Hello Timothy,
On 02.07.2015 18:12, Timothy M. Redaelli wrote:
> Hi,
> I wrote a simple script that allows you to convert (almost) any VPS to
> Arch Linux.
interesting tool. I have added a simple entry about it to
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Install_from_existing_Linux#Automated
now.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Geoff wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 16:51:21 +0200
> Bardur Arantsson wrote:
>
>
> > STOP!
>
> Although I find the discussion interesting, I have watched with growing
> amazement. As I recall, this list became moderated due to the furore when
> systemd was introdu
> I have more stuff to do. So instead of saying what has been said
> thousands of times (and I'm afraid I've done that already) have some
> rants you might not know yet:
>
Then please go and do your "other stuff" and stop cluttering up this
mailing list with your irrelevant and barely coherent ram
Wow, I really didn't expect such a discussion. I mean, I don't like
systemd, but what I had was a technical problem (along with a bunch of
opinions, I'll give you that). I have solved it, and would have before
if I could search the web better... As LoneVVolf
has thankfully pointed out there's a th
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 16:51:21 +0200
Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> STOP!
Although I find the discussion interesting, I have watched with growing
amazement. As I recall, this list became moderated due to the furore when
systemd was introduced, and I doubt that Lennart himself could have got a post
on
On 07/03/2015 04:31 PM, Tobias Hunger wrote:
> To be fair: There is more to here than "Unix philosophy" and "I hate Lennart".
>
STOP!
Can we please end this discussion now?
This no longer has anything to do with Arch Linux and is just spam (for
this list) at this point.
I'm sure people who are
To be fair: There is more to here than "Unix philosophy" and "I hate Lennart".
Number 1 is "systemd is a monolithic mess" and reveals a glaring
misunderstanding of layered architectures. He is basically claiming
that kernel/xorg/browser is one mess since the browser won't start
without the kernel
I can't overtly fault the logic in that blog post for the most part.
However he does still basically toe the "Unix philosophy" line (Talking
about modularity and such.)
The thing that bothers me most about this document though is how he
dismisses systemd's legitimate, if not unique, features as "p
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 1:10 PM, LoneVVolf wrote:
> This blog post gives the best description of systemd flaws i am aware of :
> http://judecnelson.blogspot.fi/2014/09/systemd-biggest-fallacies.html
That is one of the worst descriptions of problems in systemd that I am
aware of:-)
The author comp
On Jul 3, 2015 6:10 AM, "LoneVVolf" wrote:
>
> Some general comments :
>
> - Openrc is a replacement for sysv init, not an addition.
>
OpenRC runs on SysV Init last I checked, as OpenRC is just highly polished
initscripts. How is that a replacement instead of an addition?
> - openrc has it's own
Some general comments :
- Openrc is a replacement for sysv init, not an addition.
- openrc has it's own equivalent of .service files, they are simpler
then systemd servicefiles
- my personal opinion about openrc is that it's not mature enough yet
for majority of linux users to replace system
2015-07-03 6:45 GMT+02:00 Yaro Kasear :
>
> I wouldn't mind some spiritual successor to systemd where its entire
> purpose is to be init, without sacrificing some of the more useful/powerful
> features like cgroups, concurrency, and the like. Systemd went wrong when
> it started going into stuff th
12 matches
Mail list logo
