- luv-main - luv.asn.au

Re: How many people have actually tried systemd ?
by trentbuck＠gmail.com 15 Oct '14

15 Oct '14

Brian May writes: > [1] This is good because I don't like coffee. Coffee is medicine; you're not supposed to LIKE it. >duck<

1 0

Re: Is systemd a benefit or a liability? [Was: btrfs :(]
by Peter Ross 15 Oct '14

15 Oct '14

Hi Russell and all, > Most people involved in this discussion could have spun up a virtual > machine > running systemd in less time than they spent arguing. Well, I cannot help but I can say I have similar thoughts about your time spent. You spent plenty of time arguing that you do not need to put your arguments on the table. I have read a few things by now but you came nowhere near of engaging in technical argument. > Why not just test out systemd and see if it works for you? Well, I can install Windows on my laptop and figure out "whether it works for me". And I can tell you: No, even if it installs and starts. It is a system which is too hard to understand for my brain. I just come back from the room next door where Acrobat on Win7 is not working, it is starting and stops after three seconds without visible output. Go figure. To be honest, one of my best arguments (for me) in favour of FreeBSD is the simple logic driving the development process. It is easier to understand (and to administrate) than a modern Linux. It is quite lean too. I know what I am running, and it is not running "69 magic binaries" which aim to make it a real operating system. FreeBSD works according to the 10% effort for a 90% perfect result rule. If that is not good enough there are additional tools to come closer to 100% (or a tool covering the one percent which I want to achieve.) Systemd instead seems to be an attempt to get close to 100% by rewrite so introducing new problems we would not have without. The commercial examples cited by you aren't convincing. Apple does not want you to understand how it works. That is not really their aim. > This thread on luv-main was never about explanations of systemd. It was > always about people who have decided against it without reason who think > that they know more about the topic than people who use systemd and have > read the code. That is simply not true. I asked a few times what the pros are. I have not found the "killer feature" which makes systemd so superior. Where is it? > But this mailing list has given plenty of examples to show that anyone who > wants to work on systemd must ignore unqualified people. Well, I am qualified enough to understand this: https://plus.google.com/+TheodoreTso/posts/4W6rrMMvhWU His workarounds demonstrate quite clearly the shortcomings when dealing with a Linux system these days. I had similar experiences. E.g. I had, at times, to put similar "weird configs" in place to get around some Policykit magic. It comes awful close to Windows;-) And it gets even better if I need all this "desktop magic" when all what I want is a server which will never have a USB stick attached or a wireless network driving by or whatever the reason are to put these things in place. And I do not boot my servers everyday so I do not care that much about 30 seconds more uptime per year. I am not 100% convinced by PC-BSD but it has the right concept (in my eyes): Make it easy to put FreeBSD on the desktop. For that reason it makes a few userland changes to adapt the FreeBSD system. Last time I checked Debian was not a system entirely dedicated to the desktop. Maybe systemd is written and supported by people who want to make the rest of us uneducated so nobody interferes with the wise leaders who manage the world on our behalf? Back to my beloved Acrobat and Windows 7! Regards Peter

2 1

Re: How many people have actually tried systemd ?
by Peter Ross 14 Oct '14

14 Oct '14

From: "Chris Samuel" <chris(a)csamuel.org> > Hi all, > > I'm curious after the recent storm about systemd to find out how many > people have actually tried to use it? > > I installed a test machine with CentOS 7 (which has systemd by default) I did the same but it is a "play VM only". So it does not prove much. As said, a Windows 7 runs as well but it is not really nice _if_ it's not working. I just re-installed an Acrobat Suite which magically stopped working. It takes a bit more "work" and imagination to get a Linux/Unix in trouble. Regards Peter

1 0

Re: Is systemd a benefit or a liability? [Was: btrfs :(]
by zlinw＠mcmedia.com.au 14 Oct '14

14 Oct '14

Russel Coker said, >I think that the problem here is users who are too arrogant. >It's simply not your decision what unpaid developers do with their >time. We develop the software and you can use it if you like it. Being a Debian developer is a volunteer exercise, one of many in todays society. No one holds a gun to our heads (I have been an office bearer in a fire brigade for years as well a working as a volunteer in a number of other enterprises) we do such work because we like to and such work brings other benefits. >I can't think of any way to reasonbly equate "justice" to "non-contributors >getting to give orders to people who do the work". Linux is developed by more people than just Debian Developers, I regularly submit well researched bug fixes to various projects, including the kernels framebuffer code (one of linux's more difficult areas to work in). Very much time is spent on making sure these are well valued contributions. DD's are not the only ones spending time in Linux code................. You may in future wish to get some evidence before being judge, jury and excutioner, and you call me arrogent........!!!! This is getting me no where, I am not surprised systemd is getting plenty of opposition as most of its proponents appear now to be incapable of giving a clear explanation of why they support it. I have better things to do with my development time than try and figure out a project with apparently no clear goals (as so far none has been given). Lindsay

5 4

Re: [MLUG] What a fight ! The spectacular side of systemd :-)
by Andrew McGlashan 14 Oct '14

14 Oct '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 -- re-post to luv-main FYI -- On 12/10/2014 4:59 PM, Timothy Rice wrote: > I guess if the kernel becomes inextricably bound to systemd, then gentoo > will be forced to switch. This would make gentoo less favourable as an > alternative for people seeking to escape systemd, and might furthermore > drive away existing gentoo users. I suppose all these people would switch > to FreeBSD. Would that be so bad? For Debian people, an easier migration path that seems very viable today will be kFreeBSD -- and then if that goes seriously bad too, it is a closer step to FreeBSD (at least a little bit closer). This penned as possible news on kFreeBSD for upcoming publicity: https://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2014/10/msg00146.html - "GNU/kFreeBSD "bits", publicity, status report" - - following on thread of "kFreeBSD future" https://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2014/09/msg00280.html In a nutshell: MATE, not gnome no systemd, freedesktop.org sysvinit, potentially OpenRC later consolekit patched 90% compiled base very usable desktop (not just for servers) I've got to specifically quote this small, but important /delicate/ section of Steven Chamberlain message: <quote> * (delicately!) mention init system, still being a hot topic - no udev or systemd here; I guess that makes us a "traditional" Debian flavour, UNIX-like and POSIX-focused - we did lose GNOME (I think mainly due to logind, but also libgbm) - otherwise, we seem to have all we need; Robert fixed up consolekit - we chose to keep sysvinit as default, but are in a position to easily use alternate init systems; OpenRC looks promising for the future (perhaps usable already?); I guess file-rc still works </quote> *Much* progress from Wheezy, very promising future. A. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iF4EAREIAAYFAlQ6cZkACgkQqBZry7fv4vvJbwEAxAtpPMBqACDd3vSFXuv6H6zQ Drw9TYUKozXny0Oq9x0A+weQ9HtfVA9bCCC70Y1fA31phCn37npBfboOSXJVN9oq =f702 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 7

kickstarter for anti-systemd
by Russell Coker 14 Oct '14

14 Oct '14

I think it would be good if someone organised a kickstarter to pay people to make Debian work without systemd. If it turns out that equivalent packages for some tasks can't be included in Debian then they could be hosted on an external site. Alternately if there are enough programmers who want to make this happen then they could just start work on it. There's been a lot of talk about people wanting to donate money etc. Kickstarter is good for that, if there are enough people donating then it can be done. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

1 0

Re: [MLUG] What a fight ! The spectacular side of systemd :-)
by Peter Ross 14 Oct '14

14 Oct '14

From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck(a)gmail.com> > Andrew McGlashan writes: > >> For Debian people, an easier migration path that seems very viable today >> will be kFreeBSD > > "We remain gravely concerned about the viability of this port. [...] > the port is in danger of being dropped from Jessie, and [we] invite any > porters who are able to commit to working on the port in the long term > to make themselves known *now*." > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/09/msg00002.html I have not used Debian kFreeBSD. A few questions: "Despite the reduced scope" (quoting from above) What does that mean? Actually, how much of the FreeBSD userland is used in Debian? Secondly: I always considered it a bit of "academic value". Do you have "real world examples" of Debian kFreeBSD? Regards Peter

3 3

Re: Is systemd a benefit or a liability? [Was: btrfs :(]
by zlinw＠mcmedia.com.au 14 Oct '14

14 Oct '14

Brian May said, >How many times do you expect the developer's to do this? >What is happening is as more and more people are becoming aware of >systemd, people are raising the similar concerns over and over again.> >I don't think it is surprising that the developers might be getting >tired of having the same discussions over and over again. They could >be spending their time better fixing these problems rather then >arguing the same thing for the x millionth time. >Nor is it surprising that some legitimate concerns might not be >getting addressed to everyone's satisfaction. Firstly thanks to Russell for the response, some good info there, Now I do value your opinion but........ I am trying to make a decision based on good and reliable evidence and I do apreciate that if one spends all the time reading stuff on the net one will never get anything done. The problem from a person outside the immediate discussion on systemd is that there are ___plenty___ of sites running down systemd but I have yet to find a site that presents the pro case in an un biased manner, one certainly cannot rely on its main developers for such data. From my experience on researching information on computor systems such an absence is likely to mean there is no such evidence. Note, Russel mentioned something that does complicate the issue, that is if systemd devs will not except Debians input they may fork it. This changes the situation quite a bit as I have far more trust in the Debian devs than some maverick developers going against all unix traditions. We the debian users though would still like to know debians pro case. If we the general Linux user is expected to make a rational judgment we must have both cases presented in a decent fashion, simply saying most users do not need to know the pro case will almost surely end up in a grave misscarriage of justice. Lindsay

7 7

Re: Is systemd a benefit or a liability? [Was: btrfs :(]
by zlinw＠mcmedia.com.au 14 Oct '14

14 Oct '14

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:25:12 russell(a)coker.com.au said >On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, zlinw(a)mcmedia.com.au wrote: >> Linux is developed by more people than just Debian Developers, I >> regularly submit well researched bug fixes to various projects, including >> the kernels framebuffer code (one of linux's more difficult areas to work >> in). Very much time is spent on making sure >> these are well valued contributions. DD's are not the only ones spending >> time in Linux code................. >Would you like to have a bunch of people whoknow nothing about framebuffer >code start telling youwhat you should be doing? What if they start saying >that such code should be the subject of a democratic vote among people who >have never read it? Such a situation would almost certainly only come about via a missunderstanding, most likely due to lack of information. What I would do though is at least try to give an explanation of what ever understanding was missing. The unknown will always be feared. I will personly listen to all sources no matter how lame as you never know where inspiration or enlightenment will come from, it's possible for an apparent dumb query from an onlooker to give one an entirely new perspective on ones system. To claim one knows everything and not listen is a recipe for disaster. Most will see by the traffic on the topic of systemd on this list that there is a good deal of concern. This concern is brought about by the apparent fact that all sources of info on systemd are negative. No one as yet has set up a site like systemdisgreat.org to give the good side of the argument. If no one using systemd is willing to educate people you simply will have to expect a good deal of oposition. From my point of view comparison's with other unix init systems to systemd is not valid. As has already been said if systemd was __only__ an init replacement there would not be nearly as much grumbleing. The grumbling is largely being caused by claims from some major systemd players that they wish to turn it into some kind of overall system control program (shades of Tron) and it appears Debian will be going along with this philosphy as debian appears to have completely embraced systemd. If Debian is not going along with this and wish to use systemd as an init replacement then the ___DO____ need to say so. Lindsay

1 0

Re: [MLUG] What a fight ! The spectacular side of systemd :-)
by Andrew McGlashan 13 Oct '14

13 Oct '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/10/2014 2:55 PM, Rick Miles wrote: > Apparently they are censoring, to quote: Earlier today... Almost 7.5% of all messages that have made it to all of debian- lists that I am subscribed to have systemd [1] in the subject line since the fateful day of the 2nd March, 2014. That doesn't count the unknown number of filtered messages. This is an absolute disaster for Debian, which will also filter down to Ubuntu and many of the other derivatives based on Debian. Canonical was absolutely against systemd, but as soon as Debian's CTTE voted it in, well Ubuntu decided to crumble and go with the flow. Of course we also know that Fedora/RHEL/SuSE/Cent OS and Oracle are all systemd now. The following quoted section is from an email by "Steve Litt <slitt(a)troubleshooters.com>" of DU list: - in short, we are getting the "Poettering OS" now :( - in his own words "a real operating system" be sure to *watch* the video as referred [2] <quote> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 22:58:18 +0200 Peter Nieman <gmane-acct(a)t-online.de> wrote: > Didn't Mr. Poettering make it sufficiently clear in numerous speeches > that the ultimate goal of the systemd people was to create an > entirely new OS? Just listen to the first two minutes of the first > youtube video you get when searching for his name: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdRmnSHHVw4 Breathtaking! At timestamp 0:51 he says that systemd is now more than just an init system, it's a set of building blocks to build an operating system. Nowhere does he say that if you accept any of those tools, you need to throw away several tools you've been using, or that if you use certain systemd tools, you need to install many of them. He glosses over the "in for a penny, in for a pound" nature of systemd. It's not a set of a-la-carte building blocks, it's a huge meal. At timestamp 1:35, he says that systemd "feels more like a real operating system". Amazing: here I thought that I *had* been using a real operating system since I installed Linux in 1998. We should rejoice that, after almost a couple decades, Debian is now, finally, a *real* operating system! At 2:20, he states that "we believed the operating system design isn't the right design to have." Then why the hell are they still calling what they're moving to Linux? And what, we've been using the wrong operating system all these years? At 2:45 he says that you tell systemd what the dependencies of things are, and systemd figures out at boot time what to do. Hey, couldn't that be done with a make file, with a whole less code and fanfare? LOL, make boot. 7:19 he says that Debian's in the process of deciding whether Debian should switch to it. And at 8:06 he said Cannonical really hates systemd. So when the CTTE chose systemd, that's the only thing that brought Ubuntu on board, and all resistance was gone. Nice! Thanks guys. It appears that because of that vote, the Linux of the future will be a totally different operating system, and I'll have *very* limited choices if I happen to like the real Linux, instead of the Red Hat fork. How anybody familiar with this interview could have included systemd as an option, let alone the default, is beyond my comprehension. Several months ago somebody referred to systemd as Embrace, Extend, Extinquish, and at the time I thought he was over the top. But that's basically exactly what Poettering says in this 9:31 interview. Everybody should view this video! SteveT Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance </quote> IF YOU WATCH THE VIDEO, it is clear that systemd appears to want to take us down the app store path.... <s>Google</s>SystemD Play Store ... A. [1] 1556 of 20803 messages... [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdRmnSHHVw4 - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mlug-au" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mlug-au+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to mlug-au(a)googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mlug-au. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iF4EAREIAAYFAlQ6T/YACgkQqBZry7fv4vuRdgEAmJmFj28Zgrfi1Ua+izbNL9V/ KSclJ38e45rTrGwHxL0A/RaIUZV7GyddSwyQz7AlcDgQmNbHW/8fYPzrOWcq+lf4 =YQuO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2