On Wed, 9 May 2012 10:58:01 +0200
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> And dbus will be part of the kernel, soon.
>
> So, what you call "silly dependencies" *are the core* of a Linux system.
So is that sentiment, we'll force it upon you. How lovely.
You have read all the security papers about dbus, right
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> (by no means take this as authorative, there is plenty
> of writing on this both by the upstart guys and the systemd guys who
> know it better than me).
This was just published, which probably describes the concepts better
than my simple exam
Kevin Chadwick writes:
> On Mon, 07 May 2012 22:40:01 +0800
> XeCycle wrote:
>
>> Violations of this philosophy can be easily found. The Linux
>> kernel is such one. It is already big, with many misfeatures, or
>> "anitfeature"s; but we all use it, right? Linus said such a
>> design simplifies
On Mon, 7 May 2012 17:19:58 +0100
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> p.s. I wouldn't mind knowing more about event driven too. I believe I
> was given an impression of what it was when systemd first hit ubuntu but
> I can't remember finding out exactly. A quick google just now turned up
> nothing.
Ubuntu i
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2012 17:39:35 +0200
> Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
>> An event-driven init system would turn this on its head, and never
>> wait for "all the things to be ready", rather start things on-demand
>> and whenever their dependencies are sa
On Mon, 7 May 2012 17:39:35 +0200
Tom Gundersen wrote:
> An event-driven init system would turn this on its head, and never
> wait for "all the things to be ready", rather start things on-demand
> and whenever their dependencies are satisfied. This leads to a much
> simpler system (from the admin/
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> p.s. I wouldn't mind knowing more about event driven too. I believe I
> was given an impression of what it was when systemd first hit ubuntu but
> I can't remember finding out exactly. A quick google just now turned up
> nothing.
To help you
Hi Patrick,
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> People have thrown "event based" and such words around, but no one has
> dared to clarify or properly define what they mean by it. Thus I can't
> understand if there's anything missing in OpenRC or people are just
> throwing words
On Mon, 07 May 2012 22:40:01 +0800
XeCycle wrote:
> Violations of this philosophy can be easily found. The Linux
> kernel is such one. It is already big, with many misfeatures, or
> "anitfeature"s; but we all use it, right? Linus said such a
> design simplifies the intercommunication between ke
Patrick Lauer writes:
[...]
> And how many antifeatures they have ;)
> For me the feature list of systemd is kinda nice, it's obviously more
> comprehensive than the "old" init systems, but it goes against the unix
> spirit of having one tool for a job, and do this job well.
That design philoso
On 04/27/12 00:01, Kwpolska wrote:
> When I first saw the topic, I thought "yet another systemd-like piece
> of crap?" Then I read that this is from Gentoo and the rest of the
> original post and I think it could be nice and I could even switch to
> it one day. But do you actually need to bother
On 04/26/12 17:08, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> About modules and bloat - for systemd you're going from a few hundred
>> lines of shell to a few hundred thousand lines of mandatory
>> dependencies.
> I have no idea where you get these numbers from
On 04/26/12 16:49, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The 25/04/12, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
>> As an alternative to the One Process For Everything I'd like to ask you to
>> evalute OpenRC as an init system for Arch Linux.
> <...>
>
>> While Gentoo is by far the largest user it's definitely not the o
On 04/25/12 23:54, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 25 April 2012 23:25, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
>> I strongly believe that should we move away from intscripts it needs
>> to be to an event-driven system (such as systemd or upstart) and it
>> was not clear from the webpage that OpenRC provides this.
>
El 26/04/12 09:46, David C. Rankin escribió:
KISS - If it "ain't" broke, don't fix it I'm sure some may have
needs that exceed what the current initscripts can provide, the simple
efficient Arch way has done, and continues to do, quite well.
+1
On 25-04-12 16:03, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Greetings,
[init, systemd]
As an alternative to the One Process For Everything I'd like to ask
you to evalute OpenRC as an init system for Arch Linux.
Possibly a stupid idea and probably OT, but i was just thinking; as
systemd appears to take off mo
When I first saw the topic, I thought "yet another systemd-like piece
of crap?" Then I read that this is from Gentoo and the rest of the
original post and I think it could be nice and I could even switch to
it one day. But do you actually need to bother with runlevels or is
it like arch (everythi
On 04/25/2012 10:25 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> While dependencies (done in the right way) might have been nice to
> have, I don't see this as a major shortcoming of our current system,
> and if we are to change away from initscripts the replacement would
> have to provide significantly better benef
On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> The problem I have with a systemd like init system is that it's way too
> much overkill for a server. I like our current situation as we have an
> extremely simple init system and users can drop in systemd if they so
> choose. --Kaiting.
>
I c
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> About modules and bloat - for systemd you're going from a few hundred
> lines of shell to a few hundred thousand lines of mandatory
> dependencies.
I have no idea where you get these numbers from, or why they should matter.
> but at the cos
在 2012年4月25日 下午10:03，Patrick Lauer 写道：
> Greetings,
>
...
>
> Should you decide to switch (or just evaluate if switching is possible /
> makes sense) you'll get full support from us in migrating init scripts
> and figuring out all the nontrivial changes. Just visit us on IRC (
> #openrc on irc.fre
On 04/26/12 01:57, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:03:19 +0800
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
>> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
>> - the current Arch Linux i
On 04/25/2012 12:38 PM, Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Rashif Ray Rahmanwrote:
On 25 April 2012 23:25, Tom Gundersen wrote:
I strongly believe that should we move away from intscripts it needs
to be to an event-driven system (such as systemd or upstart) and it
was not
On Apr 25, 2012 12:57 PM, "Leonid Isaev" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:03:19 +0800
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
> > especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
> > - the curr
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:03:19 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
> - the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job done
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 25 April 2012 23:25, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
> > I strongly believe that should we move away from intscripts it needs
> > to be to an event-driven system (such as systemd or upstart) and it
> > was not clear from the webpage that Open
On 25 April 2012 23:25, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> I strongly believe that should we move away from intscripts it needs
> to be to an event-driven system (such as systemd or upstart) and it
> was not clear from the webpage that OpenRC provides this.
>
I concur.
Although the current init works for m
Hi Patrick,
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
> - the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job done,
> b
+1
On 25 April 2012 17:19, Nicholas MIller wrote:
> sounds better than systemd to me
> On Apr 25, 2012 9:03 AM, "Patrick Lauer" wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
>> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one rea
sounds better than systemd to me
On Apr 25, 2012 9:03 AM, "Patrick Lauer" wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
> - the current Arch Linux init system is a bit min
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
> - the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job
> done
Greetings,
in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
- the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job done,
but it's not superawesome.
There's things like init script depend
32 matches
Mail list logo
