Re: [PLUG] systemd

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Denis Heidtmann wrote: > To me, an uninformed and basically ignorant Linux user, this exchange > appears to be an argument (sometimes nasty) between two philosophers. > Because, as is the case in all philosophical arguments, the

Re: [PLUG] systemd

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:29:19AM -0800, Ronald Chmara wrote: > The older init systems have had a bunch of problems, and workarounds, built > into them over the years. > > A newer init system attempted to solve a bunch of problems, and in doing > so, broke with established conventions, so it

Re: [PLUG] systemd

> > -- > > David Fleck > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "benjamin barber" <starwor...@gmail.com> > > To: "Keith Lofstrom" <kei...@keithl.com>, "Portland Linux/Unix Group" < > plug@lists.pdxlinux.o

Re: [PLUG] systemd

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015, benjamin barber wrote: > quite frankly this seems like the typical practice of embrace - extend - > extinguish. It is important to keep in mind that while all progress involves change, not all change involves progress. Rich

Re: [PLUG] systemd

This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the substantitive questions. For example, is it wise to have an init system also control su as well as DHCPd. ? also, are we transitioning from gnu-linux to lennartix by ditching the unix philosophy ? quite frankly this seems like the

Re: [PLUG] systemd

- Original Message - From: "benjamin barber" <starwor...@gmail.com> To: "Keith Lofstrom" <kei...@keithl.com>, "Portland Linux/Unix Group" <plug@lists.pdxlinux.org> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 2:27:51 PM Subject: Re: [PLUG] systemd This is

Re: [PLUG] systemd

lt;starwor...@gmail.com> > To: "Keith Lofstrom" <kei...@keithl.com>, "Portland Linux/Unix Group" < plug@lists.pdxlinux.org> > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 2:27:51 PM > Subject: Re: [PLUG] systemd > > This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address

Re: [PLUG] systemd

Like many recent linux changes, systemd solves a lot of problems compared to the kluges that it replaces, but it was not deployed with other people and existing infrastructure in mind. So, the burden of adapting to such changes is foisted on the rest of us. While glittery shiny first impressions

Re: [PLUG] systemd

So I was sent this off list, I will let the rest of you imply why that is. On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Keith Lofstrom wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 12:27:51PM -0800, benjamin barber wrote: > > This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the > >

[PLUG] systemd fun

> "Russell" == Russell Senior writes: > "benjamin" == benjamin barber writes: benjamin> what would be great, is a debate about systemd Russell> That would seem to require the existance of someone who Russell> understood how it worked, in

Re: [PLUG] systemd, an improvement? - argument for

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 06:34:14PM -0800, Louis Kowolowski wrote: After reading http://boycottsystemd.org, I’m curious who thinks that systemd is an improvement for servers, and if so why/how. Are people running CentOS 7 on servers yet?

Re: [PLUG] systemd, an improvement? - argument for

They forked Debian because of systemd.., that should give anyone pause: https://devuan.org Also, there is the bit that systemd is lgpl. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Michael Rasmussen mich...@jamhome.us wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 06:34:14PM -0800, Louis Kowolowski wrote: After reading

Re: [PLUG] systemd, an improvement?

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Louis Kowolowski wrote: After reading http://boycottsystemd.org, I’m curious who thinks that systemd is an improvement for servers, and if so why/how. Are people running CentOS 7 on servers yet? I've got CentOS 7 and Fedora 19 on servers, so I've been working with

[PLUG] systemd, an improvement?

After reading http://boycottsystemd.org, I’m curious who thinks that systemd is an improvement for servers, and if so why/how. Are people running CentOS 7 on servers yet? — Louis Kowolowskilou...@cryptomonkeys.org Cryptomonkeys: