very good read; time will tell how much actually comes to pass. (I'm personally looking forward to IEEE1588 PTP as shown on slide 38)... It is interesting. I also see Samba 3.x, not Samba 4.x. *Rats*. I was hoping for built-in Active Directory server replacements: guess I'll be rebundling the work I've done backporting Samba 4.0.7 to RHEL 6. And the slides don't say anything about the migration from SysV init scripts to systemd: that is going to be a *serious* adventure for 3rd-party open source components, like EPEL and Repoforge and atrpms. http://rhsummit.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/poettering_f_0945_getting_ready_for_systemd-the-new-red-hat-enterprise-linux-7-service-manager.pdf
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: On 07/29/2013 10:47 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote: I believe there was some relevant information in this year's Red Hat Enterprise Linux Roadmap http://videos.cdn.redhat.com/2013-summit-platform-2.mp4 at Red Hat Summit. See https://rhsummit.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/dumas_w_0120_rhel_roadmap1.pdf See slide 11. Also includes info relevant to the large filesystem thread. Seems EL7 may ship with XFS as the default filesystem if it passes validation. (Slide 17). A very good read; time will tell how much actually comes to pass. (I'm personally looking forward to IEEE1588 PTP as shown on slide 38)... It is interesting. I also see Samba 3.x, not Samba 4.x. *Rats*. I was hoping for built-in Active Directory server replacements: guess I'll be rebundling the work I've done backporting Samba 4.0.7 to RHEL 6. And the slides don't say anything about the migration from SysV init scripts to systemd: that is going to be a *serious* adventure for 3rd-party open source components, like EPEL and Repoforge and atrpms. http://rhsummit.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/poettering_f_0945_getting_ready_for_systemd-the-new-red-hat-enterprise-linux-7-service-manager.pdf Thanks, good link. I'm just concerned it's going to cause build problems for *every single open source daemon* as their SRPM's or .spec files need to have two sets of options, one for the older SysV init scripts and one for systemd, or need to be split to two different .spec files. This is going to be so much fun!
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On 07/30/2013 10:26 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcianka...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Tom Htomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, good link. I'm just concerned it's going to cause build
problems for *every single open source daemon* as their SRPM's or
.spec files need to have two sets of options, one for the older SysV
init scripts and one for systemd, or need to be split to two different
.spec files. This is going to be so much fun!
You're welcome.
Very true. Similar to some current Fedora spec files:
%if 0%{?rhel}
...
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora}
...
%endif
An eyesore and a mess; until December 2020...
tl;dr, Relevant Fedora thread first:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-October/thread.html#172159
Reminds me of a dismal post from October:
http://zxq9.com/archives/711
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Any rumors on rhel 7?
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM, zxq9 z...@zxq9.com wrote:
On 07/30/2013 10:26 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcianka...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Tom Htomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, good link. I'm just concerned it's going to cause build
problems for *every single open source daemon* as their SRPM's or
.spec files need to have two sets of options, one for the older SysV
init scripts and one for systemd, or need to be split to two different
.spec files. This is going to be so much fun!
You're welcome.
Very true. Similar to some current Fedora spec files:
%if 0%{?rhel}
...
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora}
...
%endif
An eyesore and a mess; until December 2020...
tl;dr, Relevant Fedora thread first:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-October/thread.html#172159
Reminds me of a dismal post from October:
http://zxq9.com/archives/711
Yes. It's too bad that dismal poster didn't actually know more of the
history and types of daemon managers. SysV init scripts, which are
what that article so casually refer to as *nix, are actually a
massive upgrade from the old /etc/rc.local setups. But there are
problems with them: they don't maintain the states of daemons that are
likely to crash and need restart, they're used inconsistently and
erratically, and their output is not logged reliably when they're run
as a root user. So there are a compelling set of reasons to use a
better daemon and init process.
i am afraid that the systemd authors have fallen prey to the idea that
their own tool can do *everything* better than the smaller, less
flexible, but more stable and better integrated tools currently used.
NetworkManager and Gnome3 have encountered similar issues, and it
concerns me about what we will inherit from upstream for use in
Scientific Linux 7.
